Another car crash victim shot seeking help

I think the prosecutor had to dismiss race as an issue, at least as far as she was concerned, at least publicly. It would have caused a lot of unneeded complications for her to come right out from the get-go and say she thought this crime was race-related.

A jury, however...

nighttimer said:

Indeed.



What I find interesting is for all the reportage about McBride's blood level and the presence of alcohol and marijuana is not once has it been mentioned knows what Ted Wafer's blood level was.

Wonder if we ever will?

Click to expand...

Do we know that he had any of either or anything else in his system?

That might actually help explain a lot. Not excuse, mind you, but explain.

The overdue arrest does not begin to address the other issue nobody wants to talk about and indeed are trying to put considerable distance from this case: race.




Not wishing to talk about the elephant in the room doesn't mean the elephant is not in the room.

Click to expand...

The fact that the shooter is white and the victim is black doesn't make it about race. Now I'm not telling you it wasn't, but they have to be able to prove it.

Now if they dig up something from his past that shows he has racist tendencies, then I'd bet it would be put in there. But if the state tries to make this about race and fails to prove it, that could weaken their case.

I mean, if we found out that the shooter had been married to a black woman and had mixed race children, would that make you want the charges dismissed? I'm sure not. So best leave it out unless it becomes a very tangible factor for the State. The jury may still think it on their own and depending on how the trial (Of there is one and he doesn't plea bargain) shakes out, the State can argue it with opening and/or closing remarks.

nighttimer said:

Not wishing to talk about the elephant in the room doesn't mean the elephant is not in the room.

Click to expand...

And talking about the elephant before it IS in the room? Just adds another derail to the thread and "third persons" the individuals responsible for the actions of the event.

Maybe work with what we know rather than what we assume?

I just listened to the 911 call. Wafer, before he hangs up on the dispatcher, says that he "shot someone" who was "banging on my door." Nothing about an attempted break in. Just "banging on my door."

Monkey said:

I think the prosecutor had to dismiss race as an issue, at least as far as she was concerned, at least publicly. It would have caused a lot of unneeded complications for her to come right out from the get-go and say she thought this crime was race-related.

A jury, however...

Click to expand...

Point taken, Monkey. The DA probably doesn't want to introduce the matter of race, but I think it's both unavoidable and inevitable.

Vince524 said:

The fact that the shooter is white and the victim is black doesn't make it about race. Now I'm not telling you it wasn't, but they have to be able to prove it.

Click to expand...

Fine. It should be proven. But first we have to be allowed to talk about the racial aspect of the case without constantly being told it isn't about race.

Vince524 said:

Now if they dig up something from his past that shows he has racist tendencies, then I'd bet it would be put in there. But if the state tries to make this about race and fails to prove it, that could weaken their case.

I mean, if we found out that the shooter had been married to a black woman and had mixed race children, would that make you want the charges dismissed? I'm sure not. So best leave it out unless it becomes a very tangible factor for the State. The jury may still think it on their own and depending on how the trial (Of there is one and he doesn't plea bargain) shakes out, the State can argue it with opening and/or closing remarks.

Click to expand...

I don't believe Theodore Wafer will be convicted of killing Renisha McBride. She was drunk. He was armed. Wafer can claim McBride was yelling, screaming and banging on his door and he believed he was threatened.

Reasonable doubt. No conviction. Wafer walks.

It’s not yet clear what kind of argument Theodore Wafer, the Dearborn Heights man accused of shooting the 19-year-old McBride through his screen door on Nov. 2 and charged with 2nd-degree murder on Friday, might use in his defense. But the bar will be high.

“The standard for self-defense is that you reasonably perceive a threat of death or serious bodily harm from the other person. You respond with equal force. You can’t use deadly force ample to defend your home or to prevent someone from stealing your property. It can only be used for self-defense or defense of others,” Henning says.

Authorities say McBride came to Wafer’s door around 4:30 a.m. after crashing her car. A toxicology report found twice the legal limit of alcohol in her blood.

