It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 727 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:16 pm
Posts: 1158
You may have a valid point about how outside vs. inside. from a legal standpoint, Chip, but if you can show that you feared for your life I would think that it would be considered self defense. Maybe manslaughter as you said but how they got murder 2 really got me. There are so many tricks to gaining entry into a house and one of them is getting some girl to come crying at your door so when you open it others rush in and overpower you. And maybe he saw her as someone big and powerful and all that ruckus would be very scary. Too bad Law enforcement didn't do something with the screen door from day one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: m
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:59 pm
Posts: 52
chipbennett wrote:
Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't understand the problem?

A jury convicted him of second-degree murder, and manslaughter. The sentence seems appropriate for second-degree murder.

Now, if the issue is whether the second-degree murder *conviction* will stand up on appeal? That's anyone's guess. But if the jury rejected the self-defense claim, then at a minimum, manslaughter by act is an appropriate conviction. And from the little I know about the case, the facts don't seem to support a self-defense claim.

What am I missing?


For me, the problem was the absence of due process...

The police didn't even bother to secure the scene or begin investigating until 9 days after the fact, when it should have been done that night. The process of securing the scene should have been started by the first responding officer on the scene. They also altered the scene: put the screen back in the door, walked through blood spatter evidence, gave items/money found on Renisha to her family rather than preserving it as evidence, etc, etc, etc.

We have an exclusionary rule that bars evidence if it is collected improperly, and this case demonstrates that there needs to be a counterpart rule on the opposite end of the spectrum that addresses the lack of sufficient evidence due to the fact that the police didn't bother to collect any.

All of the facts that could have been known to the jury to help them in their decision weren't known to the jury specifically because of the police department's not following proper procedure. To make matters worse, the officer who did eventually process the scene had only a week's worth of classroom instruction from years prior.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:40 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44012
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Appeal is underway.. see docket thread

WAFER / McBRIDE DOCKET (No Discussion)
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=1244&p=82845#p82845

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
__________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:59 pm
Posts: 52
I just got around to reading the family's lawsuit against Wafer... ugh.

Their lawyer used a 'lawsuit in a jiffy' template and didn't even bother to customize it to remove the unnecessary language that would only apply had she lived... they're seeking damages for, among other things, "Sustained possible aggravation of preexisting conditions and/or reactivation of dormant conditions."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:29 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44012
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Hi Nivco
Is there a copy online.. if its already here I missed it..

I hope the criminal case is appealed

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
__________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:59 pm
Posts: 52
Here's the family's lawsuit against Wafer

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/re ... thsuit.pdf

I particularly love this claim:

"That at all times material herein, Plaintiff's decedent was not at fault and/or was not negligent."

Urhm, she was 3 blunts and 3 sheets to the wind, wrecked her car, and was trying to break into a stranger's house in the middle of the night...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:04 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44012
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
It seems to me, that despite the result in the criminal trial, WAFER has good grounds to sue the decedent and her family.

There was probably little point with them having no money, but worth a crack now as a counter suit. And there is likely BGI scheme money of some sort around funding the family suit.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
__________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 727 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group