Dearborn Heights, MI, Man Convicted of Killing

I don't understand how he got convicted of Second Degree Murder AND Involuntary Manslaughter.

It's clear to me that using a gun wasn't justified in this particular case. Shooting through a closed door without knowing what's in the other side violates a basic rule of self-defense, proper identification of the attacker. That said, being convicted on second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter will probably clear the path for a successful appeal.

I'd say Second Degree Murder fits pretty well. He did not plan to kill this person, but in the spur of the moment he did shoot her on purpose. Self-defense is right out as he didn't even identify his target. I'm not sure how both convictions at the same time work, but I can see either fitting. Either he intended to kill her, or he intended to shoot and the killing was a forseeable byproduct of that intended action. Either can be true. But I would say that if you criminally fire a gun at another person, it should be ok for the law to assume you intended to kill them, hence murder.

Kleanbore, could you elaborate on your "fourth" point? I think I know what I would have done differently but I'd like your opinion.

Excellent video. Thanks.

In MI you are not allowed to protect any property outside your house.
If the typical kid is stealing your car or stealing from your yard or garage in MI all you can do is watch him & call the cops---if you go out with a gun & someone is killed you are guilty of murder.
If they try to steal your car with you in the car you may use deadly force.
If they break into your house you may use deadly force.
If you are attacked on the street in any area that you are allowed to be you may protect yourself with deadly force. We have castle law.
you can try to run out & stop someone from stealing your car---but if you harm them you may find yourself in serious trouble or they may shoot you.
BTY--YOU MAY NOT SHOOT PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR IF THEY ARE OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE.

The fourth, but by far the most important, obvious thing to do is to not go to the door with a gun in the first place.

Click to expand...

Kleanbore, I'm wondering if your fourth point should read: "Do not go to the door at all"

Many here routinely carry at home, a practice that is not frowned upon by the majority. I'm sure you're not suggesting that it's okay to approach the door, but only after first disarming, so my impression of your thoughts is that you would not approach the door at all.

The most complete coverage I've found on this case is at www.legalinsurrection.com. Here's a couple of links to some of their coverage:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/0...r-trial-closing-arguments-jury-deliberations/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/homeowner-takes-the-stand-in-detroit-front-porch-murder-trial/

There are other articles on the site, but these will give you an idea some of the circumstances.

Might I repeat Kleanbore's suggestion that we all watch the Massad Ayoob video, "Don't Answer the Door," and additionally suggest that a number of other Ayoob videos are available on YouTube http://goo.gl/fjMnBy?

Did you see in the article where he said he didn't know the gun was loaded?

So was that a ND? Did he mean to blast her?

They brought the screen door into court on the video I seen and I believe that was his downfall.

Personally, I would have took a defensive position inside my home and told me wife to call 911. Hopefully my dog would have also made her think twice.

I just look through my front window and wave them off or don't answer the door and walk away if they look unsavory. The 75 pound German shepherd that meets me at the door usually discourages people from pursuing my attention further.

I'd say the defendant got rightfully convicted.

It's clear to me that using a gun wasn't justified in this particular case. Shooting through a closed door without knowing what's in the other side violates a basic rule of self-defense, proper identification of the attacker.

Click to expand...

According to the facts, that's not what happened. He opened the door to determine what was going on. Dumb but well within his rights. The screen door (read - nothing) separated him from her. She charged him, so he shot her.

I don't understand how he got convicted of Second Degree Murder AND Involuntary Manslaughter.

Click to expand...

I'm not a MI attorney, but it explains it right in the article (assuming it is true):

Wafer was charged with second-degree murder, but jurors were able to consider the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. He was also charged with manslaughter.

Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, said that with the charge of statutory manslaughter, a firearm has to have been used — an element not included under the charge of second-degree murder. Because of this, they are separate crimes, she said.

She also said involuntary manslaughter does not include the firearm element.

Click to expand...

More detailed article here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/renisha-mcbride-trial-jury-home-verdict-article-1.1894392

I believe the jury reached the wrong result. The cold facts were that homeowner was asleep early morning IN HIS HOME, IN DETROIT. Detroit is notorious for 1) violent crime, 2) home invasions, and 3) 1-hour police response.

"He armed himself. He was getting attacked," defense attorney Cheryl Carpenter said in her closing argument. "Put yourselves in his shoes at 4:30 in the morning."

Click to expand...

