Update: Wafer Sentenced.
This just in:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ights-shooting
Printable View
Seems pretty much right on the nose to me.
It's been interesting watching the news about this from out of town. Just getting the blurb on NBC, CNN...etc. The national people SOOOOO want this to be Travon II. The disappointment in how quickly and relatively quietly this went is almost palpable. I suppose they'll get another chance to crank up the outrage come sentencing...
The jurors heard the actual testimonies and evidence and decided that this man was guilty as charged. That's good enough for me and I'm glad all 12 came to the same conclusion. Reading the above article it appears as if Wafer changed his story as to how this actually went down. My guess is that was the difference between a conviction and a hung jury. Still a tragedy for both sides of this, none of this should have happened.
Couldn't imagine another outcome myself. Let's forget about people's complexion for a minute. Let's not substitute sexes, age groups or ethnicities. Carelessness at best describes Wafer's attitude in this event. He definitely has to pay for an inadmissible crime.
Like the article says and I said to myself, this guy primed himself to respond to a potential invader, aggressor with lethal force, and this brought on this unfortunate and final moment.
I trust the jury knew more than we do... because from what I know, there is certainly 'reasonable doubt'.
It is more important that our justice system protects all innocents than convicts when politically expedient and easy to do so. For many years, blacks would complain that they were railroaded. And often they were. It does not make the world better to convict where there's doubt -- even if it feels good.
We don't want a system that delivers mob justice. We want a system that does its best to be fair to all under clear rules. I worry that this was swayed by public opinion -- which is not good.
This is sad and shows what can happen with a loaded gun.
All it takes is a person who is fearful or drunk or awaken from sleep or angry [[like if someone had an argument with a spouse) and something 'can go terribly wrong.'
then you know something no one else does. You need to have a reasonable belief you were in danger of death or GBH. someone pounding on your door does not absolve you of that. He was behind a locked door. He opened the door and fired without any idea as to who or what was at his door.
there is no doubt here. this is just silly.Quote:
It is more important that our justice system protects all innocents than convicts when politically expedient and easy to do so. For many years, blacks would complain that they were railroaded. And often they were. It does not make the world better to convict where there's doubt -- even if it feels good.
the only fact that matters here is the fact he was safe behind the door. He opened the door and fired his shotgun point blank at the chick based on a unreasonable belief he was in danger.Quote:
We don't want a system that delivers mob justice. We want a system that does its best to be fair to all under clear rules. I worry that this was swayed by public opinion -- which is not good.
personally, to me it looks like there is zero controversy to be found here other than what people want to manufacture.
That is sort of what led to my post. the amount of news nationally this was getting. It has been at least a blurb with the national talent just about every time. Like I said, the disappointment this wrapped up so neatly is almost comical. its like "fuck...we've been in DETROIT for two weeks for THIS!?! a completely reasonable result and a totally uncontroversial trial on the merits of the case. Can't we at least get a nutbag ME on the stand to talk nonsense about sugar leading to violence?"
What is sad about this case is that it was NOT a home invasion. The victim wasn't in his house.
Pounding on doors is usually a cry for help.
Thieves don't knock on doors, create a ruckus, and announce their intentions. They try to do things with minimal notice hoping not to be detected and certainly don't want to enter an occupied house. That is when things can really go wrong. The thief could get shot. And thieves don't want to shoot people either. That isn't their motivation.
I CAN understand how he would have been afraid but the 'rational' thing would have been to say dead-bolt the door, call 911 [["It's the middle of the night and someone is pounding on my door"), etc.
To paraphrase the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, 'About a good person with a gun'... Sometimes good people do bad things when they are compromised. E.g., Someone at home might have had too many to drink. No problem he/she is at home, not driving, not threatening anyone, etc. etc. and all of a sudden a completely unexpected incident comes up and things go wrong. "Sure, I was compromised. Had too many to drink, but I was home minding my own business..."
I couldn't agree more... His inconsistencies with his testimony did him in as well. His lawyers are probably second guessing him taking the stand in his own defense. Maybe it's just me but, how can you fear for your life from a 19 year old woman? Doesn't matter what race.
