Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[mam2009]

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?

[mam2009]

Something else that needs to be said for those who believe Mr. Wafer's actions were justified... there was no evidence [[besides Mr. Wafer's testimony) presented that supports the notion that Ms. McBride had been violently banging on the door in such a manner that would cause a reasonable person to have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Or that she had been violently banging at all. Mr. Wafer's first description of the sound was "a consistent knocking."

The police officers at the scene said they saw no sign of attempted forced entry. Why would a juror believe Mr. Wafer's unsupported version of the story when they already have knowledge that he dramatically changed his version of the events? Why would a juror believe the modified version of the incident when Mr. Wafer's story doesn't even jibe with other parts of his own testimony and the physical evidence. Besides the opening of the door, there is still the mystery of why he would drop his shotgun inside the OPEN doorway and walk away to find his phone if he believed there was more than one person outside [[who could easily unlock the door now that it had a hole in it from the shotgun blast)? If he was that convinced of the threat to his life, wouldn't he have shut the door and taken his rifle with him just in case the other would-be "intruder" came for him?

IMO, Mr. Wafer knew immediately he had f***ed up, regretted it, panicked, immediately dropped the gun where he stood and proceeded to call the police. I admit that version of events IS pure conjecture on my part. But, like Corktown, if I were the judge, that is a version that would make me more inclined to issue a more lenient sentence. Unfortunately for Mr. Wafer, the fairytale version I just wrote was not presented at trial. Can u change ur defense at the sentencing hearing?

[Wesley Mouch]

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?

Not everybody is sophisticated. Not everybody knows how to deal with the authorities.

I don't know the man, but he was scared that night. And even more scared dealing with the cops. And even more scared sitting down with the Wayne Country Prosecutor. And even more scared when he starts hearing the media reports and the anger.

Almost everyone here agrees he made huge mistakes that night that cost a troubled young lady her life.

And I think he made huge mistakes in dealing with the cops and prosecutors that ended up getting him convicted.

He probably thought he couldn't tell the truth. Knew he was in real trouble. And said stupid things.

[Mark Smiles]

I get why this guy was convicted. You just can't pull the trigger unless you know what you're doing. He did not.



I still want to know the full story of his car being vandalized. Who was doing the vandalism? Did the police investigate it? Were charges filed? If not why not?


It seems to me that if the police and prosecutors took the vandalism seriously, we wouldn't be talking about a dead woman, and a man who may as well be dead.


Why aren't we told about the vandals? With all the interest in upholding the law, I don't get the lack of interest. If people vandalized the property, they should be held fully accountable.

[rb336]

This is why we are better than Florida, etc.

[emu steve]

I get why this guy was convicted. You just can't pull the trigger unless you know what you're doing. He did not.



I still want to know the full story of his car being vandalized. Who was doing the vandalism? Did the police investigate it? Were charges filed? If not why not?


It seems to me that if the police and prosecutors took the vandalism seriously, we wouldn't be talking about a dead woman, and a man who may as well be dead.


Why aren't we told about the vandals? With all the interest in upholding the law, I don't get the lack of interest. If people vandalized the property, they should be held fully accountable.

I think you, inadvertently [[?), made the point typically made by gun control advocates:

The victim [[Wafer) feels aggrieved because of property crime [[or in other cases excess noise or partying, etc. etc.) and feels powerless to stop it and the need to 'even the playing field.' Sometimes the neighborhood crime is worse, e.g., B&E.

Then with a loaded gun, the aggrieved feels pretty powerful, in control, etc. etc. until he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol, etc.

As others have been posting, there are awesome responsibilities holding a loaded firearm.

What Wayne LaPierre doesn't say is that things can go horribly wrong as in this case.

[Cliffy]

I think you, inadvertently [[?), made the point typically made by gun control advocates:

The victim [[Wafer) feels aggrieved because of property crime [[or in other cases excess noise or partying, etc. etc.) and feels powerless to stop it and the need to 'even the playing field.' Sometimes the neighborhood crime is worse, e.g., B&E.

Then with a loaded gun, the aggrieved feels pretty powerful, in control, etc. etc. until he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol, etc.

As others have been posting, there are awesome responsibilities holding a loaded firearm.

What Wayne LaPierre doesn't say is that things can go horribly wrong as in this case.

