Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[Mark Smiles]

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

Of course she did not deserve to be killed, but it is hard for her family to be out playing the victim card, when she was lucky she did not kill someone her self when she was drunk driving and wrecked her car. I saw a clip of one of her family members calling for Wafer to get life in prison. Would this guy have been as vocal if she had killed an innocent?

[Meddle]

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

Deserved death? No one has said that here.

But she set the whole thing in motion. If she had simply gotten a ride home ......

[mam2009]

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!

There was no evidence [[besides Mr.Wafer's' own account of the story) that Ms. McBride was "pounding" on the door! When Mr. Wafer first described the sounds at his door to police, he said "consistent knocking." In the 911 call he told the operator he had just shot "somebody banging on my door." Even if she was "pounding" or "banging," he didn't tell either of those first two persons he spoke with IMMEDIATELY after the shooting what somebody would likely say if they'd just shot a would-be intruder out of FEAR. I am almost certain most of us would say something much closer to: "I just shot somebody who was trying to break into my house." But since there was no EVIDENCE of that, that's not what he said.

I still THINK he accidentally pulled that trigger because he was startled by Ms. McBride, but what I THINK happened doesn't matter a bit because the killer, HIMSELF, said he shot Ms. McBride intentionally to protect himself from someone [[who had not made a verbal threat and who had no weapons or break-in tools) was "banging" on his locked storm doors. Gun owners should be required to know you do not INTENTIONALLY shoot an unarmed person SOLELY for banging on your door. If one is not able to grasp that concept, one should not own or operate a firearm PERIOD.

[Zacha341]

His defense attorney was just on Fox2Detroit [[Let It Rip) again stating he did not think the gun was loaded.

Who'd point a gun supposed or unintentionally unloaded to anyone under any circumstances? That's gun safety 101!

When someone actually enters into your dwelling with intentions of harm what would an empty chamber do to protect you?

[Downriviera]

Just watched Wafer's attorney being interviewed on on Let It Rip. She stated that the police did a poor job of gathering evidence. She said there was clear evidence of an attempted break in. This girl was not knocking on a random home looking for help. In her drunken state she thought this was her house and was desperately trying to get in. Still does not excuse him from shooting her, but I still say guilty of manslaughter and not 2nd degree.

[Honky Tonk]

It troubles me that someone thinks that its a "very high standard" to expect that citizens don't shoot and kill people who knock on their door, and to hold them responsible when they do.

No sale, Al. You're back to painting the Girl Scout selling cookies canvas, which wasn't the scenario @ all. It still bothers me to this day there was no mention of "she tried calling...... for help". A teenager in this day and age without a phone?

[Downriviera]

She didn't want help. She turned down help. She wanted to get home to avoid the DUI. Once home she probably would have reported her car stolen. Lot of people do this. The only difference is they are able to find their home.

[Wesley Mouch]

Of course she did not deserve to be killed, but it is hard for her family to be out playing the victim card, when she was lucky she did not kill someone her self when she was drunk driving and wrecked her car. I saw a clip of one of her family members calling for Wafer to get life in prison. Would this guy have been as vocal if she had killed an innocent?

Your question cuts directly to the biggest issue here. Race.

The left wants a 'dialog on race'. This seems to be it.

We know that the outrage here is mainly racial. Wafer hits the stereotype of the Archie Bunker 100%.

The question the jury answered, but we still debate is is he really guilty. Or was he just stereotyped, and then railroaded by the system.

Slavery was unjust. And many believe this injustice has lingered for the years since. And some believe that is still running strong.

Wafer's conviction became a 'cause celebre'. Convinction became necessary. An acquittal would have meant white privilege lives.

Everyone along the line felt the pressure. Did they read a little more into Wafer's actions than were really there -- in order to prove that they weren't granting Wafer special 'white' permission to kill?

The irony here is that this kind of pervasive presumption of white guilt is precisely the sort of presumption [[or prejudice) that led to the convictions of many thousands of blacks over years. "He's black, so we know he did it. And if he didn't do this, he did something else...GUILTY YOUR HONOR."

Payback feels good, but is it just? If Wafer was rich, his money might have got him off. But Archie was just a normal guy overwhelmed by a system that's working very hard to prove that its not soft on white Archie's.

[scottn55]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one factor that, if removed from the equation, would have ensured that McBride and Wafer remained strangers to one another. Or, if an encounter had occurred, would likely have ended differently. That factor is ALCOHOL.