I agree. The problem here is that he started off by saying that it was an accidental shooting at the time of the incident. Then he changed his story to say that he fired on purpose, and that it was in self-defense.
of course, those are diametrically opposed. Either you shot the gun on purpose, and you did so knowing who you were shooting at, or you did not intend to shoot anything and the gun went off because of your careless action. Personally, I think that ifit truly was an accident, he should have said so and pled involuntary manslaughter. I do have sympathy for what took place, presuming that it wasn't intentional, and would be willing to give a more lenient sentence.
but by rolling the dice, saying that you fired on purpose, but that it was in self-defense, was just much harder for me to buy. The right to bear arms comes with responsibility, and the first and foremost of those responsibilities, is to know what you are shooting at. Neither his fatigued state, nor his confusion, nor his fear, is enough to excuse his actions. Had the victim breached the property interior, this would be a totally different story. But once he chose to open the door and engage, the burden of proving that he was in danger of being harmed now falls on him. I just don't see him having that that burden.
Lastly, had he gone with the accidental explanation, I would feel much more comfortable convicting on involuntary manslaughter. But once he decided to go with the self defense strategy, you have a pretty high burden to prove that you were actually in harm's way.
I hope that the lesson is learned, that being afraid for your life is a good start to justifying self-defense, but it still requires more than just your fear. The mere perception of a threat is not enough. There actually needs to be an actual threat before you can justify using deadly force.
What is truly sad about this incident, is if he was truly afraid all he had to do is show the gun and say, "Get the hell off of my property. What are doing here?"
Shooting a gun without any evidence of having seen the victim with a gun is completely unjustifiable. Complete over reaction.
He basically had an a "assault type" or "street sweeper" shotgun, with no stock and a VERY short barrel. He was wrong from the beginning, and he didn't understand the meaning of self defense, evidenced by the fact that he waivered continuously in regard to his explanation of the events that occurred that night. Anyone who has possession of a weapon, be it handgun, shotgun or rifle and has contemplated using it [[and really knows the law) knows that he never got to the last of the stages of assessment-the red phase. At best it could be argued that he was scared, which isn't excusable enough to kill someone over. Having and carrying or owning a weapon is an awesome responsibility. I am glad that the jury in this case put aside their own potential fears and came to the right conclusion, which was murder, not self defense.
Shouldn't those who were tormenting Wafer by paint balling his car stand up and be publicly identified? They can share their stories about how funny it was shooting his car and watching Wafer get mad. I'm sure the McBride and the Wafer families will really enjoy the tales of their hijinks.
So I say sure, let's have the media tell this part of the story.
Yes. Complete over-reaction. But on your own property, inside your own home, I'm quite all right with the over-reaction. I believe inside your home, you are to be granted extreme discretion to be left alone to peaceably enjoy life.
But she was on the outside. And he could have sat in a chair with his rifle. And when she crossed into the house --- there would have been much less doubt about whether he acted reasonably.
Don't they always say if you have to shoot someone as they crawl in your window, make sure the body falls inward?
Yes, taking your comments a step forward, if Wafer would have handled things better he could have been charged with a lesser crime and let the jury decide it.
The way I understand things, 2nd degree murder was an easy charge to bring.
If there was evidence the victim was entering the house, for whatever reason, he might have been able to defend himself against say a lesser charge and even if convicted might have gotten a light [[?) sentence.
BTW, here is Wikipedia on the Castle doctrine [[no discussion of MI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
I'm no lawyer, but it seems as if Mr. Wafer was doomed regardless of his "reason" for shooting. IF it was an accident, he was still guilty of second degree murder [[according to the instructions given to the jury). But with a claim of self-defense, the facts as HE relayed them from the night of the shooting through his testimony on the stand, simply did not support a "self-defense" defense.
Saying he INTENDED to shoot the shadowy human figure who did not speak to him [[no verbal threat to his life or verbal expression of intent to enter his home) through his locked storm door [[no breaking or entering) after opening his own front door, and who was not in the act of breaking in [[because he said Ms. McBride had just stepped into his view when he shot her), makes him seem like an impulsive hothead that might duplicate his deadly decision-making process on a citizen again if he isn't put away for a LONG time.
Even if he had not changed his story, the story he told in court did not match the evidence.
He probably would get a lighter sentence if he'd said I pulled the trigger by "accident" because "Ms. McBride startled me when she suddenly appeared. I shouldn't have had my finger on the trigger and I am devastated that I made such a tragic mistake." In my opinion that could get one a minimum sentence. But saying you meant to do it, under the circumstances he described, should equate to a maximum sentence.
I don't follow? Because of these incidents if 12 year olds or 16 year olds are doing something you really don't like OUTSIDE your house you can UNLOCK your front door and blow them away with a 12 gauge shotgun? Civilized society thinks that is taking your 2nd amendment rights over the line and is why this asshole is going to jail.
What bothers me is that it now seems evident Wafer bought that gun because the kids in the neighborhood were annoying him. That is truly scary.
It troubles me that we are holding Mr. Wafer to a very high standard.
