- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,365
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
And you are still wrong.continuing to make this claim with ZERO facts to support it doesnt make it true, there has been nothing posted that proves this statement to be true, there are things posted that prove the statement factually 100% wrong though
Still providing false information.yes her exact words from here statement are as follows
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy "evidence showed McBride, of Detroit, knocked on the locked screen door of Wafer’s home and that there was no evidence of forced entry."
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy "evidence showed McBride, of Detroit, knocked on the locked screen door of Wafer’s home and that there was no evidence of forced entry."
FFS stop repeating that you have already proven the other guy wrong and re-prove it.
You can't both be wrong, so one of you will be proven wrong by that action.
And it will save the rest of us from this pointless back-and-forth.
And you are still wrong.
Still providing false information.
That is nothing more than a reporters words. Not hers.
So again.
So, as established and proven, these are the Prosecutors words ...
(Actual words stated in the Press Conference.)"It's alleged she was shot to death by the home owner after she knocked on his locked front screen door."
Not what is falsely quoted in the following.
(A reporters interpretation of the above statement as reported coming from the Press Conference.)
And was shown to be false.already done, no interest in recapping the whole thread, links, quotes and facts already prove what here statement says. Nothing else to prove, what more can be done.
The fact that the information you have provided is false, is on-topic, so stop baiting with this bs.please STAY ON TOPIC, am i not the topic and post any evidence factually proving her words are lies, come from the family or are not hers and they come from a reporter.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy "evidence showed McBride, of Detroit, knocked on the locked screen door of Wafer’s home and that there was no evidence of forced entry."
The fact that the information you have provided is false, is on-topic, so stop baiting with this bs.
So, as established and proven, these are the Prosecutors words ...
(Actual words stated in the Press Conference.)"It's alleged she was shot to death by the home owner after she knocked on his locked front screen door."
Not what is falsely quoted in the following.
(A reporters interpretation of the above statement as reported coming from the Press Conference.)
FFS stop repeating that you have already proven the other guy wrong and re-prove it.
You can't both be wrong, so one of you will be proven wrong by that action.
And it will save the rest of us from this pointless back-and-forth.
It has already been done. You still haven't backed up what you assert.please STAY ON TOPIC, am i not the topic and post any evidence factually proving her words are lies, come from the family or are not hers and they come from a reporter interpretation.
please STAY ON TOPIC, am i not the topic and post any evidence factually proving her words are lies, come from the family or are not hers and they come from a reporter.
And was shown to be false.
Moderator's Warning: |
1.)It has already been done. You still haven't backed up what you assert.
In the video (which you linked here), she (The prosecutor, Worthy) makes several statements that seem relevant to the discussion at hand:By all means, you be the judge.
All information has been provided in post #149.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-conviction-not-w-44-a-15.html#post1062585309
Edit: Agent J, if you would (and assuming I'm not asking you to violate some mod decision), point out the links showing your mentioned quotes?
The problem is that something that is not a violent situation is perceived as one. It is that misperception that takes a non-violent situation to a violent one. In both of these cases it was the perception or perceived threat that brought the violence into it. I think that if a person is given a green light to use their own judgement to determine if a threat is present they will be more inclined to do so when there is no real threat and behave accordingly.
I smell a rat.
I lived in Michigan for the overwhelming majority of my life. I've been to Detroit numerous times. Impromptu violence is a distinct possibility there. When there is an obviously intoxicated person (regardless of race) causing raucus on your front door, the element is there. As much as you don't want to believe this and I don't want to "go there", the fact that she is a minority does increase the potential - statistically speaking. In this scenario, it is in the spirit of self-interest that you assume the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Thirty years before, every 12 year old had a cell phone. Now, the concept of an adult not having one that they can use in times of emergency borders on the ludicrous. Now, we can dismiss this as a string of coincidences - bad accident, no functioning cell, occurring in a "white neighborhood"...but you also cannot dismiss the potentially nefarious side of things.
Let's face it - she's going to lose in the court of public opinion, outside of a radical militant black sect.
a very good but long article that talks about laws and facts and the vast majoirty lines up with what i have been stating the whole time
Renisha McBride | Theodore Wafer | Weak Self-defense Claim
seems any claim of self defense is going to be very weak based on what we currently know and that the accident claim mostly renders self defense meaningless, it would have to be very rare circumstances.
I lived in Michigan for the overwhelming majority of my life. I've been to Detroit numerous times. Impromptu violence is a distinct possibility there. When there is an obviously intoxicated person (regardless of race) causing raucus on your front door, the element is there. As much as you don't want to believe this and I don't want to "go there", the fact that she is a minority does increase the potential - statistically speaking. In this scenario, it is in the spirit of self-interest that you assume the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Thirty years before, every 12 year old had a cell phone. Now, the concept of an adult not having one that they can use in times of emergency borders on the ludicrous. Now, we can dismiss this as a string of coincidences - bad accident, no functioning cell, occurring in a "white neighborhood"...but you also cannot dismiss the potentially nefarious side of things.
Let's face it - she's going to lose in the court of public opinion, outside of a radical militant black sect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?