I'm probably going to catch a lot of **** for this but what's wrong with not going near the door and calling police to let them deal with it? If she comes through the door then that's a different story.
Oh that's right its Detroit... (What police?)
Dupe of my dupe of another dupe of yet another dupe.
I just caught up on this.
A drunken 19 year old is beating down this mans doors in the early dark A.M. hours. He responds as many would in Detroit. This will not end well for him.
Another situation that points out that if you are going to own a gun....learn how to properly use it. Know the law. Respond accordingly.
Easy to say.
Sad but true.
It's easy to second-guess how someone reacts under extreme stress. I don't know if I could find my cell phone in that situation, and it's always on the nightstand next to the bed. In hindsight, opening the door was not a good move, but it's human nature.
An important lesson is to not get drunk and go out in public. This is not an issue for me, but apparently is for some folks. (Didn't a Ball State student get killed by police under similar circumstances a couple of years ago? - drunk and pounding on a stranger's door at 3am)
I feel badly for everyone involved, but it sounds like self-defense to me.[/QUOTE
I understand how all this could have come down. I/we have been torn from sleep more than a few times by horrendous noises/gun fire/knocks on the door.
Fortunately we have given this enough thought and time to respond properly. Always armed but at the ready. 1st thing picked up is always the flashlight. Gives you a second to gather yourself up and get on the move.
Be ready and have a base plan. Even with a plan things are not always as they seem. Be ready but do not over react. Again, easy to say.
As a matter of law, this incident, and the one involving Trayvon Martin, are not similar. At trial, the case will turn on whether it is believed that the homeowner reasonably believed that their life was in danger and if the threat to their life was credible. If a jury is convinced that the homeowner truly thought their life was in imminent danger, it is likely they will be ok. What little info we have makes offering an informed opinion difficult but, given what little is available, I suspect the homeowner would prevail at trial.
It's pretty hard to claim "self-defense" and "accident" at the same time.
I read the articles. There may be more to the story, but based upon what I have read so far, I don't see enough to justify the shooting.
The prosecution also sought to have a “false exculpatory statement” instruction given to the jury. A false exculpatory statement is a kind of consciousness of guilt statement, in which the jury is instructed that a defendant lying in an effort to escape criminal liability can be seen to have done so because of “consciousness of guilt”—that is, not only does the prosecution believe the defendant is guilty, even the defendant believed the defendant was guilty.
The foundation for the prosecution’s request was Wafer’s “accident” language in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Strictly speaking an accident is a non-intentional act, and self-defense is an intentional act, and one can not have both.
Siringas is quite right, when those terms are used in their narrow legal contexts. Had Wafer raised a legal defense of “accident” he would likely have been denied the legal defense of “self-defense,” and vice versa. Siringas was trying to claim that Wafer had given two separate, inherently inconsistent theories of the case.
But Wafer was not using “accident” in the narrow legal meaning of the word, but using it as a lay person typically does—and in that usage “accident” can mean a variety of things, including not deliberate or thought out, or an act of reflex, none of which are inconsistent with self-defense.
Carpenter, naturally, argued that there was no inherent inconsistency in Wafer’s defense, if one allows for the normal, broader scope with which the term “accident” is used by non-lawyers.
There was also no evidence of forced entry and he shot through a closed, locked door....apparently having opened the inner door. Is knocking, banging or trying a door knob "breaking in"?
Now...under Michigan law? I don't know, but I would certainly not take a life under the circumstances as reported.
It's pretty hard to claim "self-defense" and "accident" at the same time.
I read the articles. There may be more to the story, but based upon what I have read so far, I don't see enough to justify the shooting.
Guilty as charged.
Detroit porch shooting: Homeowner convicted of 2nd-degree murder - Chicago Tribune
Alert the INGOtarians, OUTSIDE one's house is not a free fire zone.
A strong state's case without question.
To convict Wafer of second-degree murder, the jury must have found that he meant to kill or cause great bodily harm, or knowingly created a situation that could result in death or bodily harm.