Alcohol caused McBride to have the fateful car accident and, in Wafer's case, likely contributed to the heightened paranoia which led him to think deadly force was the appropriate response to the situation on his porch.

[Meddle]

Did they ever figure out where she was and who served her so much? Seems that question was not addressed well in the original article when this happened.

[Zacha341]

Was her home near his house? We'll never know but I sometimes wonder if she'd passed out a few times on the way to his house, a lawn here, and sidewalk there. I am not saying this to justify Wafer's action, but I've heard of drunks passed out in their driveways, or on steps on their way up the stair case, etc. it's not an unusual story.

How she ended up on his porch? Perhaps being perused, or desperate to get home? We don't know. Wafer shooting her aside, being that drunk/ doped up is never a good thing.

She didn't want help. She turned down help. She wanted to get home to avoid the DUI. Once home she probably would have reported her car stolen. Lot of people do this. The only difference is they are able to find their home.

[canuck]

Your question cuts directly to the biggest issue here. Race.

The left wants a 'dialog on race'. This seems to be it.

We know that the outrage here is mainly racial. Wafer hits the stereotype of the Archie Bunker 100%.

The question the jury answered, but we still debate is is he really guilty. Or was he just stereotyped, and then railroaded by the system.

Slavery was unjust. And many believe this injustice has lingered for the years since. And some believe that is still running strong.

Wafer's conviction became a 'cause celebre'. Convinction became necessary. An acquittal would have meant white privilege lives.

Everyone along the line felt the pressure. Did they read a little more into Wafer's actions than were really there -- in order to prove that they weren't granting Wafer special 'white' permission to kill?

The irony here is that this kind of pervasive presumption of white guilt is precisely the sort of presumption [[or prejudice) that led to the convictions of many thousands of blacks over years. "He's black, so we know he did it. And if he didn't do this, he did something else...GUILTY YOUR HONOR."

Payback feels good, but is it just? If Wafer was rich, his money might have got him off. But Archie was just a normal guy overwhelmed by a system that's working very hard to prove that its not soft on white Archie's.

This thread is depressing, but it is also very confusing.

On the one hand, I want to hold onto the dream of erasing "race" as a given; on the other, I am reminded that it is impossible. I get the idea that no matter what the outcome of a presumable fair trial, a plot lurks beneath any said outcome. I can suppose a white girl would not have been shot by Wafer if she has been knocking, pounding, stroking the front door. I can suppose the young miss McBride was totally drunk, hysterical and panicked to the point where any action on her part merited some kind of assault to keep her in check. The fact she is dead and can't answer for what happens next to Mr Wafer doesn't satisfy my conscience.

[mam2009]

Just watched Wafer's attorney being interviewed on on Let It Rip. She stated that the police did a poor job of gathering evidence. She said there was clear evidence of an attempted break in. This girl was not knocking on a random home looking for help. In her drunken state she thought this was her house and was desperately trying to get in. Still does not excuse him from shooting her, but I still say guilty of manslaughter and not 2nd degree.

Did she happen to say what that "clear" evidence of a break-in was, why it was not mentioned in court and why the Dearborn Heights police would say there was no evidence of an attempted break-in if there really was? Ms. McBride couldn't break into a locked house using ONLY her hands. His fear was understandable. However, his perception of the THREAT to his life was not. Had he not opened that door and shot before he had a chance to better assess the level of the threat, I don't think he would've ever raised the gun. He would've seen she was confused, drunk, injured and/or high, told her to move on and/or called the police so they could deal with the matter.

And for those blaming the paintballers, how do justify bringing a shotgun to a paintball fight?!!!!

[Wesley Mouch]

Did she happen to say what that "clear" evidence of a break-in was, why it was not mentioned in court and why the Dearborn Heights police would say there was no evidence of an attempted break-in if there really was? Ms. McBride couldn't break into a locked house using ONLY her hands. His fear was understandable. However, his perception of the THREAT to his life was not. Had he not opened that door and shot before he had a chance to better assess the level of the threat, I don't think he would've ever raised the gun. He would've seen she was confused, drunk, injured and/or high, told her to move on and/or called the police so they could deal with the matter.

And for those blaming the paintballers, how do justify bringing a shotgun to a paintball fight?!!!!

You're pretty much right here about Mr. Wafer's crime. The fact that he had to open the door suggests that he was no longer a scared individual, but perhaps a mad one. Or a drunk one.

So I see the scenario as this. Mr. Wafer, mad, drunk, prejudiced[[?), angry, and bitter gets awakened by something [[pounding, whispering, or just her aura -- doesn't matter). He opens door, and she's aggressive and confused. He doesn't know this till the door opens, and in her drunken state, refuses to calm down.

