Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

**Meddle** · August-08-14, 05:51 AM

Not sure I understand the thinking here.

There have been multiple stories posted here ion this board about homeowners defending their homes with deadly force and nearly all of them are cheered to some extent. Many, many more cases have been in the various Detroit news media sites that haven't been commented on here. The Detroit Police Chief goes on national media telling homeowners to arm themselves and be willing to use deadly force when they feel threatened, essentially saying 'Shoot first, don't worry about the questions, we got you covered'. Pretty much everybody knows that response time for DPD can be an hour, if they come at all. Yeah, I know this case was Dearborn Heights, but they're not much better in response times, especially at the Detroit border.

Yet you want this guy to call 911 and wait patiently inside for who knows how long while somebody is beating on his door in the middle of the night. Maybe he should wait until whoever breaks the door open and attacks him? Maybe he should open the door with his wallet handy to buy 5 or 6 boxes of cookies?

If this had been at E. Outer Drive and E. Warren instead of W. Outer Drive and W. Warren, the guy would probably have been hailed as a hero and given a key to the City instead of persecuted and demonized.

You bang on a door in the middle of the night in Detroit, expect to get shot.

**canuck** · August-08-14, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

Nawh, no reason for an adult to be 'afraid' of a teen. None at all. What's a poor little teeney bopper gonna do to a big bad adult?

I know, I know. Let's get rid of all them little fuckers preemptively. What would you use? A rifle or the noose? Any which way you look at it, they've been around long enough.

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 07:06 AM

Bottom LINE IMO: Michigan has laws in place allowing a homeowner or renter to defend themselves in their home with a firearm. But you can't shoot thru your door someone who's on your porch, or open your door to shoot them. The intruder must breach entry as an imminent threat.

Wafer opened the door, shot before investigating: putting into motion his choice to 'handle' the situation solely on his own.

That's where the negligence comes in.

He killed an unarmed woman; he soon enough knew he was outside the range of legality and thus changed his story.

His actions were more appropriate of the 'end of days' response when the system is completely broken down, everyone's on their own, shoot first, investigate later scenario. Um, we're not quite there yet!

I've talked to law enforcement folk supportive of personal gun ownership [[at least these individuals did) and they usually advise that you first protect yourself 'legally' by calling 911. Then arm yourself and wait for the intruder to come in. Then apply lethal force if intruder doesn't exit upon seeing your gun.

This is all seconds in the making, but so was Wafers choice! But this approach speaks to a first principal of shooting as the last resort, not the first.

And you need to check to make sure you're not shooting someone you know [[ala your own drunk relative or friend - which has been reported).

Unless tactically trained you don't go to the intruder [[so they can take your fire arm away from you), you let them come to you - with 911 your witness to that fact should you need to defend yourself in the courts!

Mobile phone to call 911 not available? Crazy. If you choose the responsibility of gun ownership you need have a phone handy/ charging in the same place nightly.

Withstanding Dearborn's crime level, their police would have arrived faster than DPD. Had he called 911, armed himself and even called out a warning on his side of the door she may have left. Police would have been en route.

Who knows some other drunks may have been chasing McBride, on foot, or in their car after she had awaken from being passed out elsewhere, and she ran to his house out of fear. We will never know.

But we do 'know' he took things into his own hands fully, by his actions, without protecting himself legally, and not standing his ground appropriately per the law.

Claiming he was afraid, and I'm sure he was, yet he 'opened' the door to address that which made him afraid -- when you're safer in your home? Armed should you need it.

**corktownyuppie** · August-08-14, 07:06 AM

Andrew Branca is a blog writer, gun rights advocate, and an attorney who specializes in "self-defense law". He has done a fantastic blog of this case, full of easy-to-understand legal analysis of all the issues involved.

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, and is currently in the process of completing the fully revised and updated second edition, which you can preorder now at lawofselfdefense.com. He began his competitive shooting activities as a youth in smallbore rifle, and today is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association [[NRA) and a Life Member and Master-class competitor in multiple classifications in the International Defensive Pistol Association [[IDPA). Andrew has for many years been an NRA-certified firearms instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, and has previously served as an Adjunct Instructor on the Law of Self Defense at the SigSauer Academy in Epping, NH. He holds or has held concealed carry permits for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Virginia, and other states.

He was quick to criticize the prosecution over the course of the case, but he lays out the the difficult hand Wafer's attorney had been dealt.

