WELL, SHOOT... JUST SHOOT

[HairOfTheDog]

I knew he would try the “I feared for my life” defence otherwise know as the “zimmerman amendment” every shooter will try that now.

To be fair, "I feared for my life" self-defense claims are nothing new. They've been around longer than George Zimmerman. They're sometimes true, and they're often times used by murderers trying to escape justice/punishment by attempting to turn the tables on their victims.

What's disturbing to me are the recent cases where that defense claim is being used by people when they shoot unarmed strangers who posed no immediate threat to their lives. The problem is that the laws in some states base "reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death" on the shooter's mindset at the time. It shouldn't be that way, as far as I'm concerned. It should be based on what the jury finds a reasonable person would think/do under the same circumstances.

Lot's of nervous nellies out there who qualify for gun ownership; scared of their own effin' shadows, for real. The law shouldn't enable jittery Joe Blow to shoot unarmed people who aren't in the commission of a crime or posing an immediate threat just because Joe has a gun and he's a pussy, whether he's truly (albeit irrationally) in fear for his life or not. IMO.

Anyway, in the McBride case, I think Wafer would have a hard time with any self defense claim in any state. It would be pretty damn tough to convince any judge or jury that he was truly in fear for his life and had exhausted all reasonable alternatives when he decided to shoot through a protective door - killing an unarmed, drunk, teen-aged, female accident victim. At least, I hope it would be damn near impossible to make that claim fly.

We'll see. Maybe Wafer will plead guilty to manslaughter and save the taxpayers some money.

[HairOfTheDog]

Another case of shoot first, ask questions later...

Sad story.



A woman who fatally shot her daughter — who was holding a 4-month-old baby — on Monday night in Winter Haven, Florida told police it was a case of mistaken identity. The 4-month-old was not injured, police said.

The mother, Adele Bing (pictured above), confessed that she had shot her daughter, the affidavit says.

The older Bing claimed that Ruby Bing was banging and kicking her door. Adele Bing said she thought it was her boyfriend, who she'd had a fight with earlier, and armed herself.

Adele Bing "stated she intended to use the firearm to kill her boyfriend, because he stated he was going to come back and kill her," the affidavit says.

She told police she didn't intend to fire the gun or shoot her daughter.

"How could I look my grandkids in their face and say I killed their mother, y'all can lock me away for good," Adele Bing said, according to police.

She was arrested on second-degree murder and child abuse charges.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loca...1701.story

[Maggot]

I would have a hard time shooting someone. They would really have to be doing something really screwed up before I would go there. Someone walking around my house in the middle of the night is a different story. But either way it does not mean you take everyones gun away either. These stories are the extreme fringe end of the idiot spectrum that gun control people use to try and control the majority of responsible gun owners through scare tactics. Mainstream ignorant peeps eat it up like candy.

[Duchess]

I would have a hard time shooting someone.

Me too. I'd have to think I was on the verge of dying or someone else was. It would be horrible to be in that position...

...and after I shot 'em, I'd kick 'em a few times for making me shoot 'em.

[HairOfTheDog]

But either way it does not mean you take everyones gun away either. These stories are the extreme fringe end of the idiot spectrum that gun control people use to try and control the majority of responsible gun owners through scare tactics. Mainstream ignorant peeps eat it up like candy.

That's interesting, Maggot.

You're the only one who's brought up the topic of taking everyone's guns away in a thread covering primarily wrongful shooting deaths and self defense laws.

Some gun enthusiasts, like some gun control advocates, are rational and evaluate every story with a gun featured for the facts and what it is. Some gun enthusiasts instead label every story of a wrongful death involving a gun the "very rare exception", and turn such stories into an opportunity to cry about those in favor of bans.

I'm not a ban favorer, but I shake my head at the transparency of those cries when I hear them being made by throats that have fully swallowed the "they're gonna take all of yours guns away!" ignorance, as if that's not a piece of propaganda candy that gets sucked on by a pretty fair portion of the mainstream itself.

Shoot first, ask questions later...that's a mentality that's been supported by some here on Mock, depending on context. It's a mentality that does exist; an interesting one to explore in terms of the consequences highlighted in real life stories. IMO.

[Maggot]

Yeah......that's sounds about right!

[Maggot]

I would have a hard time shooting someone.

Me too. I'd have to think I was on the verge of dying or someone else was. It would be horrible to be in that position...

...and after I shot 'em, I'd kick 'em a few times for making me shoot 'em.

Yeah.........that sounds about right too! A person gets put through a ton of shit when they kill someone. Right or wrong it changes your life. People should think about that.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah......that's sounds about right!

Thank you!

