Should we tolerate shooting through locked doors in self-defense

Friday, August 1, 2014

Good morning:

With the Theodore Wafer trial on hold until Monday at 9:00 am, we return our attention to Oscar Pistorius.

You Magazine is reporting that he sold his house for R4.5 million ($420,000) to pay his escalating legal bills. The buyer is Louwtjie Louwrens, a Boksburg mining consultant who plans to rent it out.

Prosecution and defense have submitted their written closing arguments and Judge Thokozile Masipa has set aside Thursday and Friday next week for their oral summations.

We are fortunate to have the opportunity to witness a conjunction of two media intensive criminal cases that present the same issue:

Whether a person can justifiably kill another person in self-defense when that other person is on the other side of a locked door.

In the Pistorius case, the other person was his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius claims that he mistook her for an intruder after he was awakened by the sound of the bathroom window opening and the door to the toilet cubicle closing.

In the Wafer case, the other person was Renisha McBride, an intoxicated 19-year-old girl who had crashed her car into a parked car about 1 mile from Wafer’s house and walked away from the scene of the accident dazed and bleeding approximately 3 hours earlier. Wafer was awakened by McBride banging on his door. He unlocked and opened his inner front door and fired his shotgun through his locked outer screen door. Wafer first claimed that the gun fired accidentally and later switched to self-defense.

Neither Pistorius nor Wafer said anything to the person on the other side of the door before shooting.

In the Pistorius case, the prosecution claims Pistorius killed Steenkamp in a rage after she locked herself in the toilet cubicle to get away from him during an argument. Then he lied about it to escape responsibility for killing her.

The law of self-defense is similar in both cases. A person may justifiably use deadly force in self-defense, if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

The word “reasonable” in both cases refers to whether a reasonable person in the same situation as the shooter would have believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

In both cases, a locked door separated the victim from the shooter. The situation differs in that the victim in the Pistorius shooting could unlock the door whereas the victim in the Wafer shooting could not.

Both victims were unarmed.

Race is a probable factor in the Wafer case. He is white and she was black. Many people believe, myself included, that he would not have feared imminent death or serious injury, if she had been white.

South Africa does not have jury trials. Judge Thokozile Masipa will decide the case assisted by her two assessors who can overrule her verdict, if they disagree with her conclusion.

The 12-person jury will decide whether Wafer is guilty or not guilty.

Join us in the comments below and let us know whether you believe we should tolerate shooting through locked doors in self-defense.

This is our 1162nd post.

If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation to enable us to keep the lights on.

Thanks,

Fred

58 Responses to Should we tolerate shooting through locked doors in self-defense

  1. Malisha says:

    What I’m thinking about both the Wafer case and the Fogen case is this: When you go for your gun before your cell phone, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, you’re in the WRONG.

    • Dave says:

      Yep. A cell phone right between the eyes will stop them every time.

      • Malisha says:

        When there’s a locked door between you and whoever them is? A cell phone doesn’t need to be between their eyes! A cell phone gets you some help so your gun can be used only if needed. Whereas if you use your gun between the eyes (or at four different places on their body), the cell phone’s pretty useless after that.

        BTW I don’t think we can count on accurate reports of what took place on the other side of those locked doors (Pistorius’ and Wafer’s). I think, rather than Pistorius’ screams of “Get the F out of my house!” and so forth, there might have been screams of, “OMG OSCAR STOP STOP PLEASE NO NO NO!” and/or the like. And perhaps Wafer failed to report screams such as, “PLEASE HELP SOMEBODY HELP ME!” or the like as well. Why would they report that if they didn’t have to? The other witnesses were dead by the time the details were taken down. WhereAS, Samantha Schiebe’s cell phone recorded Fogen breaking her furniture. She had a gun but she didn’t shoot Fogen. (Oh wait a minute…)

  2. Pdeadder says:

    As far as Pistorius is concerned I think it was said in court it is illegal to shoot an intruder even if you see them and you have to prove your life was in danger
    Seems to me it was also established that a warning shot has to be fire
    My friends daughter has a friend from South Africa and says the police can be bought off but it doesn’t seemed to have happened here.
    Also to ask a question what happened to the retired policeman who shot a man in a theatre for texting his young daughter.