Could there be valid argument of self-defense in this case if the defendant was behind a locked screen door?
“Certainly that’s a possibility,” says Henning. “It is possible that there was shouting, or perhaps an effort to open up the door, or bang on a window or something like that could give him a basis to believe that there was a threat that someone was going to break into his home. From there, you could infer a threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

I'm not optimistic about this case. There are no eyewitnesses. The killing happened at the man's home as opposed to out on the street. And the only direct narrative will come from the lips of a killer who has every interest to shape that narrative in a way that justifies his actions.

I haven't written much on this case, because I don't know what else to offer beyond my deep skepticism of the courts as a likely resolution. It is painful to keep writing this. I believe that we live in a country that justifies killing in response to someone "banging" on your door. I hope I am wrong. It is sickening to believe myself right. It is sickening to see a polite society submit to gun law.

Click to expand...

The fear of Black criminality and White victims will provide the "get out of jail" card Wafer will use to walk free.

Williebee said:

And talking about the elephant before it IS in the room? Just adds another derail to the thread and "third persons" the individuals responsible for the actions of the event.

Click to expand...

And there is where we differ, Williebee.

The elephant IS in the room. It got there when it took almost two weeks before Theodore Wafer was arrested and charged for the shooting of Renisha McBride. Nobody is going to convince me if the races of the victim and her killer were reversed a Black man would be sleeping in his own bed for shooting a White girl in the face.

If even by mentioning race in this thread is now considered a "derail" then the parameters of the shooting of Renisha McBride and what is fair game for discussion and debate should have been clearly defined at the start.

I heard the same sort of thing when the Trayvon Martin story went down. We don't know what the facts are. It's irresponsible to talk about race.

It's irresponsible to cry wolf about race when it's not necessary, but it's equally irresponsible to not cry wolf about race when it is.

Who gets to decide when it applies, Williebee?

Williebee said:

Maybe work with what we know rather than what we assume?

Click to expand...

We can do both if we say, "I don't understand" instead of "I don't believe."

Lyv said:

I just listened to the 911 call. Wafer, before he hangs up on the dispatcher, says that he "shot someone" who was "banging on my door." Nothing about an attempted break in. Just "banging on my door."

Click to expand...

Whoa. That's a pretty damn blase 911 call. He doesn't sound the least bit shaken about having shot someone on his porch.

Live blog to preliminary hearing for shooter of Renisha McBride.

Carmen Beasley heard a loud noise outside in the early morning hours of Nov. 2.

She called 911, looked out and saw a car had struck her husband’s vehicle. She then saw a woman holding her hands to her head as she walked away. The woman came back, and Beasley asked if she was OK.

“She just kept saying she wanted to go home,” Beasley said today while testifying in court.

Hours later, that woman was shot to death on the porch of Theodore Wafer’s home in Dearborn Heights.

Wafer faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter — death by weapon aimed with intent but without malice, and felony firearm in the death of Renisha McBride, 19. McBride died from a gunshot wound to her face.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy previously said McBride was shot through a screen door. Firearms examiner David Balash, who is retired from the Michigan State Police, testified for the defense that in his opinion, McBride would not have been more than 2 feet from the gun when she was shot.

Assistant Wayne County Medical Examiner Kilak Kesha testified that McBride would have died immediately upon being shot. He said he found no evidence of close range firing based on the lack of soot or stippling.

Kesha said McBride’s injuries were too severe to determine whether she had suffered any brain injuries earlier.

The accident site, on Bramell near Warren, is not far from where McBride was shot three hours later. It’s unclear where she went between the crash and the shooting.

Beasley said McBride appeared to be intoxicated, injured and confused.

A toxicology report revealed McBride’s blood alcohol level was 0.218%, and marijuana was detected in her system. In Michigan, the legal limit for those 21 and older to be considered drunken driving is 0.08%. For drivers under 21, it’s illegal to have a 0.02% or higher blood alcohol level.