Having dealt deeply with disturbed people, I can understand how Wafer might feel threatened even inside his door. Someone high can act irrationally, and might be a threat. He's startled, and pulls the trigger without realizing exactly what's going on. So who's to blame.

To me, the aggressor is the outsider who is at someone else's house and has a responsibility to behave well. The homeowner to me is allowed to be irritating, house racist thoughts, drunk, high, mean, and stupid. Ms. McBride had the best chance to diffuse this. Just walk away. Mr. Wafer gets my 'reasonable doubt', because as the homeowner I think he's held to a much lower standard.

[[And that all said, I do think he acted criminally. I just don't like people being railroaded by the system -- which is what I think happened here in the end -- even if in this case he's guilty.)

[mam2009]

You're pretty much right here about Mr. Wafer's crime. The fact that he had to open the door suggests that he was no longer a scared individual, but perhaps a mad one. Or a drunk one.

So I see the scenario as this. Mr. Wafer, mad, drunk, prejudiced[[?), angry, and bitter gets awakened by something [[pounding, whispering, or just her aura -- doesn't matter). He opens door, and she's aggressive and confused. He doesn't know this till the door opens, and in her drunken state, refuses to calm down.

Having dealt deeply with disturbed people, I can understand how Wafer might feel threatened even inside his door. Someone high can act irrationally, and might be a threat. He's startled, and pulls the trigger without realizing exactly what's going on. So who's to blame.

To me, the aggressor is the outsider who is at someone else's house and has a responsibility to behave well. The homeowner to me is allowed to be irritating, house racist thoughts, drunk, high, mean, and stupid. Ms. McBride had the best chance to diffuse this. Just walk away. Mr. Wafer gets my 'reasonable doubt', because as the homeowner I think he's held to a much lower standard.

[[And that all said, I do think he acted criminally. I just don't like people being railroaded by the system -- which is what I think happened here in the end -- even if in this case he's guilty.)

Ur assuming she was aggressive. He said in his testimony he didn't have a chance to register what he was looking at until he saw Ms. McBride falling backward after he shot her in the face. There is no EVIDENCE she was being aggressive. He said they did not speak. The only information he said he had before shooting was someone was knocking loudly at his doors.

How are u defining "railroaded?" He had eight months to come up with a defense. What u seem to be describing is the unfairness that arises when guilty defendants with money are able to tip the scales of justice in their favor. Are u saying that's what SHOULD happen?

[rb336]

She didn't want help. She turned down help. She wanted to get home to avoid the DUI. Once home she probably would have reported her car stolen. Lot of people do this. The only difference is they are able to find their home.

what is your proof of that?

[Mark Smiles]

Did she happen to say what that "clear" evidence of a break-in was, why it was not mentioned in court and why the Dearborn Heights police would say there was no evidence of an attempted break-in if there really was? Ms. McBride couldn't break into a locked house using ONLY her hands. His fear was understandable. However, his perception of the THREAT to his life was not. Had he not opened that door and shot before he had a chance to better assess the level of the threat, I don't think he would've ever raised the gun. He would've seen she was confused, drunk, injured and/or high, told her to move on and/or called the police so they could deal with the matter.

And for those blaming the paintballers, how do justify bringing a shotgun to a paintball fight?!!!!

The paint ballers should have been taken seriously by the police and the prosecutors. The authorities did not give a damn about what was going on. I really think they deserve to be held accountable. How excited would the cops be if their cars were vandalized? They would be out for blood.

This issue should be addressed if we are really interested in justice.

[Wesley Mouch]

Ur assuming she was aggressive. He said in his testimony he didn't have a chance to register what he was looking at until he saw Ms. McBride falling backward after he shot her in the face. There is no EVIDENCE she was being aggressive. He said they did not speak. The only information he said he had before shooting was someone was knocking loudly at his doors.

How are u defining "railroaded?" He had eight months to come up with a defense. What u seem to be describing is the unfairness that arises when guilty defendants with money are able to tip the scales of justice in their favor. Are u saying that's what SHOULD happen?

I only proposing a scenario. I don't know what happened. I wasn't there.

Only two people were there. One is dead. The other doesn't seem to have said the best things to get himself off the hook. In fact his words are being used to prove his guilt.

I don't know if anything he's said is true. But what I know is that people are reading a lot into a few words of his. And then saying it proves his guilt.