  3. MichelleO says:

    I guess I’m just a kind-hearted person from another generation—but had I witnessed a car crash in which the individual was bleeding and dazed; I would have stayed with that person or had them use my cell to call someone. I cannot imagine leaving the individual on their own or allowing them to wander down the street.

  4. MichelleO says:

    My question regarding the aforementioned Wafer case, is did he undergo drug and alcohol toxicology testing? Or was this waived as in the case of Fogan?

    • Dave says:

      I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t done.

    • crustyolemothman says:

      Per the testimony of the lead investigator they did not, they did observe that he did not appear to be under the influence of drink or drugs. The problem with that is this man was known to be a heavy drinker and many individuals like that do not appear intoxicated visually but would not pass a simple BAC test. One more thing that calls that comment by the investigator into question is when he stated he checked the glasses to see if any one else had been there that night.. As for waving the drug and alcohol toxicology, I may be wrong but I don’t think it is a legal requirement in Michigan to require that testing on the accused without a warrant. I was told it would be a 4th amendment issue..
      Just to throw a little curve ball in here, there have been rumors floating around that TW actually waited a little over an hour before he called 911, listen to the 911 call and ask yourself if he sounds intoxicated? To me he does, but again I might be 100% wrong… Could we be seeing an attempted cover up of his actions by the local PD?

  5. crustyolemothman says:

    Professor,

    “My basis for saying “race is a probable factor” in the shooting is that I find it difficult to believe there could have been another reason.”

    While you might well be correct in your assessment, in coming to that conclusion did you use factual verified information or did you base your assumption of the facts based on opinion?

    • MichelleO says:

      While waiting for the professor’s reply; I don’t rule out the good old American thought process of an African American being instantly identified as an “instant boogyman” and automatic threat. I believe that if the victim had been white male or female, Mr. Wafer would not have blown away the victim so casually.

      • crustyolemothman says:

        MichelleO, That is possible, but do we have any tangible evidence that in fact TW had racist viewpoints? Are we making an assumption without any true knowledge to back our theory? The whole point that I have attempted to make in this discussion is that we as a society have fallen into what seems to be two camps, one that sees any incident that involves a racial minority and a white person as a racial situation and the other is the blame the victim for the actions of the person that committed the crime…
        In TW’s case I have searched high and low for any news story that had a rational statement that could be used to “assume” that he committed this murder out of the victims race or gender. I did however find the statement from his ex girl friend that said he was not a racist, but he was however a violent drunk.. That is what I have based my theory on that it did not matter who or what was at the door, they were going to die because they had provoked his (TW’s) wrath for knocking/beating on his door and disturbed his sleep… Is my theory/guess/assumption correct? Perhaps, but only TW and probably his attorneys know that for sure. If you can find one legitimate statement that indicates that he was indeed a racist then perhaps you or someone else can convince me that it was indeed the act of a racist…

  6. New development in the Eric Garner case.

    The LA Times is reporting:

    The death of a 43-year-old New York City man who was placed in a chokehold by police officers has been ruled a homicide by the New York City medical examiner’s office.

    The next step should be to present the case to a grand jury.

  7. crustyolemothman says:

    Read this article, pay attention to what the ex girl friend has to say about him and his problem with drinking and his temper, and also her thoughts as to his being a racist. I’m still looking for the claims that he was a racist, other than some of the more radical non news sites I have yet to find any statements that he was indeed a racist. MKX, I do totally understand your thoughts about the probability of his racist mindset, but while I do suspect he did hold some racist viewpoints, I’m attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507893/Pictured-Theodore-Wafer-54-charged-MURDER-Renisha-McBride.html

    • MKX says:

      I am just giving a background to try to assess a probability. Unless one is in close contact with Wafer, it is hard to call him a racist. Besides, the media and news propaganda we are bombarded with puts racial assumptions in all of us to some degree.

      You might be on to it.

      Having worked in a liquor store, I have seen how surly drinkers can have a hair trigger temper.

      My little race diatribe might be more applicable to why he might be let go by a jury.

      There are a significant number of suburban white who hate blacks and will do anything to absolve a white who kills one.

      And to be fair, it works the other way, sometimes.

      Metro Detroit is not a great place for race relations.

      So those who are cool have to tread wisely, when visiting.

