Boomer.... I don't think the defence have to announce what their defence is exactly at the moment... Our judicial system is such that the BURDEN is on the State to present a case.... the defence could offer no case in response if they don't think the State has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. Of course they will almost certainly present a case, but we are guessing what it will be.... but my reading of "the tea leaves" is that they will make a case for self defence.

Berta.... you have been onto the "damned doors" from the start. I did wonder if you were nuts to be so obsessed
... but it seems you sniffed out a critical part of this case.... like a seeing eye dog, you have alerted us blind people.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

IIRC, It was accidental according to the first 911 tape when he hung up. It has since evolved into S-D. The gun didn't malfunction so that change was necessary, IMO. Now that we know the gun needed about 5-6 lbs. of pressure to fire, the shot had to be intentional. Thus Self-Defense.

Technically it's a separate municipality which borders Detroit, although I'm guessing they're probably not in the greatest financial shape either.

_________________
Took my time machine into the shop for service and they said they'd get on it first thing last week.

from what I gathered Dearborn Heights relies on Wayne Co. Deputies for LE. which makes me wonder how long the response time is for a "typical" 911 call. If residents are in fear should they rely on that service? I do not know anything about Detroit / Wayne County.

Good point Berta. The people who say Wafer should have just "stayed in his home" and called 911 (I presume best if he cowered under the blankets as well) ... are same ones who said GZ shoulda stayed in his truck. They are of course "Monday morning quarter-backing" a situation that they were NOT present for. Fine for them to pontificate now about what Wafer shoulda done.. but I am sure it was very different in real time. I don't KNOW what Wafer was feeling... but my guess is that was a VERY alarming situation to have an unknown person (or persons) banging on doors, shouting etc... call the cops and hope like hell they come quick is an option... but IMO not the best one. I think Wafers option at least makes sense....it in fact shows a level of bravery..... arm yourself with a weapon ready to fire.. and go see what the heck is happening... protecting your home and self from a potential attack. What he was confronted with as he opened the door at 4:30AM , in the dark may well have prompted him to feel in fear of death or great bodily harm.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Please excuse my ignorance, but I've never touched a gun. I don't understand why the shot had to be intentional b/c the gun needed 5-6 lbs of pressure to fire. Does that rule out the possibility of his finger involuntarily twitching (from nerves or something) and pulling the trigger? (And does that ever happen?)

_________________

It is well within the realm of possibility that he hit his elbow on the door and that caused him to accidentally pull the trigger. It takes some force but not that much force. I have a similar Mossberg that I use for shooting clay and I can tell you that if it took too much force to pull the trigger, you would never hit the clay because you would be jerking the gun around trying to pull the trigger.

In the case you described it would still be negligent, as one of the most basic rules of firearm safety is to never have your finger on the trigger until you intend to fire. This is, of course, to ensure that a twitch or stumble does not result in an unintentional discharge. Having ones finger on the trigger is ipso-facto evidence of either intent or negligence.

Yes, Libtardh8r.... as I have mentioned, I think you have made me aware of a risk in going for "accident"... I can see it sort of concedes "manslaughter". However in going for a SD defence there is always the risk of being found guilty of Murder2.
I think (but what do I know) it's worth going for SD... and I see it as succeeding.

If Wafer is recorded as saying "it was an accident" then now he can claim "slipsies" or "I mis-spoke" etc... it is very common these days. Perhaps just say:
Sure. I said "it was an accident, period." but what I really meant was it was an accident that I was in a position to have to use deadly force in a "Self Defence" situation.
ie.. Plead the "Obama Clause" available to explain past statements.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Renisha McBride could have gone to her Aunt's House less than one block away
Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Kay Lumpkin Shell is Renisha's great Aunt. She lives at 7288 Bramell. The wreck happened on the same street, about 10 houses down at 7233 Bramell.

I notice in the news article she is called Kay Lumpkin, without the "Shell", and she is said to live in Dearborn.

....more at link
http://www.re-newsit.com/2013/12/renish ... o-her.html

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Good sleuthing by renewsit.