If I read your speech, I would think that some little old lady rang the doorbell at 1 pm in the afternoon and he fired through the door. The victim probably is scared as hell being awoken in the middle of the night by pounding at the door. I'm not a gun owner nor will I ever own one but too many people talk a lot of shit and don't step into his shoes. Let me wake you up in the middle of the night pounding at your doors and see how calm and cool you will be. Its not that easy. This guy isn't a career criminal nor your throwing out things like "he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol". Maybe the dude is just scared as fuck. So stop throwing accusations to twist your story. The only person that was angry and drunk was that lowlife pounding on the doors!

[emu steve]

If I read your speech, I would think that some little old lady rang the doorbell at 1 pm in the afternoon and he fired through the door. The victim probably is scared as hell being awoken in the middle of the night by pounding at the door. I'm not a gun owner nor will I ever own one but too many people talk a lot of shit and don't step into his shoes. Let me wake you up in the middle of the night pounding at your doors and see how calm and cool you will be. Its not that easy. This guy isn't a career criminal nor your throwing out things like "he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol". Maybe the dude is just scared as fuck. So stop throwing accusations to twist your story. The only person that was angry and drunk was that lowlife pounding on the doors!

I wish I would have changed a word or two. Maybe not even use Wafer's name, even in parentheses.

I was trying to make a general statement and not specifically refer to Wafer. I do not know Wafer's state of mind.

There was a 'stand your ground' case [[Texas?) where neighbors were loud and obnoxious and the owner got frustrated, confronted the neighbor, complained that he felt threatened so he shot the neighbor and invoked 'stand your ground.' He was quickly convicted by a jury.

[rb336]

If I read your speech, I would think that some little old lady rang the doorbell at 1 pm in the afternoon and he fired through the door. The victim probably is scared as hell being awoken in the middle of the night by pounding at the door.

except that, in his own words, it was a "constant knocking," not pounding. at least until he got a lawyer

[Mark Smiles]

I think you, inadvertently [[?), made the point typically made by gun control advocates:

The victim [[Wafer) feels aggrieved because of property crime [[or in other cases excess noise or partying, etc. etc.) and feels powerless to stop it and the need to 'even the playing field.' Sometimes the neighborhood crime is worse, e.g., B&E.

Then with a loaded gun, the aggrieved feels pretty powerful, in control, etc. etc. until he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol, etc.

As others have been posting, there are awesome responsibilities holding a loaded firearm.

What Wayne LaPierre doesn't say is that things can go horribly wrong as in this case.

My question is this. Where were all the police and prosecutors when Wafer's rights were being violated?

Did their failure to respond add to the frustration that Wafer experienced?

I would like to see those who violated Mr. Wafers rights, held to the same standard that Mr. Wafer is being held to. No reason not to hold Mr. Wafer responsible for his actions, just as there is no reason not to hold others responsible for theirs.

[poobert]

Things are just too insane here. This is just such an awful place to live.

[Meddle]

Things are just too insane here. This is just such an awful place to live.

Earth?

I agree.

[emu steve]

Things are just too insane here. This is just such an awful place to live.

One thing which has only been touched upon in this thread is the area.

This area is what one mile from St. Hedwig's cemetery [[which is at Warren/Telegraph).

I don't think of that area as a high crime area. [[I have relatives not far from there).

[rex]

the legal dictionary at law.com defines 2nd degree murder as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. This case fits the description. Too bad it happened. Guy definitely wasn't out looking for trouble but he fucked up.

[canuck]

If I read your speech, I would think that some little old lady rang the doorbell at 1 pm in the afternoon and he fired through the door. The victim probably is scared as hell being awoken in the middle of the night by pounding at the door. I'm not a gun owner nor will I ever own one but too many people talk a lot of shit and don't step into his shoes. Let me wake you up in the middle of the night pounding at your doors and see how calm and cool you will be. Its not that easy. This guy isn't a career criminal nor your throwing out things like "he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol". Maybe the dude is just scared as fuck. So stop throwing accusations to twist your story. The only person that was angry and drunk was that lowlife pounding on the doors!

You throw around the word lowlife like you do whenever your daughter enters the house, don't you?

[maverick1]

If I read your speech, I would think that some little old lady rang the doorbell at 1 pm in the afternoon and he fired through the door. The victim probably is scared as hell being awoken in the middle of the night by pounding at the door. I'm not a gun owner nor will I ever own one but too many people talk a lot of shit and don't step into his shoes. Let me wake you up in the middle of the night pounding at your doors and see how calm and cool you will be. Its not that easy. This guy isn't a career criminal nor your throwing out things like "he is not in control due to anger, frustration, alcohol". Maybe the dude is just scared as fuck. So stop throwing accusations to twist your story. The only person that was angry and drunk was that lowlife pounding on the doors!

Interesting.

[Zacha341]

Well, seeing as how Dearborn PD has a faster response time than Detroit's the police could have been there to take the woman away had he called, armed himself and waiting, instead of choosing to 'intercept' before entry.

My question is this. Where were all the police and prosecutors when Wafer's rights were being violated?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Cliffy feels he's justified in defending this kook. Making excuses for what he did. Then to call the woman a lowlife for knocking on his door at 3AM. Get a grip Cliffy.

[EastsideAl]

Cliffy feels he's justified in defending this kook. Making excuses for what he did. Then to call the woman a lowlife for knocking on his door at 3AM. Get a grip Cliffy.

I'm surprised he didn't use the words "animal" or "savage" instead.

[Meddle]

A drunk wandering around at 3AM after crashing a car sort of fits that description.

[Zacha341]

Yep. Wafer's actions cannot be justified as has already been stated in various ways.

He made poor choices that helped create outcome. He should have called the 911/ police as legal record and stood his ground armed on the other side of door! McBride had to breach his door in order for the the law to justify his shooting her, withstanding her drunken/ doped up status.

Cliffy feels he's justified in defending this kook. Making excuses for what he did. Then to call the woman a lowlife for knocking on his door at 3AM. Get a grip Cliffy.

[Zacha341]

Hah. I hear that! "Savage" is usually reserved for the 'other' kind of websites and blogs.

I'm surprised he didn't use the words "animal" or "savage" instead.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

A drunk wandering around at 3AM after crashing a car sort of fits that description.

You're just as bad a Cliffy, but that's to be expected from you, with the tone and attitude of most of your posts on here.

[corktownyuppie]

I don't think that either of them should be held in particularly high esteem. McBride's BAC was a .218%, which by itself is not the biggest sin, but then she chose to get behind the wheel. It could just have tragically been her killing someone with her car that night.

Wafer is no saint, either. He himself had an alcohol-related driving offense in his past.

Someone I knew, who was a pillar in his community, is now in jail awaiting trial because he killed someone by driving over the yellow-line while checking his phone. His BAC was also above a .2%. It doesn't really matter if he was Gandhi and if his victim had been a drain on society. He is still guilty of wrongdoing and will need to pay the price.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Wafer, who was genuinely scared. But for anyone who has ever taken the necessary coursework to receive a Concealed Pistol License, Wafer irresponsibly violated numerous commons-sense rules about the use of deadly force.

This is off of Rick Ektor's Firearm Academy Facebook page.

If you are a gun owner, you have some serious responsibilities. Chief among them is to know and follow fundamental firearm safety rules every time you come into contact with your firearm:

- Always treat your firearm as if it is loaded.
- Always keep it pointed in a safe direction.
- Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
- Always keep it unloaded until it is ready for use.
- Always be aware of your target and what is beyond it.

From a tactical, legal, and a safety point of view, if you are at home while you believe your home is being invaded your best option is to get your loaded firearm, call 9-1-1, and wait for the bad guys to come into your home before you shoot.

From a legal standpoint, you should never ever make a statement to the police without your lawyer present. The police don't make statements after a shooting and neither should you. His statement, in my opinion, is what convicted him. You don't go from not knowing your gun was loaded and the gun suddenly "going off" and then change your tune to being afraid for your life when you catch a case. The taped confession immediately after a shooting is a very powerful and compelling piece of evidence.

I admit that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to own and operate a firearm. Unfortunately, those people would be better off not owning them.

Cliffy said, "Maybe he was just scared as f**k".
He probably was.

I've always said that I thought the shooting was accidental and that his legal strategy of self-defense was a mistake. It probably was both.

But "you can't take back bullets". And if you are going to own and use a firearm, you need to be held accountable for what happens with it. There are no martyrs here, there are no heroes. Two people, both responsible, both made bad choices. All of this was preventable, but they didn't prevent it. Sad.

[Pam]

What is the point of disparaging the murder victim's character? To say she somehow "deserved" death? No, she didn't.