      • crustyolemothman says:

        MKX, your input as to the racial climate in that area has been extremely helpful in trying to understand the mindset of the population (both white and black) and gives us a better opportunity to assess what might have happened on that night. I’m glad you took the time to read this article and actually paid attention to the word of his ex girl friend… Those candid words are what caused me to form my “opinion” as to why TW acted as he did that night. There is absolutely no way to know (unless revealed by TW) if he had consumed large amount of alcohol and or other substances on that night, but with an established history of such, it would be ease to guess that he had. How many of us have had folks we were around that were wonderful people until they started to drink? I would suspect that due to her comments about his drinking that TW was what could be simply called a “mean drunk” and as she stated he became violent when he was drinking… We have all the necessary ingredients to set him off on a murderous rage, we have drink (Gurka mentioned checking to see how many glasses had be used to drink out of…) we have a man waken from his sleep, we have a shotgun, and we have a victim for him to vent his rage upon… Is it possible that as some rumors have stated that it was over an hour after the murder before TW called 911? I would be quite interested in seeing his phone records for that morning, did he call anyone before calling 911? Depending on what he normally drank, and how much tolerance his body had built up to the drink, it is possible that he actually was quite legally drunk at the time the shooting too place. Did the PD actually cover up for him knowing he had been drinking and because he was white cut him some slack? These are important questions that will never be answered unless TW breaks down and tells the world what really happened on that rainy morning when a young woman lost her life and a 56 year old man destroyed his….

      • Dave says:

        Put two surly drinkers together and very bad things can happen. We don’t know how much Wafer had had to drink but we do know a lot about Ms McBride’s state.

        Combine all the booze and reefer she consumed with the events of the day:

        Stood up by a couple of young guys.

        Bitter argument over a stupid game with her best friend.

        Argument with her mother.

        Car crash.

        Torn up boots.

        Cold.

        Wet.

        Footsore.

        Lost(?)

        Suddenly she comes face to face with a man whom she’s awoken from a sound and possibly alcohol-enhanced sleep….

        • crustyolemothman says:

          Dave, In all due respect, I actually don’t think the actions of Mz. McBride were the root cause of this incident. Her being on TW’s porch was simply the catalyst for the act that he committed. The person on the porch did not matter to TW, nor did it matter why they were there, all that mattered to him was that they were there… It could have been you or I or any number of other people and the end result would have been the same or very similar. To put blame on the victim is the current trend, and perhaps because of her actions earlier that night she did end up on his porch, but they were not the cause of her death, TW and his shotgun were the direct cause of her death. To assign blame to the victim in this case seems to be the popular way to some how defend the actions of TW and mitigate his responsibility for his actions. Perhaps to satisfy some people we should next have a trial for Mz. McBride to farther punish her for her poor choices of that night? TW is the person that had control of the situation that night, he is the one that made the choice to murder another individual, to insinuate that the victim chose to die because of her prior actions is absolutely absurd and IMO is unfairly being used to justify the actions of the actual person responsible for this criminal act…

          • Dave says:

            I think that there’s plenty of blame to go around here. Ms McBride created a dangerous situation and Wafer responded to it badly. The direct cause of Ms McBride’s death, though, was Wafer’s act of pulling the trigger. If he can give a convincing explanation of why he opened the door and why he suddenly believed he was in imminent danger of death he might walk. Otherwise he’ll be convicted–possibly of murder, more likely of manslaughter.

            I’m not trying to justify Wafer’s actions. I’m trying to understand them.

          • I disagree with your statement that McBride created a dangerous situation.

            She had a right to be where she was and she did not violate any law by knocking on Wafer’s door. The front door of a residence is a public place where the public can seek access to a residence from the street via the driveway and sidewalk without trespassing.

            A homeowner can admit or deny entry to the home. He can order the visitor to leave, but he cannot shoot and kill the visitor unless the visitor attacks and causes him to reasonably fear imminent death or serious injury.

          • crustyolemothman says:

            Dave, I won’t belabor the issue, but quite honestly I will suggest had you been driving down that street that morning and had a flat tire, walked up to his door and knocked, you my friend would not be here to have this discussion. Would you then have been responsible for your own death because you were negligent in the maintenance of your auto/tires? My point being simply that the only thing Mz. McBride did that actually caused her death was being on TW’s porch. There is no valid argument that could be made otherwise. How she came about being on the porch is not relevant to her murder, any more than the scenario I described above that made you the victim. I’m not sure TW knew who was on the porch before he shot, or even if he cared, all he knew was that someone or something was on his porch and it was going to die… and I might add, he did not know what race/sexual preference/gender or age of the individual on the porch before he pulled the trigger on that cold rainy morning..

