The Defense Speaks in the trial for Renisha McBride Porch Killing

You can read the full report from Mlive here: http://www.mlive.com/
For those of you who may not be aware there is a case regarding a Dearborn Heights man who shot a 19 year old woman from Detroit.
Here is a summary of the currently known facts:

  • Renisha McBride had a blood alcohol of between .28 and .29. The legal limit is .8 for those over 21 which she was not. Her legal blood alcohol limit would have been .02
  • She crashed into a parked car at about 12:57am and looks to have sustained a head injury
  • She fled the scene of the accident while trying to be detained by a concerned citizen
  • She had marijuana in her system
  • She was shot at roughly 4:42 the time between the accident and her shooting is unaccounted for currently
  • The medical examiner estimated that Wafer shot McBride in the face from behind a locked screen door less than 3 feet away. (originally this was said to be behind a door not indicating it was a screen door)
  • She was shot with a 12-gauge, pistol-grip Mossberg shotgun with buckshot ammunition

Here is some of the claims being made by the defense:

Cheryl Carpenter, the other attorney defending Wafer (The accused) — the other is her father, Mack Carpenter — says Wafer felt a reasonable threat, that McBride was “violently” slamming the front door, enough to dislodge the screen, and the Michigan Self-Defense Act gives homeowners the right to use deadly force if they fear great bodily harm, death or sexual assault.

While the medical examiner claims she was shot from behind a locked screen door the defendant is claiming she dislodged the door. I am no expert buy my father was a locksmith and I have delt with my fair share of doors. I have no idea how the examiner could determine if the door was locked or not. He certainly could determine it was shut.

However between my time in the hardware store and locksmithing I can assure you all that a screen door offers 0 protection from an attacker. To say that Mr. Wafer was not in fear for his life because of a screen door is preposterous.

However we clearly see a liberal disarming agenda being presented by the prosecution:

“What did he do in this case, he brought a shotgun to the door,” Turfe said. “He could have called for help, he could have run to another part of the house… He chose to shoot rather than not answer the door.

This is comical when you look at this part of the case:

McBride didn’t stay at the crash scene and emergency personnel, police or an ambulance, didn’t arrive until 40 minutes — or later — after the crash.

So police and emergency personnel did not show up for 40 minutes to the crash site but the homeowner should have called for help instead of grabbing his shotgun? If police even had a 5 minute response time I would want to have my shotgun in hand when confronting a person who appeared to attempting to forcibly entering my home as the defense alleges.

At this point this is all the data we know. The trial is set to proceed and enough evidence has been brought forward the court has agreed to proceed with the trial of Mr Wafer. As the situation develops we will keep you up to date on the proceedings. It is a pity that Ms. McBride made so many poor choices that evening. We have all made mistakes in our youth and she paid the highest price for this series of events. However it is my sincere hope that if the facts are as they appear now that Mr Wafer be set free as he was an innocent man who had this thrust upon him.

Please leave your comments and let us know what you think.

Charles is the editor for 248 Shooter a midwest based gun news and gear review site as well as Online Content Director for On Target Magazine. He is an avid student taking classes from top tier trainers around the country. Charles shares his love for training as well as experience and opinions on some of the most talked about gear and products used by competitive shooters, military, leo and civilians.