White Detroit-area man charged with murder of black
woman Reuters Headline
Theodore Paul Wafer is fighting for his life. The evening of Nov 1 2013 he thought it was
going to be an ordinary night. At 4:30
the next morning everything changed beyond his and our ability to fix.
I
pulled the following information from several news websites. I’ll try to keep their text in italics. I don’t know what will happen to Mr. Wafer at
trial. (…guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter Thursday afternoon 7
Aug 13) I do know he is a victim of
poor or non-existent training and will be forced live with the death of a young
woman, Renisha McBride, on his soul. I’m asking a series of rhetorical questions
and statements, but think about how they apply to your worst day possible. Tactics isn’t always about the holster or the
flashlight or even pieing a corner.
Sometimes it’s actions done the least stupid way.
Theodore
Paul Wafer, 54, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Wednesday to second-degree murder charges in connection with the November 2, 2013 shooting of
Renisha McBride.
Wafer told police he
didn't know his gun was loaded and said he shot the unarmed teen by accident. Later he admitted he knew the gun was loaded.
How does one shoot a gun by
accident? Somebody had to pull the
trigger or does Wafer want to claim the gun was defective? That might be even worse, painting a picture
of a ticking time bomb that would discharge deadly force on its own. No, he told the police a lie. It may have been a face-saving lie or one to
sooth his conscience about taking a life, but it’s a lie. And the police and the jury must wonder “What
else is he lying about?”
"I didn't know there was a round
in there," he tells McManmon on the recording. (I assume it’s a police recording) "I don't get it. Who's knocking on your
door at 4:30 in the morning? Bang, bang, bang -- somebody wanting in."
Put yourself in his shoes.
You’re at home. It is early morning
and the sun isn’t up; it sounds like someone is trying to break in and not being
able to find his cell phone, you can’t call the professionals, AKA the
police. So, with help not in the picture
or arriving shortly, you go to investigate what you assume to be a violent
criminal offender trying to break down your door, with an unloaded gun. Tactical nonsense and I’m sure it made the
police itchy.
“Authorities say he shot McBride from behind a closed, locked
screen door.” I’m sure it was
dark. I’m sure Wafer was scared. But I can’t help wondering why the entrance to
the house had only had a locked screen door?
Wouldn’t you have a closed and
locked storm door in the early hours of a cold November morning? Did he open the storm to see who was out
there? Could he see who was there? Did she say anything? Or do the papers just
have the facts wrong? I don’t have an
answer to these questions, but I hope Wafer can answer these questions to the jury’s
satisfaction.
Almost every news article played the race card hence my
opening line. Wafer is white and the
dead girl is black. Newspaper and news
media aren’t about fairness. The story
isn’t about a scared man who shot a young woman on his porch. It is about selling advertising and nothing
sells like conflict.
During the trial the prosecutor shows a stockless shotgun and
plenty of pictures of the lifeless, mangled body (McBride was shot in
the face, falling on her back, with her feet facing Wafer's door). I’m sure
there’s a photo of her at high school graduation or a class photo for contrast.
Wait a minute, you tell me.
Doesn’t it matter she was high and drunk? (…friend
of McBride told the court that she and the victim had been playing a drinking game with vodka and smoking marijuana the night of the shooting.)
It only matters if Wafer knew this before he pulled the
trigger. What you find out afterwards
has no bearing of your act of self-defense.
She is portrayed as a 19-year-old girl (not a woman which carries the
notation of responsiblity, but a teenage girl)
who was drunk and high and should have been perceived as harmless. I’m sure that was not lost on the jury.
Ah, what about the Castle doctrine? I’m not a lawyer, but she was on the outside
of a locked door. Wafer isn’t claiming
he saw a weapon. You may not have a duty
to retreat in your castle, but you still have to demonstrate your reasonable belief
that the danger was immediate, present and life-threatening.
 |
| Stockless shotgun held by pregnant prosecutor. Was an expectant mother chosen for jury sympathy? Yes, I am that cynical. |
In my opinion, Wafer harmed himself by using a stockless
shotgun. It screams thug. If it was a normal, three-round duck and
rabbit hunting shotgun it would not be so sinister looking. Remember, court is theater and the jury decides
who has the better song and dance. So
what does your self-protection weapon look like?
He took the stand in his own defense. Some
of his testimony contradicted what he told officers when they arrived at his
house minutes after the shooting.
Wafer metaphorically shoots himself twice in the foot. I
don’t advise not cooperating with the police, but do so with moderation and
circumspect. Point out that you were
forced to defend yourself. Point out any
evidence supporting your claim and then insist on speaking with a lawyer. Stop
talking!
Everything you say to the police, under the burden of stress or fear and emotional upheaval will be used against you. The presence of button video cameras worn by many police officers and the ubiquitous cell phone means your appearance and actions will be studied and used as well.
Everything you say to the police, under the burden of stress or fear and emotional upheaval will be used against you. The presence of button video cameras worn by many police officers and the ubiquitous cell phone means your appearance and actions will be studied and used as well.
That was actually the second time he shot his toes off. The first was not calling the police at the
beginning. He couldn’t find his cell phone,
he claims. Maybe. I lose/misplace mine all the time. But there’s always one in my bedroom every
night. That phone is my and my wife’s
lifeline to the police. At the very
least the call to the police demonstrates you tried to resolve the problem without
violence. Juries like that.
Follow-up:
Mr. Wafer was convicted of the murder of Ms. McBride. The judge, unmoved by his statement, sentenced him to at least 17 years.
Reflect on this grasshopper.
One has to wonder what the outcome would have been if he said nothing to the police other than "I was in fear for my life and I acted to defend myself. I want to speak to a lawyer before I answer any questions."
Of course, think how much better it would have been if he had his cell phone and simple dialed 911.
Comments
Post a Comment