          • Dave says:

            Legal or not, pounding on a stranger’s door at 4:30AM is an act that is certain to alarm the occupant and likely to cause him to pick up a gun. That is a very dangerous situation–an agitated half asleep armed person facing a possibly hostile stranger on his doorstep.

            This is a situation that I would never create and I would question the sanity of anybody who would.

            In the scenario postulated by Crusty, I would either change the tire, start walking, or wait until morning to knock on a door.

          • The stranger knocking on a door at 4:30 am probably needs emergency assistance. The homeowner who answers the door with gun in hand and shoots the stranger to death should expect to be charged with murder.

            Unless the stranger attacks the homeowner causing him to reasonably fear imminent death or serious injury, the homeowner has no right to use deadly force in self-defense.

  8. Dave says:

    Crusty, i agree with you about people being too quick to label Wafer as a racist and assigning a racial motive to his actions with no evidence to back it up. I disagree in attributing his actions mainly to anger. I think Wafer was driven mostly by fear, generated partly by Ms McBride’s actions and perhaps even more by the climate of fear created by the American news and entertainment media. If Ms. McBride had parked her car alongside Wafer’s house, rolled down the windows and cranked up the volume on some of her favorite rap music at 4:30 AM, Wafer probably would have been angry. He might have cussed her out, he might have called the cops, but I don’t believe that he would have shot her.

    • MKX says:

      I totally agree about the media and news pushing a climate of fear.

      I have decided to mostly avoid the TV news and just get to know my local community.

    • roderick2012 says:

      “I disagree in attributing his actions mainly to anger.”
      So you wouldn’t be angry that someone was knocking on your door at 4:30 am?

      When he sees that she’s black and that makes Wafer angrier.

      “I think Wafer was driven mostly by fear, generated partly by Ms McBride’s actions and perhaps even more by the climate of fear created by the American news and entertainment media.

      If he had been in fear how do you explain his lie about not knowing that he gun was loaded?

      Who approaches a potential home invader(s) with an unloaded gun?

      This is just like Piglet’s lie that he didn’t know he had his gun until after he saw Trayon looking at it although he left his truck to follow a ‘suspicious’ person.

      • Dave says:

        I don’t doubt at all that he was angry. Having been in similar situations a couple of times I know I was, but when some asshole comes beating on my door hours after the bars have closed and bellowing and demanding that that I open up I assure you that fear takes precedence over anger.

        What Wafer said was something like “I didn’t know there was a round there.” In my opinion he meant that he didn’t realize that there was a round in the chamber. Maybe there was a round there when he picked it up and maybe he chambered one and forgot about it in his excitement. And maybe it was a clumsy lie.

        • roderick2012 says:

          What Wafer said was something like “I didn’t know there was a round there.” In my opinion he meant that he didn’t realize that there was a round in the chamber. Maybe there was a round there when he picked it up and maybe he chambered one and forgot about it in his excitement. And maybe it was a clumsy lie.

          Nice way to attempt explain away Wafer’s inconsistancy.

          The problem you have is why would anyone who was more AFRAID than ANGRY go toward the source of the noise (danger) instead of staying put and calling the police?

          The fact that he shot through a locked door proves that he knew what he was doing and he wasn’t in any danger–he was just ANGRY!

          • Dave says:

            I don’t have a problem but Wafer sure ooes. I think we’ll hear Wafer’s explanation early next week.

          • roderick2012 says:

            If Wafer’s attorney allows him to take the stand he should be fired.

            Wafer will get the benefit of the doubt and the jury will vote to acquit him, but if he testifies and State is able to entrap him in his own contradictory statements then his chance for acquittal is lessened.

            He won’t convicted either way.

          • MichelleO says:

            I believe like you, that he will not be convicted.

          • Dave says:

            Manslaughter an dFelony Firearm.

          • roderick2012 says:

            Probation?

    • Sc0rp says:

      He opened his door and shot someone in the face with a shotgun. Sorry but if someone has fear, they aren’t opening the door at all.