Beasley said she asked McBride if she was OK. McBride said yes and tried to start her car.

“I said ‘Honey, your car is damaged, you’re not going to be able to start the car,’ ” Beasley said.

She said she saw blood on McBride’s hands and told her she was hurt. Kesha also testified today that McBride had blood on her hands.

Beasley said she called 911 a second time, asking for an ambulance. Eventually, McBride walked away.

Hours later, Wafer called 911 and told a dispatcher he shot someone who was on his front porch and had been banging on his door.

His 911 call was played in court.

Wafer told police the gun accidentally went off. Detective Sgt. Shawn Kolonich, a Michigan State Police firearms expert, testified that without pulling the trigger, the gun wouldn’t go off.


link

Click to expand...

Wafer will stand trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of McBride.

Judge David Turfe said Thursday that based on the evidence presented, Wafer made a poor decision in shooting McBride, and he failed to pursue other “reasonable opportunities to defend himself,” including calling the police for help.

“He chose to shoot rather than not answer the door,” the judge said.

Click to expand...

Someone who was underage, drunk and high, driving around in the middle of the night and hitting a parked car is not a crash "victim" as the thread title states. It is horrible that someone died but inebriated people DO bring on plenty of trouble for themselves and others, so it's entirely appropriate to look into what all of her actions were before deciding the homeowner shot her because she was black. This could just as easily have been a vehicular manslaughter case.

My guess is it's most conceivable that the man was disoriented, woken from sleep, panicked at some kind of craziness going on at his door, and handled it badly and with tragic end. Or, who knows but that this inebriated woman actually opened the door herself or did try to break in. We don't know yet. What we do know is that she was drunk and high and had committed a criminal act.

I'd bet things would have gone much differently had anyone had this hindsight available to them at the time about what they should have done differently but unfortunately, they didn't. I do think he has every right to answer his own door, as far as the part about what he should have done instead of that. I didn't read every article so I may have missed some of the later additions, but it's not automatically racial at all. If we're going by the stereotypes, I'd think he would be less threatened because the person at his door was a woman, if anything. Jumping to conclusions with spotty facts is just that and nothing more, either way.

Also, in a 911 call, I could see someone sounding calm and disinterested when they were actually numb with shock. And, I could see them just saying a few words about how it started rather than giving a detailed account of events. I don't think it means much.

Fruitbat said:

Someone who was underage, drunk and high, driving around in the middle of the night and hitting a parked car is not a crash "victim" as the thread title states. committed a criminal act.

Click to expand...

Marijuana traces persist a long time in the body, their presence does not indicate whether she was high or not.

waylander said:

Marijuana traces persist a long time in the body, their presence does not indicate whether she was high or not.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was traces or not, the article just said marijuana was detected in her system. She was intoxicated though so it doesn't really make a difference here imo.

Fruitbat said:

Someone who was underage, drunk and high, driving around in the middle of the night and hitting a parked car is not a crash "victim" as the thread title states. It is horrible that someone died but inebriated people DO bring on plenty of trouble for themselves and others, so it's entirely appropriate to look into what all of her actions were before deciding the homeowner shot her because she was black. This could just as easily have been a vehicular manslaughter case.

My guess is it's most conceivable that the man was disoriented, woken from sleep, panicked at some kind of craziness going on at his door, and handled it badly and with tragic end. Or, who knows but that this inebriated woman actually opened the door herself or did try to break in. We don't know yet. What we do know is that she was drunk and high and had committed a criminal act.

Click to expand...

So drinking too much alcohol and smoking dope is now a crime punishable by death by some coward shooting you through a door in the face from a distance of 2 feet?

Harsh.