Ignoring this partcular case, a man in his own house is disturbed by an apparent intruder. He prepares for the worst, and in his half-awake, adrenaline-fueled stupor makes a bad decision in a moment of fear.
In this case, apparently the jury was presented evidence that this wasn't the case. That he was under little threat. And his actions weren't reasonable.
Maybe that's true. But let's be careful when we apply very high standards while Monday Morning quarterbacking. It can be very hard to know how to deal with intruders. I have. And it can be very hard to deal with drugged up fools. I have. And I've seen harm innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
Let's just hope that the evidence truly supports locking up a man who might just have wanted a good night's sleep.
Excuse me while I don my Kevlar longjohns.
There.
Then can we say in this case that the presence of the firearm was a cause of a problem rather than a solution?
I would have to agree that in this case the presence of a firearm did nothing but escalate things and lead to tragedy. That being said, I still think McBrides actions were the initial cause of the problem. There are dozens instances of Detroiters legitimately defending themselves and their homes with firearms. This tragedy and Wafer's poor decisions do nothing to change my opinion that people still deserve that right.
Not to defend the guy's paranoia, but thieves do in fact knock on doors. It is a very specific kind of home invasion ploy. I had it happen to me when I was in college. Knock on the apartment door, assumed it was a friend who was stopping by and the guy, gun drawn, forced his way in once the door was cracked. It did not end well, for me at least.
Let's not pretend this fellow is unjustified in being frightened -- he did not know it was a teenage girl until he shot her. He had every reason to be scared, he just reacted in a totally ridiculous way. He deserves jail. And probably some help with his mental issues.
Anyone who KILLS another human being should be held to a high standard. The human he killed could easily have been a neighbor or a police officer checking on the alleged suspicious activity in the neighborhood, or a woman seeking help... Mr. Wafer said Ms. McBride said nothing. Mr. Wafer had no idea of who was outside and whether they were a threat, whether they were checking on a threat or whether they were running FROM a threat. He only knew SOMEONE was OUTSIDE his house. I'm no anti-gun advocate, but I believe you MUST be properly trained to handle a gun responsibly. A gun is a weapon designed to destroy. I took a week-long gun safety course and a day-long gun safety course. Both classes emphasized the huge responsibility that you take on when you choose to own, transport and/or operate a gun. And both classes emphasized the huge legal [[and emotional) consequences you take on when you aim the gun at a person and pull the trigger which is why the first rule of gun safety is to always point the business end of a gun in a safe direction [[away from anything you are not willing to destroy) regardless of whether it is loaded. To do otherwise with an instrument DESIGNED TO KILL/DESTROY is RECKLESS! If Ted Wafer was WILLING to destroy a human being outside his house [[while he was locked inside his house) for standing on his porch after allegedly knocking on his locked door, he SHOULD be put away for the maximum amount of time. That makes him a demonstrated danger to society!
That's an excuse. All he had to do was look out the window or peephole in the door before he pulled the trigger, and if he was really spooked, call the PO-PO, in Dearborn Heights, they would have been there lickety split. And if she forced entry into the home before they arrive, then he's justified in pulling the trigger.
I kind of feel bad for the guy in one hand that he is at home minding his own business and some loser that is high and drunk is pounding on the house for who knows what reason. It was just his horrible luck. He shouldn't get more than 5 years.
Or... Someone involved in a bad car accident [[happened to me at 1am once) or a neighbor who's wife died suddenly and unexpectedly [[happened to me at 3am once) or a young man looking for the young girl who's family I bought the house from [[happened to me lots of times, she had lots of young men looking for her, but only once at 1am) all of them pounding on the door late at night. I guess that's why I don't get the people supporting this guy. Was I prepared for the worst? You bet I was. Was I ready to help who needed help, yes. The help she needed was one 911 call away. Instead he opened the locked door and killed her. mam2009 Thank You
If it wasn't for her drinking to excess, wrecking her car and then pounding on a strangers doors at 4am Mr. Wafer would simply have spent the rest of the night sleeping. I'm not saying what the guy did was right and he deserves to go to prison, but the woman does bear some responsibility for what happened. Other articles have mentioned that witnesses to the wreck offered assistance, yet she still left the scene. The idea that she was simply looking for help just doesn't seem likely to me, more likely that as here parents stated the home looked similar to her own and in her state she may have confused the two.
Not surprised by the verdict. I expected this and accept it, but I don't entirely agree with it. I think not guilty on 2nd degree and guilty on manslaughter and fire arms charges. I know I'm in the minority on this here and I accept that, too. So what have we learned from this?
