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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.”
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.