It is, at the very least, a fact that needs to be included in the overall picture. In addition it would be desirable to avoid the sort of nonsense we had in the GZ case where TM was declared a "victim" at the outset, so that discussing facts about him was labelled "bashing the victim" by the silly people at daft forums. Being in denial about all the facts is one way of reducing "Cognitive Dissonance" in people IMPRINTED with a false narrative... delude yourself and avoid reality by simply closing off facts on one side from consideration. That avoids having to absorb the facts of the case as they come to light and so enables the feeble-minded to cling onto the false notions of their initial IMPRINTING.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Just a thought..... is there any chance that McBride DID visit her Aunt? There still needs to be an explanation of the hours between the high speed crash while drunk and stoned, and the assault on Wafer's home.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Did VP put in a picture of the aunt's house? I don't know that it will ever be determined her actions unless someone comes forward to say they were with her. Her phone, even if it wasn't dead, was found in the car.

I am curious about the split sole. I don't think she got anything like that if she wandered to a relative's house. And why would they let her leave in that shape?

Regardless, whatever she was doing either before or in her past, it shouldn't matter in a court of law. It is only at the point of the "confrontation" that will count.

This is not like GZ at all.

I see a LOT of similarities with the GZ case and the Canonization of Saint Trayvon.

From the outset a "Family Attorney" out pushing a narrative and DEMANDING an Arress (and a guilty verdict).... and so on.

I do not agree with this. Her blood alcohol content is very pertinent to the "confrontation" as it would have meant that her judgment was severely compromised. RB was committing no fewer than 3 crimes the night she was shot (underage drinking, DWI, hit & run) and was highly complicit in her own demise.

I do think it may matter because if (e)affects the disposition of each entering said confrontation. Her drunk, disoriented, agitated, etc. and him, asleep, concerned, now on alert.

IMO she did not just politely and quietly tap on the door and mildly wait for an answer.

and he did not saunter up and open the door to aim at her face.

However these are not facts in evidence, it just a scenario.

I think her activity the entire evening is important. Her state of mind etc.
Why was she going out of her way to get pissed out of her tiny brain? Drinking games at 7PM??
Where was she going when she crashed?
Why did she walk away from help?
Why did she not go to Aunty's house, or did she go there and leave again?
Where was she for 4 hours after the crash? Not still looking for "help" 4 hours later.... so what was she looking for/doing at Wafer's house.
Who was she with for 4 hours and what was she doing?
What was she drinking/smoking during the 4 hours etc.

This all speaks to the somewhat deranged person who presented at Wafer's house.

I am sure the prosecution would like to forget all that. Present evidence of a sweet, quiet girl, who would have politely knocked on Wafer's door and said "excuse me sir, my car has just broken down, can I use your phone, please".... But that never happened. That is the old "false narrative" trick. What did happen needs to be told.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/12/ho ... -defended/


In the course of the pre-trial hearing, however, the defense team called to the stand a crime scene reconstruction and firearms expert witness, David Balash. In the course of his testimony under defense questioning facts began to emerge that seem likely to form the structure of the team’s legal defense.

Some of the forensic evidence remains in dispute, but for the purposes of this discussion I’ll make several likely presumptions.

One of these is that Wafer was standing inside his home, looking through the closed (and perhaps locked) screen door, and McBride was on the other side of the door standing on the rather small front porch, so within two to three feet of the screen door. Finally, that the shotgun round that struck and killed McBride was fired through the screening of the door.

When police arrived on the scene in response to Wafer’s 911 call, they found the screen, and its associated frame, had been knocked lose from the screen door proper, and noted the hole in the screen through which the fatal shot had likely been fired. Prior to taking crime scene photos, they replaced the screen in its proper position in the door, the position in which they assumed the screen was placed when pierced by the shot.


This was a really good article, and pretty much what I thought went down.

Thanks, Berta.

I think there could well be some interesting discussion of the evidence in this case. Unfortunately, there is also already the daft notions and side issues which will persist in the IMPRINTED ones, and be pushed by those who use those "useful idiots"

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

In other jurisdictions, that's known as evidence tampering.

_________________
Took my time machine into the shop for service and they said they'd get on it first thing last week.