Check out his coverage of the case and verdict:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08...-murder-trial/

**Scottathew** · August-08-14, 07:15 AM

This is an extremely unfortunate incident.

You've got a morally bankrupt young lady driving around drunk and high.

Then you've got a trigger happy block-head that shoots an unarmed woman through a locked door instead of calling the police.

She paid with her life for her stupidity. He paid with his freedom for his.

Two families grieving, one of the loss of life, another of the loss of freedom.

From the facts that I know, justice was served. I don't want to live in a society where you can be shot and killed for reasons that aren't good enough to warrant it.

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 07:26 AM

^^^ Very unfortunate. Well stated and to the points.

**Meddle** · August-08-14, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

I don't want to live in a society where you can be shot and killed for reasons that aren't good enough to warrant it.

And yet, we live in a country where police shoot and kill unarmed citizens every day without good cause. Or strangle them.

**Danny** · August-08-14, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

Nawh, no reason for an adult to be 'afraid' of a teen. None at all. What's a poor little teeney bopper gonna do to a big bad adult?

http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/08...-jose-slaying/

A gangbanger is a gangbanger doesn't matter who you are or what race you're from. They are verminous. They bully anyone who stands in their way. And they don't give a hoot about solving societal problems from their neighborhoods to their environments. They purpose is to sell drugs, rob folks, kill them in their judgement. In the end their retirement will be injury, prison or death!

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 08:39 AM

Yes, and that is wrong and crazy and in the age of cell phone cameras and the internet they are not getting away with it as often.

Originally Posted by Meddle

And yet, we live in a country where police shoot and kill unarmed citizens every day without good cause. Or strangle them.

**Cliffy** · August-08-14, 08:41 AM

I have to LOL at the people who act like they would be all calm and cool at 3 am being awoke by some low life that is drunk and high who is trying to flee the scene of a FELONY. I would be frightened and worried if someone was going around my house pounding the doors and windows trying to get in. Its not easy to see people in the darkness. He should have called the police first, yes but I don't care how old you are and male or female, I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house. Everyone has guns. 12 year olds. 50 year olds. 80 year olds. To sit there and ration that it was some poor 19 year old doing things that all 19 years old do is ridiculous. I never got drunk and high and caused a Felony. I had one idiot friend that got a dui and that really messed him up finding a job. No, dui's and causing hit and runs wasn't part of my circle of friend's activities. Her stupidity costed her big time.

**Scottathew** · August-08-14, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

I have to LOL at the people who act like they would be all calm and cool at 3 am being awoke by some low life that is drunk and high who is trying to flee the scene of a FELONY. I would be frightened and worried if someone was going around my house pounding the doors and windows trying to get in. Its not easy to see people in the darkness. He should have called the police first, yes but I don't care how old you are and male or female, I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house. Everyone has guns. 12 year olds. 50 year olds. 80 year olds. To sit there and ration that it was some poor 19 year old doing things that all 19 years old do is ridiculous. I never got drunk and high and caused a Felony. I had one idiot friend that got a dui and that really messed him up finding a job. No, dui's and causing hit and runs wasn't part of my circle of friend's activities. Her stupidity costed her big time.

1. No one is saying they would be "calm and cool", we're just saying we wouldn't MURDER someone
2. I don't see people here defending the woman's actions, we're defending her right to LIVE and not be MURDERED
3. She never set foot inside the man's house
4. She was shot THROUGH A LOCKED DOOR

**Pam** · August-08-14, 08:52 AM

I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house

Legally he could have done that. She wasn't in the house or in the process of coming in the house. Why are some people not getting that?

**bailey** · August-08-14, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I share your concern for his behavior, but I don't like to judge when I don't know the facts.

The jury did after a 11 day trial about the facts... i really don't understand the "well, we just don't know the facts" comments you keep making.

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 09:09 AM

"I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house"

Originally Posted by Pam

Legally he could have done that. She wasn't in the house or in the process of coming in the house. Why are some people not getting that?

Yep, I don't get it. Foot-thru-the-door is the main crucial distinction under the law. If you disagree with the law as it stands that is different issue which can be argued.

Course in states that DO NOT allow guns for home protection should you need it, you have NO OPTION OF LETHAL FORCE once the intruder has 'entered'.

What would that be like? Pallbearers of 6 or jurors of 12.