We are certain of nothing here. Everyone thinks he's guilty. I just don't see the proof of guilt other than his own badly chosen words. Maybe he's guilty as hell. But I'd rather let him go than convict someone who might just be stupid and the victim of high-profile case where everyone involved would find it politically difficult to accept innocence.

I want our justice system to err in the direction of caution, and a presumption of innocence. I'm not seeing it here.

[gazhekwe]

Ugh you are still acting like the jury did not have the facts. Get over it.

[mam2009]

^^^ What s/he said.

[Downriviera]

what is your proof of that?

She had a cell phone and didn't use it. Refused help from a woman who was at the accident scene, this is fact. Her parents said Wafer's house looks like hers and she may have thought that was her home.

[Wesley Mouch]

Ugh you are still acting like the jury did not have the facts. Get over it.

Yeah, you're right. I should trust the jury.

My concern is that the jury did had the facts. But that bad defense combined with pressure to convict led the jury to wrongly convict. Funny here, those calling for conviction here were same people who believe in the past they were railroaded by poor defense combined with presumption of guilt.

OK, I'm over it. I'll just trust that the jury had the facts. Mistakes are never made. And all those blacks in years past that were wrongly accused were really guilty too. Bye for now.

[mam2009]

Yeah, you're right. I should trust the jury.

My concern is that the jury did had the facts. But that bad defense combined with pressure to convict led the jury to wrongly convict. Funny here, those calling for conviction here were same people who believe in the past they were railroaded by poor defense combined with presumption of guilt.

OK, I'm over it. I'll just trust that the jury had the facts. Mistakes are never made. And all those blacks in years past that were wrongly accused were really guilty too. Bye for now.

I have no idea why you insist on comparing this to "those blacks." He said he did not see Ms. McBride's skin color prior to shooting her which is consistent with what he initially told police at the scene and what he said on the stand. HE said he intentionally shot Ms. McBride. Where is the dispute. He's not saying he did NOT kill her. He acknowledged he killed an unarmed woman for knocking loudly outside his locked door. Where is the conspiracy??? He may not have THOUGHT it was illegal to do so, but IT IS ILLEGAL. No threat to his life had been reasonably established when he made his "decision" to shoot. And when we do ILLEGAL things [[like shoot someone illegally), we should be convicted when there is sufficient evidence to prove we did it.

I really want to get to the bottom of your thought pattern, so please read and respond to the scenario below:

Let's assume for a minute there were ten neighbors outside who both saw and heard a drunk woman named Linda standing on a man's porch. Let's call that man, Bill. The neighbors are quietly standing on the sidewalk right in front of Bill's house so they've got a really good view. They hear Linda cursing at the occupant of the house [[she doesn't know Bill, she thinks its her boyfriend's house which looks very similar, but she's too drunk and mad to notice) and threatening to kill him while she's banging on his locked storm door and screaming for him to let her in. The neighbors all see clearly that Linda has no weapon, no purse. Bill, however, can't tell she's unarmed because his front door is locked and his peep hole got covered with paint from when the neighborhood kids with a paintball gun played a prank on him when he went outside to get his newspaper off the front porch last week. Here's the question: In your mind, Wesley Mouch, is it ok for Bill to open his front door and shoot unarmed, aggressive Linda through the locked storm door?

[Downriviera]

Speaking of the "facts" the jury had, its interesting that the judge would not let pictures from the girl's cell phone of her posing with cash, weed and a gun be shown in court.

We are all commenting on the after effects of this incident. The real problem is a grass roots issue. Stop the home invasions, car jackings, muggings, etc. and you won't have armed Ted Wafer's. Until that happens there's a good chance something like this happens again.

[mam2009]

Speaking of the "facts" the jury had, its interesting that the judge would not let pictures from the girl's cell phone of her posing with cash, weed and a gun be shown in court.

We are all commenting on the after effects of this incident. The real problem is a grass roots issue. Stop the home invasions, car jackings, muggings, etc. and you won't have armed Ted Wafer's. Until that happens there's a good chance something like this happens again.

If he didn't even see Ms. McBride or hear her voice before shooting her as she came into his view, why do her cell phone pictures matter? If Ms. McBride didn't have weed and a gun on her and on display to Mr. Wafer when he shot her, why would the jury need to see it in her cell phone pictures. He did not use those images in his decision-making process to shoot her. He did not say she threatened him or brandished a gun. He SAID she "consistently knocked" and "banged" on his storm doors with no words. That's ALL he had. And that is why his perception of the degree of threat was UNREASONABLE.