Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I don't know. Why is it so hard for people to discern between knocking on a door and pounding the bejeezus out of every door and window on someone's home @ 4:30 a.m.?

---

Even if you accept that that's true [[and we have only Mr. Wafer's word that it is), it still doesn't come anywhere near a justification for opening fire on someone, and certainly not for homicide. Which is why Mr. Wafer was convicted.

The reason the difference that iheartthed bring up matters is, of course, that actually breaking into the house might have given him some legal justification for his actions, but Ms. McBride didn't do that. So he really had none.

I'm not sure at all why you and Wesley keep grinding away at this particular ax. The main and largely undisputed facts of the case - unarmed person on porch shot and killed through open door and locked screen door of house - and all of the ancillary actions, lack of actions [[such as calling the police), and claims, were examined by a jury of his peers and he was found guilty and sentenced. Yet, I go away for a few weeks, and here you still are adamantly defending him with all sorts of excuses that do not, in fact, excuse the crime in question. What in the world is your interest in defending this man's clearly reckless, criminal, and ultimately tragic actions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Even if you accept that that's true [[and we have only Mr. Wafer's word that it is), it still doesn't come anywhere near a justification for opening fire on someone, and certainly not for homicide. Which is why Mr. Wafer was convicted.

The reason the difference that iheartthed bring up matters is, of course, that actually breaking into the house might have given him some legal justification for his actions, but Ms. McBride didn't do that. So he really had none.

I'm not sure at all why you and Wesley keep grinding away at this particular ax. The main and largely undisputed facts of the case - unarmed person on porch shot and killed through open door and locked screen door of house - and all of the ancillary actions, lack of actions [[such as calling the police), and claims, were examined by a jury of his peers and he was found guilty and sentenced. Yet, I go away for a few weeks, and here you still are adamantly defending him with all sorts of excuses that do not, in fact, excuse the crime in question. What in the world is your interest in defending this man's clearly reckless, criminal, and ultimately tragic actions?

---

Much like the postings here about what really happened, your post too, is full of surmisings and interjections with statements like "still here" and "ax grinding". The truth of the matter is I've stayed away and avoided posting anything about this incident, so I was never really "here" to begin with. I have no "ax to grind", despite your innuendos. In fact, I even believe he's guilty, and had no business shooting her. BUT, I also think he was railoaded, and made an example of. "Even if you accept that that's true", you're absolutely right. She could have just had chapped hands from shoveling snow, and her footprints in the flowerbeds were from some gardening she was doing while waiting patiently for Wafer to load his gun. How's that for a fantasy post? "What in the world is your interest in defending this man's clearly reckless, criminal, and ultimately tragic actions?" You're really full of beans and stretching the truth on that one, Al, or else you just don't get it.

Besides all of the would'ves, could'ves, should'ves this case could have turned out like the shooting last night on Burt Rd. Mr. Wafer could have opened the door with/without the shotgun and got a shot in the head or chest first... guess it just would have been a whole different story then.

The guys below should have called 911 while someone was banging on the door and shooting through it.

Police investigators are on the scene at a home on the 9200 block of Burt, near West Chicago and Evergreen after shots were fired around 4:30 a.m.

According to Detroit police, the victims heard banging on the front door of the home before shots were fired through the door.
One man, 22, was shot in the chest and died in the home, according to police. The two other men, ages 22 and 20, were wounded in the legs by the gunfire.

No Renisha McBride did not deserve to die but I don't think Ted Wafer should spend that amount in time in prison. I believe I read that MI treats voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree as pretty much one in the same so unless his appeals are successful it is what it is...

You're right, I don't get at all where you're coming from here. How in the world you can say a man who shot an unarmed person through a locked door, underwent police and prosecutor's investigations, had private counsel, and was unanimously convicted in a jury trial, was somehow "railroaded" is way beyond me. In what possible sense is that the case? This defending of Wafer here by you and others really seems to have some other motivation beyond the pure facts of the case, which is why I asked the question about what the interest is in continuing to do so.

As for stretching the truth, how in the world are the chapped hands and footprints of the victim any possible legal excuse for the killing that occurred? How is citing those legally inconsequential things not going to great lengths to try to build an excuse for a crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

You're right, I don't get at all

---

Very true.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why is it so hard for people to discern the difference between knocking on a door and breaking into a house?

---

Apparently you did not read the post just before yours. Maybe it came through while you were typing. The core sentence says it all:
According to Detroit police, the victims heard banging on the front door of the home before shots were fired through the door.

After you read this real account of what banging on a door might portend, do you still think its unreasonable to assume that banging in the middle of the night is benign and cannot be considered a risk to your person? Tell that to the 22 year old inside that door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Apparently you did not read the post just before yours. Maybe it came through while you were typing. The core sentence says it all:
According to Detroit police, the victims heard banging on the front door of the home before shots were fired through the door.

After you read this real account of what banging on a door might portend, do you still think its unreasonable to assume that banging in the middle of the night is benign and cannot be considered a risk to your person? Tell that to the 22 year old inside that door.

---

The problem is that you did not thoroughly read my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why is it so hard for people to discern the difference between knocking on a door and breaking into a house?

---

Girl Scouts knock on the door, as do Jehovah's Witness people, Comcast Sales people and Fuller Brush Men. Well at least they used to. And this is done in daylight or early evening hours. What makes you think she was merely knocking on his door in the middle of the night? If you say looking for help then you have not been paying attention to the facts in this case.

I didn't follow this trial but did watch snippets and when Wafer was talking, he sure sounded to me like he was acting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli

I didn't follow this trial but did watch snippets and when Wafer was talking, he sure sounded to me like he was acting.

---

I thought he was like a zombie on the stand, totally spaced out. He's been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He's basically been a basket case since the moment after he pulled the trigger. He never should have been put on the stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downriviera

Girl Scouts knock on the door, as do Jehovah's Witness people, Comcast Sales people and Fuller Brush Men. Well at least they used to. And this is done in daylight or early evening hours. What makes you think she was merely knocking on his door in the middle of the night? If you say looking for help then you have not been paying attention to the facts in this case.

---

I don't give a flying fuck why she was knocking on his door. She could've been knocking on his door to tell him that she didn't like the color that he painted his house. The point is that she was knocking on his door and not breaking into his house. That last part is the reason he'll be sitting in jail for the next 17 years, fyi.

Main Entry: 2. railroad
Function: verb
Date: 1877
transitive verb
1 a : to convict with undue haste and by means of false charges or insufficient evidence b : to push through hastily or without due consideration 2 : to transport by railroad



Like Eastside Al, I'm still waiting for the posters who have claimed on one hand to believe Ms. McBride's killer was guilty and should not have shot her, while on the other hand saying the killer was convicted on a "technicality," and he was a victim of a rush to judgment, and he should have had a better lawyer, etc. to explain this paradoxical logic. Can we all agree that if u do the crime, you do the time? If u agree he shot her ON PURPOSE and killed her and you agree he was wrong to do so, then you are agreeing he committed [[2nd degree) murder. If you agree he was pointing a loaded shotgun at a an unarmed human and fired it causing her death [[regardless of whether he meant to fire it), then you agree he committed statutory manslaughter. The sentencing guidelines REQUIRE [[regardless of the skin color of the murderer) 2nd degree murderers to be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison for that crime. Just like they require those who commit felonies with a gun to serve a minimum of 2 years in prison.

If your problem is with the sentencing, your problem is with the overwhelmingly white Michigan Legislature who sanction the guidelines. [[Did the Legislature "railroad" Mr. Wafer, WM?). I have made numerous attempts to genuinely try to understand this paradox being asserted by the "Railroad Crew."

By the way, you cannot credibly say, he was wrong and should've been convicted, but try to argue in the same breath that his fear of the threat was so reasonable that it would justify him opening the door and purposely shooting Ms. McBride. Either he was wrong or he wasn't. This was a homicide trial, not neighborhood mediation or something. Either she caused her own death while overtly and realistically threatening lethal force or great bodily harm to Mr. Wafer or she didn't. She didn't, according to the killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mam2009

Main Entry: 2. railroad
Function: verb
Date: 1877
transitive verb
1 a : to convict with undue haste and by means of false charges or insufficient evidence b : to push through hastily or without due consideration 2 : to transport by railroad



Like Eastside Al, I'm still waiting for the posters who have claimed on one hand to believe Ms. McBride's killer was guilty and should not have shot her, while on the other hand saying the killer was convicted on a "technicality," and he was a victim of a rush to judgment, and he should have had a better lawyer, etc. to explain this paradoxical logic. Can we all agree that if u do the crime, you do the time? If u agree he shot her ON PURPOSE and killed her and you agree he was wrong to do so, then you are agreeing he committed [[2nd degree) murder. If you agree he was pointing a loaded shotgun at a an unarmed human and fired it causing her death [[regardless of whether he meant to fire it), then you agree he committed statutory manslaughter. The sentencing guidelines REQUIRE [[regardless of the skin color of the murderer) 2nd degree murderers to be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison for that crime. Just like they require those who commit felonies with a gun to serve a minimum of 2 years in prison.

If your problem is with the sentencing, your problem is with the overwhelmingly white Michigan Legislature who sanction the guidelines. [[Did the Legislature "railroad" Mr. Wafer, WM?). I have made numerous attempts to genuinely try to understand this paradox being asserted by the "Railroad Crew."

By the way, you cannot credibly say, he was wrong and should've been convicted, but try to argue in the same breath that his fear of the threat was so reasonable that it would justify him opening the door and purposely shooting Ms. McBride. Either he was wrong or he wasn't. This was a homicide trial, not neighborhood mediation or something. Either she caused her own death while overtly and realistically threatening lethal force or great bodily harm to Mr. Wafer or she didn't. She didn't, according to the killer.

---

Here's my underlying logic:

Mr. Wafer was treated differently than he would have been if he were black. Same Ms. McBride on the door of a house in a high-crime neighborhood in Detroit. I think the entire system would have responded differently. I see prejudice.

I think the white residents of a many racists towns of old thought their legal systems were fair too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Here's my underlying logic:

Mr. Wafer was treated differently than he would have been if he were black. Same Ms. McBride on the door of a house in a high-crime neighborhood in Detroit. I think the entire system would have responded differently. I see prejudice.

---

In some ways the entire system has already responded differently. There are definitey differences in the reactions of the public. Noticeably absent are the comparisons to Trayvon Martin or the accusation of "devaluing black lives".

Quote:

---

According to Detroit police, the three men heard banging on the front door of the home before shots were fired through the door.The 22-year-old was shot in the chest and died in the home, according to police. The two other men, ages 22 and 20, were wounded in the legs by the gunfire. Police said their wounds were not fatal.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3CmCdteMB

---

But while you are right about the difference in the public reaction, I remain unconvinced that the most important thing...the legal outcome...will be any different. In this same case the person probably had more to be afraid of. 3 men, bad neighborhood, 4 am in the morning.

I guess we will have to see, but as of right now the police are still trying to make an arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Much like the postings here about what really happened, your post too, is full of surmisings and interjections with statements like "still here" and "ax grinding". The truth of the matter is I've stayed away and avoided posting anything about this incident, so I was never really "here" to begin with. I have no "ax to grind", despite your innuendos. In fact, I even believe he's guilty, and had no business shooting her. BUT, I also think he was railoaded, and made an example of. "Even if you accept that that's true", you're absolutely right. She could have just had chapped hands from shoveling snow, and her footprints in the flowerbeds were from some gardening she was doing while waiting patiently for Wafer to load his gun. How's that for a fantasy post? "What in the world is your interest in defending this man's clearly reckless, criminal, and ultimately tragic actions?" You're really full of beans and stretching the truth on that one, Al, or else you just don't get it.

---

Let's say she was quite dismayed after crashing her car [[or somebody else's) and may have been hysterical by the time she got to Wafer's house. Was she really pounding? We will never know for sure unless you take Wafer's word as gospel. Her leg was broken, she must have been in extreme pain, in spite of her drunkenness.

To say the game was rigged and admit that Wafer was indeed responsible for taking her life without legitimate grounds for self-defense amounts to pushing an agenda. I think you may be right about the sentence being too harsh, but the moment someone buys a gun, they should be aware of the scope of their future actions regarding usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't give a flying fuck why she was knocking on his door. She could've been knocking on his door to tell him that she didn't like the color that he painted his house. The point is that she was knocking on his door and not breaking into his house. That last part is the reason he'll be sitting in jail for the next 17 years, fyi.

---

Sorry, your reasoning doesn't fly. And it doesn't matter how large and bold you type. No reason for her to be knocking on the door. Every reason for her to be trying to get into what she thought was her house to get away from police and avoid a DUI. On appeal this may well be manslaughter and not 2nd degree. I know you hate this guy, but he was in his bed sleeping and did not ask for this. The judge felt bad about giving him this sentence but she had no choice. She knew it was wrong. She was even crying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Here's my underlying logic:

Mr. Wafer was treated differently than he would have been if he were black. Same Ms. McBride on the door of a house in a high-crime neighborhood in Detroit. I think the entire system would have responded differently. I see prejudice.

I think the white residents of a many racists towns of old thought their legal systems were fair too.

---

Soooooo, what r u basing your belief on? You don't think a black killer would've been convicted or jailed for murdering an unarmed victim? It happens all the time. It's starting to sound like ur incredulous that a white killer can be treated in such a way! Like... [[gasp) a criminal -- for shooting an unarmed [[black) teenager!

What would be the"racist town" in this case? The killer was tried [[on behalf off the state of Michigan) in Wayne County which is 55% White; and the laws are made by an overwhelmingly majority white State Legislature. There is no evidence of a SYSTEMIC RACIAL BIAS AGAINST WHITE DEFENDANTS in the justice system in Michigan. I think I'm now done trying to understand the Railroad Crew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downriviera

Sorry, your reasoning doesn't fly. And it doesn't matter how large and bold you type. No reason for her to be knocking on the door. Every reason for her to be trying to get into what she thought was her house to get away from police and avoid a DUI. On appeal this may well be manslaughter and not 2nd degree. I know you hate this guy, but he was in his bed sleeping and did not ask for this. The judge felt bad about giving him this sentence but she had no choice. She knew it was wrong. She was even crying.

---

I quit. You're an idiot. I should have realized that sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Here's my underlying logic:

Mr. Wafer was treated differently than he would have been if he were black. Same Ms. McBride on the door of a house in a high-crime neighborhood in Detroit. I think the entire system would have responded differently. I see prejudice.

I think the white residents of a many racists towns of old thought their legal systems were fair too.

---

What is this, some kind of bizarre joke? The logic of your defense comes down to, essentially, 'white people are treated too harshly by our justice system'? And an even more bizarre implication that somehow that Dearborn Heights is a "racist town" [[with racist police, presumably) with unfair laws that are biased against white people? Truly through the looking-glass kind of stuff.

Like a number of other people here I'm over arguing with the deep illogic represented by this position. If you have a problem with Mr. Wafer's "racist" trial and sentence, then your problem is really with Judge Hathaway, the majority white jury, and the Michigan State Legislature. Since those awful anti-white racists are the ones responsible for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

What is this, some kind of bizarre joke? The logic of your defense comes down to, essentially, 'white people are treated too harshly by our justice system'? And an even more bizarre implication that somehow that Dearborn Heights is a "racis
t town" [[with racist police, presumably) with unfair laws that are biased against white people? Truly through the looking-glass kind of stuff.

Like a number of other people here I'm over arguing with the deep illogic represented by this position. If you have a problem with Mr. Wafer's "racist" trial and sentence, then your problem is really with Judge Hathaway, the majority white jury, and the Michigan State Legislature. Since those awful anti-white racists are the ones responsible for it.

---

Well, yes. My problem is with the law, and they are its agents. I think we as a society do seek to transfer the guilty for past white actions onto current white people. That failing is race-neutral. Whites are as likely as blacks to be prejudiced against other whites for their 'racist' actions.

I think it is important for us to see this reverse racism. It isn't acknowledged as a problem, IMO. It really has litle to do with Wafer's guilt or lack of guilt -- but it explains a lot in how people here have reacted so strongly to this case. I think we'd be better if we recognized racial prejudice in all its forms. Its the best way to wipe it from our minds. Thus, I think you are in denial, wrapping yourself in the 'obvious' guilt here. And I do think that its very likely that Wafer is guilty as hell. But I just as strongly think that society racial 'guilt' is present in how many have reacted to claims of potential injustice. All I can do is ask that you keep your mind open to the possibility of injustice in the pursuit of Wafers, Zimmermans, and Wilsons long before the facts are set and the jury has judged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I think it is important for us to see this reverse racism. It isn't acknowledged as a problem, IMO.

---

In fact, I see it loudly acknowledged as a "problem" all over the internet, right-wing media, freep comment sections, etc. every time a potentially racially-charged case comes up. Mostly from grumpy old white guys who seem upset that things are more equal[[-ish) than they used to be, that African-Americans are no longer afraid to call for law enforcement and the justice system to respect their citizenship rights, and that just being white no longer means that one is assumed to be in the right in every situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I quit. You're an idiot. I should have realized that sooner.

---

Looks like you didn't read the part about name calling when you signed up for this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downriviera

Looks like you didn't read the part about name calling when you signed up for this forum.

---

It was a true statement. Not my fault if you interpret it negatively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

In fact, I see it loudly acknowledged as a "problem" all over the internet, right-wing media, freep comment sections, etc. every time a potentially racially-charged case comes up. Mostly from grumpy old white guys who seem upset that things are more equal[[-ish) than they used to be, that African-Americans are no longer afraid to call for law enforcement and the justice system to respect their citizenship rights, and that just being white no longer means that one is assumed to be in the right in every situation.

---

Your comments about 'old white guys' and a presumption about their attitudes is part of the problem. I do not believe that very many grumpy old white chaps are upset about equality. In fact, I think most of them accept their black sons-in-law just fine.

Your prejudice against GOWGuys is clearly evident -- and I think suggests that I have a point that you should consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Your prejudice against GOWGuys is clearly evident

---

Wow, my 89 year old, white, and occasionally grumpy, father will be unhappy to hear that.