**corktownyuppie** · August-08-14, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Pam

Legally he could have done that. She wasn't in the house or in the process of coming in the house. Why are some people not getting that?

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.

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 09:16 AM

Yes. Preparedness as part of gun ownership makes those 'seconds' of action more informed and reasoned with a reduced level of danger and regret.

I think every responsible gun owner need run the scenario in their mind of how they will respond before the situation occurs.

You cannot take back bullets.

Originally Posted by 48307

1. No one is saying they would be "calm and cool", we're just saying we wouldn't MURDER someone
2. I don't see people here defending the woman's actions, we're defending her right to LIVE and not be MURDERED
3. She never set foot inside the man's house
4. She was shot THROUGH A LOCKED DOOR

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 09:19 AM

Agreed. He should have stuck to the first story. Though I doubt the outcome would have been that much different.

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

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.

**corktownyuppie** · August-08-14, 09:23 AM

The outcome would be the same, though the sentencing I think could be very different. Manslaughter is 1-15 yrs and/or a $7500 fine. Here he is looking at 2 to life.

I think it would be easy to sympathize with his story, and roll the dice for a lighter sentence with manslaughter. But as soon as you make it about self-defense, it's either all or nothing. Either you were justified or you purposely -- and unnecessarily -- took someone's life.

**Scottathew** · August-08-14, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

The outcome would be the same, though the sentencing I think could be very different. Manslaughter is 1-15 yrs and/or a $7500 fine. Here he is looking at 2 to life.

I think it would be easy to sympathize with his story, and roll the dice for a lighter sentence with manslaughter. But as soon as you make it about self-defense, it's either all or nothing. Either you were justified or you unnecessarily killed someone on purpose.

That's my analysis too about his legal dice options.

**Zacha341** · August-08-14, 09:34 AM

I keep reading that manslaughter and second-degree is the same in Michigan. Someone please clarify.

Originally Posted by 48307

That's my analysis too about his legal dice options.

**corktownyuppie** · August-08-14, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

dui's and causing hit and runs wasn't part of my circle of friend's activities. Her stupidity costed her big time.

If someone is driving drunk and high at 90mph and someone else is driving at 65 but crosses over the yellow line by 6 inches because he was checking his phone while driving, whose fault is it when they have a head-on collision?

Answer: both of them. But the one who crossed over the line is legally the one who caused the accident.

I don't think anyone is saying that McBride is blameless in all of this. Unfortunately, this case [[and many other tricky legal cases) are about two parties that made really sh**ty choices and then having to choose which of them is fractionally less responsible.

and the argument in the head-on collision is going to be about who was more at fault in causing the accident...the one who crossed over the yellow line.

The use of deadly force is permanent and irreversible. The castle doctrine states that a homeowner has no duty to retreat in his own home. Where is the line that limits the protection of the castle doctrine? At the walls of his own house.

both parties made bad choices that brought them both to within millimeters of the boundary line. But it was Wafer who crossed it.

**Jimaz** · August-08-14, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I keep reading that manslaughter and second-degree is the same in Michigan. Someone please clarify.

Good question. Although not specifically about Michigan, Wikipedia draws some distinctions here.

**Meddle** · August-08-14, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I keep reading that manslaughter and second-degree is the same in Michigan. Someone please clarify.

My understanding is that manslaughter is more accidental, or through some act that produces unintended consequences. Murder two is more of an intentional act that is not premeditated or with specific intent to kill.

In some places, a fatal DUI accident might get murder two charges. The intentional act is that you drove and killed someone even though you didn't intend to do so.

**Cliffy** · August-08-14, 04:57 PM

Either way, to lock this guy up for life because of this would be ridiculous. He's already suffered enough. He's probably financially broke and will have to move somewhere else if released. His life is already ruined. I bet the sentence is 5 years at most.

**Scottathew** · August-08-14, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

Either way, to lock this guy up for life because of this would be ridiculous. He's already suffered enough. He's probably financially broke and will have to move somewhere else if released. His life is already ruined. I bet the sentence is 5 years at most.

I don't know if I agree with that.

If I had to sentence him I'd give him 10-15 years. Normally I think life sentences are appropriate, but there were some extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances don't absolve him from his responsibility, but I think a lighter sentence would be appropriate.

Wafer is 54, which gives a little extra oomph to any sentence he receives.