  9. crustyolemothman says:

    Professor,

    “Race is a probable factor in the Wafer case. He is white and she was black. Many people believe, myself included, that he would not have feared imminent death or serious injury, if she had been white.”

    While some have made that statement to various degrees of certainty, I question the factual validity of it. Have we heard or seen anything that would assign truth to the statement, or is it an assumption that we have made that fits into our own world view? I can’t say with on any factual basis that TW is or is not a racist, unless you want to automatically assign his “white privilege” based solely upon the color of his skin, if we do that does that not make us racist in an around the fashion way? IMO, TW did not kill Ms. McBride due to her race, it was secondary, it could have been a white, black, green or yellow, man or woman or child at that door, they had to (in TW’s mind) die because they dared to violate the sanctity of his castle by waking him from his sleep with loud noises…
    If you or anyone else here can give some factual proof that TW was indeed a racist, I will happily concede that I am wrong on that part of this case…

    • racerrodig says:

      I understand what you’re saying but as I recall I read that he has made statements in the past that pretty much show he is. The same as in Duhhnn’s case, same FogenPhoole. He may not have said anything after this murder but neighbors have said he made comments about how blacks have ruined his neighborhood.

    • MKX says:

      That’s a hard question to answer about an individual who we have no interaction with on a frequent basis.

      He is the same age (55) as I, and if he grew up in Metro D, as I did, it would have been very hard to avoid the constant racial garbage that friends, the media, and even family fill you with from the time you were born.

      I will give you one anecdote from my youth.

      When Martin Luther King was murdered, by home room teacher praised James Earl Ray because he got rid of the communist race mixing promoting rabble rouser.

      I was the only child to tell she ought to be ashamed of herself for praising the killing of a man who promoted what is right, decent and just.

      And school, in those days, was a constant barrage of N jokes. Which I found odd because why would people be so fixated on those who they never interact with.

      In fact, I coined a term for a disease I felt many white Detroit people had – blackophobia.

      48219, in those days of the 1960s, was a bastion of Wallace Democrats. Hell, the stars and bars flew proudly on Pickford and Kentfield for decades.

      Dearborn and Dearborn Heights (where Wafer resides) were known to use the PD to keep black folk out well into the 1970s.

      The most famous person to attend my grade school was that asshole coward Ted Nugent.

      These people all fled to the suburbs when it became apparent that black people would gain power in Detroit. And where did they go?

      Suburbs.

      And I doubt their “conceptions” about black people were changed because it is only when you deal with a person of color on a daily basis as a friend, neighbor or lover do you really get to know them. All too many suburban whites in the Detroit area talk about blacks like they are some sort of abstract object. And it far easier to shoot a thing than a human.

      Before he died, I thanked my father for staying in Detroit because it allowed me to slowly shed all that garbage those “good people” put in my mind. My father was about the only man I knew, including myself, completely devoid of racial baggage. He used to tell me that you had to train your mind. But he had will power that was in the 99th percentile.

      Does all this prove anything about Wafer?

      No.

      But he will use stereotypes about blacks to make his case. And that is racism.

      Metro Detroit has a very sorry racial history.

      I am presently reading The Origins Of The Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit by Thomas Sugrue.

      And that is a good start for anyone who wants to know the real history of Detroit.

      Another data point that may or may not apply.

      The “bad: area of Detroit that is close to Wafer is called Warrendale. It was the last majority white neighborhood in the city because there was a rule that PD, FD and City workers had to reside in the city. In the early 2000s, that rule was lifted and those whites largely moved away. So Dearborn Heights lost its buffer.

      Is Wafer one of those whites her fears the “invasion”, I have no idea.

      All I can tell you is that there are a lot of them.

    • My basis for saying “race is a probable factor” in the shooting is that I find it difficult to believe there could have been another reason.

      In other words, I do not believe he was in any actual danger because he was inside his house with the doors locked, a loaded gun, and a cell phone.

      Since he did not know her, he had no reason to shoot her and he did not have to shoot her to prevent her from killing him.

      Nevertheless, he killed her.

      That is why I said “race is a probable factor.”

      • ay2z says:

        Why shoot her face with that particular style of firearm that is a pistol handle, not put to your shoulder and aim? Why not just react (accident) or in self-defense with the gun naturally more level? No need for the face to be targeted for a shotgun to be effective at blocking an attack.