Fruitbat said:

I'd bet things would have gone much differently had anyone had this hindsight available to them at the time about what they should have done differently but unfortunately, they didn't. I do think he has every right to answer his own door, as far as the part about what he should have done instead of that. I didn't read every article so I may have missed some of the later additions, but it's not automatically racial at all. If we're going by the stereotypes, I'd think he would be less threatened because the person at his door was a woman, if anything. Jumping to conclusions with spotty facts is just that and nothing more, either way.

Click to expand...

And yet here you are. Jumping to conclusions with spotty facts.

Fruitbat said:

Also, in a 911 call, I could see someone sounding calm and disinterested when they were actually numb with shock. And, I could see them just saying a few words about how it started rather than giving a detailed account of events. I don't think it means much.

Click to expand...

Do you think shooting an injured, bleeding and disoriented woman mumbling "I want to go home" means much?

Fruitbat said:

My guess is it's most conceivable that the man was disoriented, woken from sleep, panicked at some kind of craziness going on at his door, and handled it badly and with tragic end.

Click to expand...

Then he really should do jail time, what with grabbing and pointing a loaded gun while disoriented.

But the "some kind of craziness going on at his door," according to the shooter, was someone banging on his door. That's it.

Or, who knows but that this inebriated woman actually opened the door herself or did try to break in. We don't know yet.

Click to expand...

We know that the shooter said she was banging on his door. Not trying to get in. Not that she opened the door. But that she was banging.

And he's claiming that the gun went off accidentally. Thanks to the live blog Haggis linked to, I now know that the state tried to make that happen and failed.

No, I did not jump to conclusions. I presented equally plausible scenarios, to highlight that we don't know which way it happened. Please read the words I actually wrote rather than the strawman bit.

No, as I said, it has not been established that banging on the door was all there was to it at all. That's just the few words he said to the dispatcher and likely how it started.

No, it was not stated in the articles that she showed up at his door "bloody and saying she wanted to go home." That was elsewhere and several hours earlier. There's no real discussion going on when facts are twisted. I guess I'll step out if people are just going to pick a side and try to "win."

Obviously, this was a tragic event and I'm sure everyone wishes that clock could be reset and it done differently.

However. You have one person who was drunk, high, and crashing into a parked car in the middle of the night. Then was unaccounted for, for several hours. Out of control, illegal, reckless. You have another person who was asleep in his own home and minding his own business. I don't find it rational or logical to assume the drunk, high, lawbreaking one was innocent and the other a criminal whose fault it all is just because of their respective races or tragic outcome.

Filling it in with emotion, other unrelated incidents and issues, and things that haven't been verified or even stated anywhere doesn't change that. What actually went on? I don't know yet - and neither do you. But, please, don't let that interrupt your verdict. In fact, I think you need to notify the court immediately that you've got it handled so they can all go home. Come back here and report the results. @.@

nighttimer said:

So drinking too much alcohol and smoking dope is now a crime punishable by death by some coward shooting you through a door in the face from a distance of 2 feet?

Click to expand...

I don't think that was the point. Given that she was the only person involved int he crash she is a collision perpetrator and a fatal shooting victim. The latter obviously being immensely more important.

Fruitbat said:

No, I did not jump to conclusions. I presented equally plausible scenarios, to highlight that we don't know which way it happened. Please read the words I actually wrote rather than the strawman bit.

No, as I said, it has not been established that banging on the door was all there was to it at all. That's just the few words he said to the dispatcher and likely how it started.

No, it was not stated in the articles that she showed up at his door "bloody and saying she wanted to go home." That was elsewhere and several hours earlier. There's no real discussion going on when facts are twisted. I guess I'll step out if people are just going to pick a side and try to "win."

Click to expand...

There's also no real discussion when someone omits facts, speculates without foundation and twists the events to serve their own preconceived notion that "someone who was underage, drunk and high, driving around in the middle of the night and hitting a parked car is not a crash "victim."

In the eyes of the law they are because driving around "drunk and high" reduces their capacity to make informed, intelligent decisions. It doesn't absolve them from being responsible for what they do when they are drunk and high, but neither does it mean they aren't a victim when someone shoots them down for knocking on their door.