[Maggot]

Oh stop.......your well thought out and informative posts are always spot on.

[HairOfTheDog]

I will not stop!

It's my right (personal, not constitutional) to blow you kisses any time I'm feeling the love; you can't take it
away.

You have the right to duck, though. Still, if I keep firing 'em off, eventually you'll end up with cherry Chapstick on your collar.

[Carsman]

I will not stop!

It's my right (personal, not constitutional) to blow you kisses any time I'm feeling the love; you can't take it
away.

You have the right to duck, though. Still, if I keep firing 'em off, eventually you'll end up with cherry Chapstick on your collar.

The professor may not like that, and you'll get Maggs in the dog house.

As for shooting someone, as was mentioned, if someone was in my house, and I felt threatened, I would have no other choice but to shoot them. However, I do believe I would try to "shoot em in the legs" first, and if that failed, well . . . . . .

[HairOfTheDog]

I understand, Cars.

If I had a gun and someone was in my house, after making sure it wasn't someone who should be in my house, I'd dial 911 and be prepared to shoot if necessary. I wouldn't hesitate, if necessary.

-That's a whole lot different than a trained cop, with two other trained cops on the scene, shooting a shirtless man with his hands out 12 times - a man who had waited for cops to arrive at the scene for over 10 minutes rather than flee.

-It's also much different than a veteran cop shooting a kid 7 times; a kid (even if he was assumed to be a short man) who wasn't posing a threat or even aware that cops had come up behind him when he was shot to death for carrying a toy.

-Much different, again, than shooting through a locked door - without calling 911 - because someone was banging on it, blowing the face off of an unarmed drunken teen who was on the other side.

-Different, too, than being so pissed off at or scared of your boyfriend that you don't take the time to ask who it is knocking on your door before you shoot your daughter to death, with her 4 month old in her arms.

^ Those are the stories covered in this thread thus far. Shoot first...ask questions later. Depending on the entire set of circumstances, it may be a justified action. In these cases, I'd say it's not, or at least it's highly questionable and can't be decided without further investigation.

I don't think any of the shooters covered in these stories intended to kill innocent unarmed victims. I do think they're legally responsible for the killings by choosing to pull the trigger as a first course of action when they had the opportunity to assess first and were not facing an imminent life threat. That's why the charge of manslaughter exists. Is it self defense if it plays out that they simply didn't take the available time/opportunity before choosing to use lethal force because they were scared? I say, "hell no". The law in some states says, "maybe so".

No objection here to qualified rational people possessing guns (or any other weapons) and using them for valid self defense. Every objection to trigger happy people killing unarmed citizens when it was clearly avoidable, and getting away with it. It would be worrisome to me if people weren't vested and discussing these stories.

Now, I'm gonna have a steak and a glass of red wine. Picking up one of my nieces from the airport at 9 am tomorrow - excited.

[Duchess]

This shit is outta control. It's happened again. Such a sad story -

The homeowner who shot and killed a 72-year-old man with advanced Alzheimer's Disease after he rang his bell when he became lost and confused in the middle of the night might be charged in the man’s death.

Ronald Westbrook rang the doorbell of a home at 4am on Wednesday after wandering around in the dark for almost four hours in rural Walker County, Georgia, wearing just a light jacket and a straw hat in the cold 20 degree temperatures.

He had walked around three miles from his home by the time he approached the door. Sheriff Steve Wilson said he thinks he approached that particular house because the porch light was on.

Joe Hendrix, 34, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, who had moved into the house two weeks earlier with his fiancé, went outside to confront the man carrying his handgun.


Hendrix's fiancee, whose name Wilson declined to give, called 911 and stayed on the phone with an emergency dispatcher who sent two sheriff's office patrol cars en route.

The sheriff said the dispatcher who stayed on the phone with Hendrix's fiancee wasn't aware Hendrix went outside the house with a handgun.

When Westbrook didn’t react to his verbal commands, Hendrix fired four shots, one which hit him in the chest, killing him.

Story

[HairOfTheDog]

Sad story and pretty hard not to be pissed off about it, for me anyway.

Hendrix could have just waited inside, knowing cops were en route. No way the 72 year old mute Air Force veteran and Alzheimer's patient could have been making imminent life threats that made Hendrix feel like he had to take his gun and confront the person outside rather than wait for the cops.

Hendrix feels badly. Well, yeah, he damned well should.

"I had no idea who was outside and that made me nervous or scared. So, since I had a gun, I went outside and shot at whoever it was four times". Effin' idiotic.

If this angers me deeply, can only imagine how those who loved Mr. Westbrook and the community must feel.

Hendrix should be charged immediately. Georgia's Stand Your Ground laws should not apply here, IMO. No threats made, no self-defense. Manslaughter, at least.