        • ay2z says:

          (he had to have seen her face, looked into her face)

        • Dave says:

          Oddly, the fact that she was hit in the face suggests to me that Wafer reflexively jerked the trigger in response to something. If he was deliberately aiming I would have expected him to point at the center of Ms Mcbride’s torso with the barrel level.

      • racerrodig says:

        In my opinion, and it’s just that, I think he had a “I’ll show them” attitude upon seeing a black person. You have it nailed. HE was not in danger at all.

        He could have yelled for her to go away, I’ve called the police AND I have a shotgun.

    • Malisha says:

      I think if Wafer was not a racist and if all the other facts remained the same except that McBride was white, and he HAD shot her in the face, by the time the police arrived he would have been in a state of horrible anxiety and torment and tearing out his own hair about having killed someone he then found out was unarmed and young. Just sayin…

      The “He was crying and wailing” defense of Pistorius would have been 100 X greater for this guy.

      • MKX says:

        Exactly.

        Shooting a human cause weeping and wailing and shooting a thing causes concern that you may have to go to jail over it because those pesky people who see that thing as human might get mad about it.

      • racerrodig says:

        I agree 100 %…or more.

  10. MKX says:

    One more fact to be considered is that neither Wafer or Pistorius were helpless in that they had a loaded gun ready to fire.

    A fear has to be real and reasonable.

    A guy behind a locked door with a loaded gun is now safe from most lethal threats unless their is evidence to the effect that they knew those on the other side had equal lethal power.

    IMO. pounding on a door or noise are not reasonable evidence of a threat that can overcome a gun you have ready to fire.

  11. racerrodig says:

    I agree with Dave. This is a fairly unclear place by using the simple term “locked door” In Pistorius case I agree fully. His lies notwithstanding, he had no way of knowing if the alleged intruder was on the way in or out, nor who it was.

    In Wafer’s case if McBride was white I’d bet the farm we’d never have heard about it because he probably would have said “…..oh shit, are you alright? Let me call the police and get an ambulance”

  12. Dave says:

    To answer your question,,,,It depends.

    In most cases I would say “No”. There could be exceptions though. I would ask these questions:

    How secure is the door?

    Is the person outside a credible threat?

    Is he armed?

    Is he shooting into the house?

    Has he made a credible threat by word or gesture to kill or otherwise injure the occupants of the house?

    Is he attempting to break in?

    You have to consider the total situation. It comes down to the basic principle of self defense. You are justified in using deadly force only when it is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or sexual assault.

    • bettykath says:

      Dave, Good questions, but as long as the door is closed and locked, I don’t see imminent danger.

      There are other options, the first being a call to 911.

      Secondly, while waiting for a response to the 911 call, the addition of furniture or whatever to the door to further slow a possible intruder. Turn the lights off. It’s your house and you know your way around, a stranger would not and if you move your furniture to barricade the door, even someone you know would have trouble navigating the scene) and positioning oneself so that if there is actual intrusion, more direct action can be taken. Empty a box of kids toys just inside the door. Legos, balls, skate board are bound to slow any intruder. And don’t forget other doors. You might even consider leaving by another door and going to a neighbor’s house. Before you decide to prepare yourself with a gun, you might also consider a high powered flashlight to blind an intruder or a contraption that makes a very loud noise to add to the intruder’s confusion. If the intruder is so enraged to continue, now is the time to shoot. btw, the door is no longer between you and the intruder.

      Think about what you would need to be prepared for an intruder, much like you should have a fire escape plan in which everyone knows the shortest distance and all options on how to get out of every room in the house and where to meet up once outside.

    • I agree that the appropriate test is to look at the totality of the circumstances.

      One circumstance that would generally warrant shooting through a locked door in self-defense would be a battered wife locked in a small space like a toilet cubicle with a battering spouse beating down the door and threatening to kill her.

      I don’t think she should have to wait to shoot until he’s on top of her.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Dave: You have to consider the total situation. It comes down to the basic principle of self defense. You are justified in using deadly force only when it is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or sexual assault.

      Except that Wafer went toward the supposed danger just like Zimmerman.

      If you’re afraid then why not call 911 and keep the locked door closed?

      Not go toward the source of danger and expose yourself to possible injury.

      Wafer can’t have it both ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: