Detroit killer convicted

[Keith&Co.]

Furthermore, I have yet to see a credible explanation of where she was and what she was doing for 3 hours.

It literally doesn't matter .

Maybe it'll make more sense if we view it as a rape trial? Or compare it? In some people's minds they may seem very similar.

We can't really judge if the killer/rapist did anything wrong, by acting on his emotions (fears/lusts), unless we can determine if the bitch/bitch did anything wrong, so that the guy was justified in thinking his actions were the right actions.
Society should give the guy the maximum benefit of the doubt, for ultimately wanting to do right, while minimizing any such benefit of doubt for the bitch/slut unless overwhelming evidence is presented to make her motives, history, policy and goals transparent, airtight and nailed down, preferably with at least five corroborating witnesses. And at least three of the witnesses guys.

 

[Nexus]

Similarly, Wafer's statement after the shooting was, "“I wasn’t gonna cower in my house.”

Cowering ie taking cover and preparing your shot is the tactically smart thing to do.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Like you and me, the killer had no clue about anything except someone was knocking loudly on his door.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Get my shotgun, blast that whore.'

Quoth the shotgun: "Boom!"

 

[Sabine Grant]

And yet, if I accuse you of saying that means she deserved to die you'll act like I'm just making shit up.

Well if you only quote the first sentence of the explanation why the verdict was wrong I must in turn accuse you of quoting me out of context.

The fact is that her extreme drunkenness contributed to her aggressive and violent behavior, and it's her behavior that led to her death.

Once again, making the victim the culprit. Reality check : what led to her death was the "poor man" (your words) grabbing his gun, OPENING the door, aiming at her face specifically and shooting her. She was no threat to his life. Once more, what keeps being reflected in your argumentation is a mentality based on "shoot and kill first then ask questions".

Furthermore, I have yet to see a credible explanation of where she was and what she was doing for 3 hours.

A credible explanation was provided via my reply to you :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1926-Detroit-killer-convicted&p=48873&viewfull=1#post48873

I find it interesting that you dismissed the content of that reply while you have the audacity to speak of "credible explanation" when you had engaged in this concocted scenario of yours regarding her intentions :

By you :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.

Further, you persist in dismissing her intention to ask for help. You have preferred to portray her as a potential robber and having an accomplice with "three hours" being "enough" to "contact one or more of her homies and hatch a robbery plan". Of course all of that being based on pure speculation on your part.

Your wording is also quite interesting from what I quoted above as you referred to "evidence" when mentioning the Judge's dismissal. "Evidence" to support your above speculation on her account while you persist in dismissing her intention of asking for help? Your speculating on her account was meant to dehumanize her as the actual victim, portraying her as an individual who practically deserved to die, somehow asked for it via her erratic behavior detailed several times while she presented no threat to the "poor man" (your words).

If you were quick to excuse his choice to grab his gun, open the door, aim at her head and shoot her based on some type of disorientation due to his being awakened at 4 a.m, you have totally dismissed her being disoriented being the cause of her erratic behavior manifesting itself via the banging on his screen door.

Your lack of even handedness in your reasoning is duly noted.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The guy basically told the jury that he wasn't going to feel threatened or intimidated in his own home even if he had to kill someone to prove it. So he killed someone to prove it and now he's going to jail. The jury gave him what he asked for.

This was an easy decision for any juror with half a brain.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The guy basically told the jury that he wasn't going to feel threatened or intimidated in his own home even if he had to kill someone to prove it. So he killed someone to prove it and now he's going to jail. The jury gave him what he asked for.

This was an easy decision for any juror with half a brain.

As simply as you worded it, it basically comes down to that. Further, the severe implication of claiming self defense at the drop of a hat. And the trigger easy mentality at play. It is quite possible some folks still do not understand this:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/detroit-area-porch-shooter-convicted-murder-24887014

"People have a right to bear their arms and everything else, but you have to do it with reason and responsibility," Simmons said. "Not just murder somebody when it's not justified."

Wafer attempted to justify his choice to open his door, aim at the victim's head and shoot her by claiming it was an act of "self defense". He is fully 100% responsible for making those choices. Was there a justified reason for those choices ? The answer is : non. Again and again and that addressing Derec's attempts to :

1) Dehumanizing the victim by portraying her as "her behavior is what led to her death" and making her the culprit while referring to the party who made those choices as "the poor man".

2) Speculating heavily as to her intentions while she was banging on that door and claiming it as if it were a fact that she was not seeking just help.

3) Ignoring "credible explanations"(his words in quote) given to him (I linked to my post) as to why a 3 hour delay.And a credible explanation also echoed later by Rhea.

4) Dismissing the extremely dangerous mentality of "shooting first then ask questions later" and in a specific circumstance where Wafer made no attempts to even communicate with the party banging on his screen door. And a party who presented no imminent threat of death or bodily harm to Wafer at the time he made those choices.

 

[Toni]

Similarly, Wafer's statement after the shooting was, "“I wasn’t gonna cower in my house.”

Cowering ie taking cover and preparing your shot is the tactically smart thing to do.

I think you are confusing cowering with taking a cover shooting stance:

cow·er
ˈkou(-ə)r/
verb
verb: cower; 3rd person present: cowers; past tense: cowered; past participle: cowered; gerund or present participle: cowering

crouch down in fear.
"children cowered in terror as the shoot-out erupted"
synonyms: cringe, shrink, crouch, recoil, flinch, pull back, draw back, tremble, shake, quake, blench, quail, grovel More

vs

 

[Nexus]

Cowering ie taking cover and preparing your shot is the tactically smart thing to do.

I think you are confusing cowering with taking a cover shooting stance:

cow·er
ˈkou(-ə)r/
verb
verb: cower; 3rd person present: cowers; past tense: cowered; past participle: cowered; gerund or present participle: cowering

crouch down in fear.
"children cowered in terror as the shoot-out erupted"
synonyms: cringe, shrink, crouch, recoil, flinch, pull back, draw back, tremble, shake, quake, blench, quail, grovel More

vs

View attachment 826

I'm not confusing them at all. You can still be crouched down in fear ie cowering and be preparing a crouched shot. In fact everyone that's not a jaded combat vet that's long since stopped worrying about dying will be in extreme fear if they are in a gun fight.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm not confusing them at all. You can still be crouched down in fear ie cowering and be preparing a crouched shot. In fact everyone that's not a jaded combat vet that's long since stopped worrying about dying will be in extreme fear if they are in a gun fight.

Funny thing about gunfights... usually, that word implies that the person you're fighting actually has a gun.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not confusing them at all. You can still be crouched down in fear ie cowering and be preparing a crouched shot. In fact everyone that's not a jaded combat vet that's long since stopped worrying about dying will be in extreme fear if they are in a gun fight.

Funny thing about gunfights... usually, that word implies that the person you're fighting actually has a gun.

A gun fight does require a minimum of two guns.

 

[Nexus]

Haven't you heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." I was simply calling a confrontation with a shooting a "gunfight."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Haven't you heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." I was simply calling a confrontation with a shooting a "gunfight."

That's not a gunfight. That's a shooting.

The reason you don't bring a knife to a gunfight is because you cannot participate in a gunfight using a knife; the guy with the gun simply shoots you.