Fruitbat said:

Obviously, this was a tragic event and I'm sure everyone wishes that clock could be reset and it done differently.

Click to expand...

Renisha McBride doesn't. She's too busy being dead.

Fruitbat said:

However. You have one person who was drunk, high, and crashing into a parked car in the middle of the night. Then was unaccounted for, for several hours. Out of control, illegal, reckless. You have another person who was asleep in his own home and minding his own business. I don't find it rational or logical to assume the drunk, high, lawbreaking one was innocent and the other a criminal whose fault it all is just because of their respective races or tragic outcome.

Click to expand...

You do understand what an "accident" is, right?

Renisha McBride did not intentionally crash into a parked car. Theodore Wafer did not intentionally shoot a drunken and disoriented and INJURED woman (a fact you have overlooked) which is why he's being charged with second-degree murder instead of murder in the first.

This is why when you have already concluded McBride was "out of control, illegal, reckless" and implied in no uncertain terms that it's her own fault she's dead, any attorney worth their law degree would excuse you from sitting on a jury as you have affirmed your bias in favor of Theodore Wafer.

Fruitbat said:

Filling it in with emotion, other unrelated incidents and issues, and things that haven't been verified or even stated anywhere doesn't change that. What actually went on? I don't know yet - and neither do you. But, please, don't let that interrupt your verdict. In fact, I think you need to notify the court immediately that you've got it handled so they can all go home. Come back here and report the results. @.@

Click to expand...

Why bother? If the court were to follow your lead there would be no trial for Wafer in the first place.

You'd just give him his shotgun back and wish him well that he gets a good night sleep without any more drunk and high criminals banging on his door.

veinglory said:

I don't think that was the point. Given that she was the only person involved int he crash she is a collision perpetrator and a fatal shooting victim. The latter obviously being immensely more important.

Click to expand...

There are those that consider the former immensely more important than the latter.

MOD Note:

You know what? The assumption jumping, spin and personal backbiting from members who have a long history of learning not to is of no value to the thread or AW.

If a fact shows up, relevant to this story, that someone wants to add? Let me know.

An update:

Judge Rules No Selfies of Porch Shooting Victim at Trial

Jurors in the upcoming trial of a Detroit-area man who shot a young, drunken woman on his porch won't see selfies of the victim with a gun, marijuana and cash, a judge said Monday in another defeat for the defense. Theodore Wafer's attorneys want to show the photos from Renisha McBride's cellphone to demonstrate that she had an aggressive side. But Wayne County Judge Dana Hathaway said there could be a "million reasons" why the 19-year-old posed that way.

Wafer, 55, of Dearborn Heights is charged with second-degree murder. He says he shot her in self-defense in response to pounding at his door last November. In court filings and arguments, Wafer's attorneys have clearly signaled their strategy: He lives alone in a neighborhood on the edge of Detroit and was afraid of what he was hearing about 4:30 a.m. McBride was shot in the face.

More than three hours earlier, she crashed her car about a half-mile away in Detroit but walked away before an ambulance arrived. It's not known what she did between the crash and the shooting. She wasn't armed.

Click to expand...

When in doubt, slime the victim for not being an angel. It's one of the oldest tricks in the legal playbook.

It' s also one of the most disgusting.

what the F is wrong with people? this sucks. that's all I got.

Guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/theodore-wafer-guilty-renisha-mcbride_n_5655163.html

I thought murder and manslaughter had two different definitions, which I assumed were mutually exclusive. Can someone explain how you can be convicted of both at the same time?

I'm not inclined to argue it, heza. As far as I'm concerned, this was heinous enough to merit both.

I'm not arguing against anything. It was a serious question.

heza said:

I'm not arguing against anything. It was a serious question.

Click to expand...

I know you were. Didn't mean that to suggest otherwise.

Not sure if this will answer your question.