He awakens to pounding at two doors, front and side doors. We all know our first reaction would be to arm ourselves and THEN get the phone. He couldn't find his phone - which is plausible. His real mistake was opening the door. I think that defeats his theory of feeling threatened. As I understand it, he opened the wood door, and saw a high/drunk hysterical woman. A screen door separated them, which is effectively nothing. But he could have 'retreated' behind the wood door - not a requirement under the law as far as I know. Not sure what happened, but apparently she rushed him and he felt the need to point the gun at her and shoot her.

Wafer, 55, said he shot McBride in self-defense. He said he awoke to an "unbelievable" pounding on his doors and feared for his life when he fired through a screen door as someone rushed from the side of the porch.
He shot McBride in the face, killing her.

Click to expand...

I found his testimony that he didn't know the gun was loaded to be incredulous, however. So that part doesn't make sense. He also broke down and basically admitted he took her life - conceding guilt for his actions. Not helpful at trial. If you are 'sorry' for your actions you're asking the jury to convict. If he had truthfully testified that he regrets HER actions for putting him in fear for his life or safety, which forced him to defend himself, he may very well have been acquitted.

I found this statement by a family member absurd:

“If your life isn’t in danger, I don’t think that you need a gun,” she said. “I have a gun. God is my gun. I don’t need a weapon.”

Click to expand...

It's noteworthy that she presumably 1) fled the scene from a 2) drunk driving and high on marijuana hit and run, and 3) was still drunk/high when she was killed. We aren't dealing with Mother Teresa here. And we also don't know WHY she was banging on this guys door. Maybe she had nefarious intent... who knows.

On balance, I cannot see convicting this homeowner. He didn't go looking for this. He/his home were descended upon by a high/intoxicated person, in Detroit, at 4:30am, when he was awoken from sleep to loud attempted entry into his home. Young women can kill people. She could have been a ruse and part of a home invasion team high on crack cocaine. A screen door, even a front door, offer no real protection from entry. The idea that calling the police would have done much is silly, given their lengthy response times in that area. I suppose they could have advised him what to do, calm down, tell the person that police are coming... but that's really armchair quarterbacking.

We all know that cops are there to save us...

What if he called 911 and in the hour it takes police to respond he was killed in a home invasion? Plenty of examples of this:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/25769368/man-calls-for-help-during-home-invasion-gets-voicemail
911 call ineffective

http://www.cbs46.com/story/24835231/woman-cant-get-through-to-911-during-home-invasion
911 calls x 3 are ineffective

http://www.wcvb.com/news/Phone-dies-while-man-calls-911-during-home-invasion/26426446#!bANvvq
phone dies while homeowner calling 911

While he *could* have handled the situation better, convicting him was the wrong decision in my view.

The takeaway from this: Homeowner could have benefited from some good home/self defense training. I'm not the first to say it, but it bears repeating. 1) Take a defensive position with your firearm and phone 2) KNOW whether your gun is loaded, 3) call the police, and consider leaving the phone on to record all of the actions and make sure you are loudly and clearly yelling polite warnings to go away and the police have been called (as long as you are defending, and not yelling racial slurs or seeking bloodlust, this will help exonerate you as a scared defensive homeowner.

He shouldn't have been convicted. I hope he can afford to appeal. He did violate pert near everything Mass teaches on YouTube.

leadcounsel said:

I'm not a MI attorney, but it explains it right in the article (assuming it is true):


Quote:
Wafer was charged with second-degree murder, but jurors were able to consider the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. He was also charged with manslaughter.

Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, said that with the charge of statutory manslaughter, a firearm has to have been used — an element not included under the charge of second-degree murder. Because of this, they are separate crimes, she said.

She also said involuntary manslaughter does not include the firearm element.

I understood what the article said. I don't agree that it should be possible for someone to be charged/convicted that way. Then again we're talking law, not necessarilly what's right.

I believe the jury reached the wrong result. The cold facts were that homeowner was asleep early morning IN HIS HOME, IN DETROIT. Detroit is notorious for 1) violent crime, 2) home invasions, and 3) 1-hour police response.

Click to expand...

The shooting occured where the man lived in Dearborn Heights, MI just like it's stated in the OP title.

I'm from Michigan, and am intimately familiar with where Dearborn Heights is... it's a hole of a city, minutes from downtown Detroit. It's 10 miles straight-line from Downtown Detroit. Dearborn Heights is referred to as "Detroit" just like other suburbs are referred to as their urban sprawl mother cities.