[Cynical Ninja]

I'm afraid Username summed the whole situation in the US about “shoot or not to shoot?” Quite succinctly as she so often does with....

“I'm scared! Bang your dead!”

That sort of sums it all up, if you feel scared the law is on your side to blow someones head off.

Nice.

[HairOfTheDog]

The man who shot and killed an unarmed Detroit teen on his front porch last month will face a trial, a judge has ruled.

Theodore Wafer, 54, is facing charges of second degree murder, manslaughter, and a felony firearms charge in the Nov. 2 death of 19-year-old Renisha McBride.



In announcing his decision Thursday, Judge David Turfe referenced the actions of Carmen Beasley, the woman whose car McBride crashed into in the early morning hours of Nov. 2, reports Gina Damron of the Detroit Free Press, who live-blogged the hearing. Beasley testified that she stayed inside her house to assess the situation before going out to attempt to help McBride.

"She thought first, then she acted," said the judge, according to the Free Press.

"He (Wafer) could have not answered the door. He could have called for help," Judge Turfe said. "He chose to shoot rather than not answer the door.”

Testimony given Wednesday revealed that Wafer was about three feet away from McBride when he shot her in the face with a shotgun, reports CBS Detroit.

Wayne County District Attorney Kym Worthy has previously said evidence suggested Wafer shot McBride through a locked screen door, and that there were no signs of forced entry at the home. The Free Press reports that smudges found on the screen door may, or may not, be handprints, and have not been taken to the crime lab.

Wafer reportedly told police that the shotgun went off accidentally, but a Michigan State Police expert testified that he didn’t believe the gun could go off without the trigger being pulled, reports the Free Press.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-...ace-trial/

[Cheyne]

"The shotgun went off accidentally". Yeah, sure it did. I've been shooting shotguns for many years and I've never had one go off unless I pulled the trigger. Depending on the type of shotgun (pump, auto or double barrel), a round has to be chambered, the safety must be off and the trigger must be pulled for the shotgun to fire.

Wafer was probably counting on the "Zimmerman Defense" to save his ass. Didn't work.

[HairOfTheDog]

"The shotgun went off accidentally". Yeah, sure it did. I've been shooting shotguns for many years and I've never had one go off unless I pulled the trigger. Depending on the type of shotgun (pump, auto or double barrel), a round has to be chambered, the safety must be off and the trigger must be pulled for the shotgun to fire.

Wafer was probably counting on the "Zimmerman Defense" to save his ass. Didn't work.

First he said that it was an accident. I agree with you and the arms experts, that's bullshit.

Then he said he was in fear for his life and that's why he intentionally pulled the trigger.

Whichever story he ultimately chooses, I don't think it's gonna get him off the hook either, Cheyne. Just can't imagine any defense tactic that could sway a jury away from second degree murder, given the circumstances in this case.

Wafer is an asshole who shot through a locked door. He killed a stranger unnecessarily. But, it could have just as easily been one of his neighbors or loved ones on the other side of that door, in an altered/disoriented state of distress. He's dangerous and needs to do some legitimate time behind bars.

If Wafer and his attorneys are sensible, he'll plead out, strike a deal, avoid trial, and go straight to jail to start serving his sentence. IMO.

[Cynical Ninja]

I don't think he'll plead out and do not pass go go straight to jail ala monopoly.

The Zimmerman case has set a precedent that will have defence attorneys going “I don't know, look at the Zimmerman case! Its worth rolling the dice, you could walk!”

Like Chris Rock once said “would you prefer to look innocent in jail or guilty at the mall?”

[HairOfTheDog]

You might be right. I just think it's riskier for Wafer to go to trial than it was for Zimmerman.

While Wafer might choose to use the Castle Doctrine or some form of stand-your-ground defense, his case is much weaker than Zimmerman's, IMO.

Wafer can't claim that the drunken teen female assaulted him first, like Zimmerman claimed in regards to Trayvon. We know for a fact that there was no physical confrontation or even interaction between Wafer and Renisha.

Wafer therefore can't claim that he was too big a pussy to physically defend himself against the unarmed teen, like Zimmerman did in regards to Trayvon.

Wafer doesn't have a 911 call that can be used to show he was assessing the situation or enlisting help before killing the teenager, like Zimmerman did.

If convicted, Wafer faces 15 years to life for second degree murder in Michigan. Even if a jury instead convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter, he would still face a maximum of 15 years.

I think a good attorney could probably negotiate pretty far down in exchange for a guilty plea. Will Wafer roll the dice and go to trial? IDK. We'll keep following the case here and see where it goes.