No I did not. ThinkProgress is a far left blog and thus not very trustworthy. Do you have any more reliable and not as blatantly biased source?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/detroit-area-porch-shooter-convicted-murder-24887014
He first suggested to police that it was an accident but later admitted to intentionally pulling the trigger.
His initial suggestion conveying that his weapon discharged accidentally as he was aiming at her, after making the decision to open his door versus calling 911. Keeping in mind that the allegedly threatening him party was OUTSIDE his home, not inside his home. Meaning there was no tangible threat to his person as he was inside his home.
From his remark "I didn't go out looking for this.", he actually literally went out of his home (and again versus calling 911) and found "this" meaning a young Black female on his patio/porch. He then made the decision to engage his weapon, aimed at her head and shot her. Aiming at her head certainly implies a lethal shot.
Mind you that at no time, did he ask her any questions. At no time did he intend to use his gun as a deterrent rather he used it while aiming at her head with the intent to kill her.
I have no idea how anyone would attempt to justify the above. I find it extremely creepy that anyone would as it reveals once more abidance to "shoot first and ask questions later". And in this case, considering he aimed at her head, the "shooting first" implied a lethal shooting. Meaning the termination of another human being's existence who was not given any chance, any opportunity to explain why she was banging on his door.
Oh of course... Stupid me.... Why would you bother reading the article to get any of the facts when you've already made up your mind on the basis of the genders and race of the involved parties.
No, I actually followed the case. I know about her 0.22% BAC (three hours after the accident and even longer since she stopped drinking which means her peak BAC would have been even much higher).
I know about the three missing hours for which the prosecution offered no explanation.
Actually, after her accident she left the scene of the accident rather than waiting for the ambulance on its way, attempting to go/walk home. Considering the probability of a head trauma added to her being intoxicated, her being disoriented and wandering about while uncovering that she could not contact by phone anyone who would either giver he directions or pick her up to take her home is a totally acceptable explanation for that delay. I noticed that while you deployed great efforts to place yourself in the shoes of the party you designated as "the poor man", you made no efforts to place yourself in her shoes.
I know about the injuries to her hands which came from violently banging against Wafer's screen doors. I know about damage to the screen door from this violent banging. I know about the general shoddiness of the police investigation that alone should have sunk this case in front of any impartial jury.
As if you are an expert in criminal investigations and you have any direct observation and resulting insights as to how the investigating law enforcement personnel conducted their investigation.
It appears that having "injuries to her hands" coming from "violently banging against Wafer's screen door" and the damage to the screen door should have convinced investigators that Wafer was justified in opening his door (versus calling 911), placing HIMSELF in the position to be face to face with the alleged threat and then make the decision to aim at her head and shoot and that without asking any questions. Is that your contention in regard to your remark of the "shoddiness of the police investigation"?
Whatever this was, it was not a case of a frightened young woman who merely wanted to ask for help after an accident as the prosecution and left wing sources claim. For one, there were people at the scene who offered to help her, but she wandered off. Then there is the three hour gap and the fact that she could have walked home in much shorter time - she had no reason to bang on doors of strangers.
Was it a case of an individual seeking to attack and harm people? The answer is : no. There was NO reason for the police to believe or assume for one moment that her intentions were to break in, attack or harm anyone in that neighborhood. If you wish to build a case that it was, please provide evidence that the victim's violent banging on Wafer's screen door was an intent to break in, attack or harm anyone in that neighborhood.
Reality check : Wafer is the party who had NO reason to open his door, load his gun, aim at her head and shoot. And that without asking any questions. Once more "shoot and kill first then ask questions".
Why she decided to go to Wafer's house and bang on his door we will probably never know. But we do know it was not simply to "ask for help". Maybe she wanted to rob him to get money for more drugs/alcohol. Did she have an accomplice as the defense suggested? Three hours would be enough to contact one or more of her homies and hatch a robbery plan. More background on her and her associations would have been helpful but alas the judge disallowed that evidence.
Oh the irony of such wild speculations coming from someone who harps so heavily on proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And of course, the usual tactic of making the victim the culprit while launching in wild and unsupported speculations.
I think it is you who formed your opinion solely on race and gender.
I think, Derec, your history of speculating on the intentions of Black folks (history shaped on FRDB especially in the discussions revolving around the Zimmerman/Martin trial) points to your penchant towards fueling from negative stereotyping targeting Black individuals. As a result, you engaged in the wild and unsupported speculations above intended to portray the victim as a potential criminal who deserved to be terminated by "the poor man".