As most here know, Detroit is among the most dangerous and crime decayed cities in the nation. Dearborn Heights is among the worst suburbs of Detroit, boasting between 250-320 serious felonies (murders, rapes, robberies, burglaries, arson, etc.) annually. http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Dearborn-Heights-Michigan.html

Average home price in Dearborn Heights is $80,000. A lot can be presumed from that - including the exterior door was low quality and not hardened. A wood door, as we all know, and windows, offer nearly zero "protection" from a home invader. While to us "trained" people who think about this stuff regularly, opening the door may seem illogical. However, plenty of folks on THR have opened the door under suspect situations. It would take the average adult 1-3 kicks to kick in a presumably poorly made/installed front door in such a home.

So, it's a misnomer that he was much more secure with, or without, the front door open or shut. That fact is purely optics and highly prejudicial.

That, of course, was only because he had opened the door believing there was a dangerous person outside.

Click to expand...

A homeowner has the right to open his door to go outside, inspect, etc. That doesn't remove his right of self defense. He can be in his front yard and immediately formulate the fear necessary to defend himself. Merely placing something trivial between him and an aggressor does not remove his right to self defense. Say this home owner heard something in his backyard, and went outside with his shotgun to look around. And someone lunged at him through the bushes, but a lawn chair was between them. He has a right to be there, and he can still form a reasonable fear of imminent serious harm and react with deadly force, if he felt justified in doing so.

And yes, living in Detroit (high crime, high rate of home invasions, robberies, etc.) does factor into the subjective reasonable person analysis, different from say Beverly Hills where violent crime is likely much lower.

Not defending his actions, and it was far from textbook home defense. But factor he may not be the most educated in home defense, nor a veteran, nor having training, etc. Also factor the 4am wake-up call from pounding on two doors to his home...

Doors, vertical coffins....

In my metro area, a state trooper was recently cleared by the agency & the state atty's office for shooting at a fleeing subject into a closed door(occupied residence).
A young man was eluding law enforcement after a DWI stop. He drove into his parents driveway, got out & rushed inside the house. The state trooper fired his sidearm at the subject as he was in the doorway.

Doors can be tricky, , yes you(the armed citizen or officer) must be aware of your target & what's behind it but you must also be aware of the tactical disadvantages doors & doorways represent.
Many SWAT/SRT members & tier one military units call door frames; vertical coffins for a good reason.

As a general rule, doing security work, I refuse to speak to people thru doors or not have the door(s) fully open. I'm not going to be shot thru a door or have a door slam shut on me by a unknown attacker.

I think this home owner should have called 911/law enforcement then let the dispatcher-call center hear the intoxicated subject(woman) with the phone's speaker function if possible. Her pounding on the door & deranged screams-yelling can help explain the armed citizen(defendant)'s actions.

If I were a home owner or business owner in such a rough place, Id install CCTVs, alarms, reinforced doors/frames(like sold by www.Browning.com ). The young mom who fired on the robbers with a Hi-Point rifle in metro Detroit MI had a CCTV system. That gave cops, the media & prosecutors a clearer view of the events.

I think this home owner should have called 911/law enforcement then let the dispatcher-call center hear the intoxicated subject(woman) with the phone's speaker function if possible. Her pounding on the door & deranged screams-yelling can help explain the armed citizen(defendant)'s actions.

Click to expand...

I believe his testimony, having been awoken from a deep sleep at 4:30am to loud pounding on front and side doors, was that he could not locate his phone and he grabbed his shotty.

If I were a home owner or business owner in such a rough place, Id install CCTVs, alarms, reinforced doors/frames(like sold by www.Browning.com ). The young mom who fired on the robbers with a Hi-Point rifle in metro Detroit MI had a CCTV system. That gave cops, the media & prosecutors a clearer view of the events.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that it's a poor area. That's a great idea if you have the financial means. Most in Dearborn Heights don't have the money or the smarts/forsight, nor do they lurk on websites like THR for tactical advice on how to harden their home. They should though!

In my metro area, a state trooper was recently cleared by the agency & the state atty's office for shooting at a fleeing subject into a closed door(occupied residence).
A young man was eluding law enforcement after a DWI stop. He drove into his parents driveway, got out & rushed inside the house. The state trooper fired his sidearm at the subject as he was in the doorway.

Doors can be tricky, , yes you(the armed citizen or officer) must be aware of your target & what's behind it but you must also be aware of the tactical disadvantages doors & doorways represent.
Many SWAT/SRT members & tier one military units call door frames; vertical coffins for a good reason.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Doors and walls present concealment only against guns, and perhaps only stall a motivated aggressor.

The defense team put up a screen door in the courtroom - I wonder how they used it. I wonder if they showed how easy it would be to rip it open, or the defense team should have put up a mock front door in the courtroom... or better yet, taken the Jury to the scene, and showed how easy it would be to tear the door open and kick it in.