Quote Originally Posted by corktownyuppie View Post
Agreed. The moment she breaches the protective walls of his house, this is a totally different story. Which is why his decision to leave the protection of those walls makes his use of deadly force so much more difficult to justify.

I know I've said it before, but I will say it again. If it truly was an accident, he should have stuck with that story and pled to the charge. I think a judge would have been much more sympathetic at sentencing.
Agreed. So here is my question. Why didnt he just stick to the accidental shooting version of the incident? Did his attorney give him bad advice? The attorney knew that providing a reasonable explanation for Mr. Wafer's opening the door was crucial to in order to legally justify a claim of self-defense. In her opening statement she made it seem like there was going to be an explanation that would justify the opening of the door and the intentional shooting through the storm door, but it never came. Was it bad legal advice or a stubborn defendant or something else?