If you don't have a land line you must know where your cell phone is and be able to find it easily in the dark. Have it on a charger next to a night light. If you think someone is trying to break into your home under no circumstances do you open the door. Even if you look out and see a 19 year old girl, she could be a decoy and the armed perps are just waiting for you to open the door. He never really explained why he opened the door other than he didn't want to be a victim. Makes no sense.
Had he not opened the door I think she would have eventually got in. I believe she thought this was her house and was desperate to get in and away from the police to avoid a DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. I don't know if she had a previous record but if she did all the more desperate to get in.
Know this: many homeowners are armed and fearful of home invasions. They are also not well trained in the use of fire arms. Not a good idea to knock, let alone pound on doors in the middle of the night. Take the DUI and live. Being drunk and stupid is a lot riskier these days. Sad case all the way around.
Ain't that a great society you live in. I'm visiting another city right now and renting a short term rental. 55 West whatever looks exactly the same as West 53. I forgot which was which and was trying my key over and over late night in the wrong address. OMG I had beers in me too. Blow my head off!!!
I share your concern for his behavior, but I don't like to judge when I don't know the facts.
To suggest that to protect yourself with an instrument DESIGNED TO KILL is reckless. Go tell that to the multiple recent incidents where there really were home invasions going on.
I think its RECKLESS to think you know what happened here. I think its RECKLESS to suggest that self-defense against uncivilized behavior is wrong. That logic condemns people in deteriorating neighborhoods to a life of being victim to crime. I think its RECKLESS to judge when you don't know.
This is not a race issue, but the reason that Wafer is found guilty out of fear and bad judgement.
1. From his human nature, a bump in the night means black males wearing Trayvon Martins are casing his house and plan to break in the rob him and his property.
2. Inside his home Wafer got out his shotgun and went to the front door where the pounding is at.
3. He open the door and only a see 'black image' the looks like a black male wearing a Trayvon Martin and shoot him. Only to turn its a black female who needed help.
4. If so Wafer shoots a black female thinking was a black male wearing a Trayvon Martin on purpose. So its not self defense not justified.
Wafer may receive 20 years to life for second degree murder on August 25.
This is will be a lesson to those who live by the gun and balancing self defense.
Self defense in America works if the enemy attacks you out of judgement and predatory nature with bodily harm. Getting your weapon or attacking your foe or an approaching intruder quickly is not self defense or justified. That is why we have to careful while we stand our ground and protect ourselves and right of property.
God didn't give us a spirit of fear, but power, and of love, and a sound mind.
Yes, you were drunk, but were you a negro?
If so, you might frighten people by having the same complexion as someone you don't know who committed a home invasion at some other time. Now, you may be an unarmed person just suffering with some confusion from being drunk, or, you know, injuring yourself in a car accident, but a few of the 66 million people in this country who look vaguely like you have committed a home invasion. So when you come onto the porch it's just obvious self-defense to blast first, and ask questions never. And then Wesley can go back to sleep, dammit!
There are more than a few white folk committing home invasions and burglaries. It is not just a black thing by a long shot.
Wesley Mouch, you keep wringing your hands over 'not knowing all the facts.' What makes you think the jurors did not know all the facts?
I never suggested protecting oneself with a deadly weapon was reckless. I was referring to the manner in which he handled his tool of destruction. Mr. Wafer has every right to defend himself with deadly force, as does every U.S. citizen.
He was judged by a jury of his peers. I simply agree with their decision. My opinion comes directly from Mr. Wafer's testimony as reported by the newspapers and tv news. HE said he opened his front door and intentionally shot an unarmed human through his locked storm door, who had not spoken to him as she appeared on his porch from the side of his view. Those facts are not in dispute.
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/Quote:
A 14-year-old alleged gang member was charged as an adult Thursday with murder, accused of stabbing a man to death in downtown San Jose.
Marvin Garcia and two other defendants, Garcia’s brother, Luis Garcia, 21, and Luis Alvarez, 20, are now charged with murder as well as a gang enhancement in the slaying of 33-year-old Marvin Maynard.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Check out his coverage of the case and verdict:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08...-murder-trial/
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.
^^^ Very unfortunate. Well stated and to the points.
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!
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
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?Quote:
I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house
"I would have shot you as soon as you put a foot in my house"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good question. Although not specifically about Michigan, Wikipedia draws some distinctions here.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
This is why we are better than Florida, etc.
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!
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.
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.
Things are just too insane here. This is just such an awful place to live.
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.
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.
A drunk wandering around at 3AM after crashing a car sort of fits that description.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
What is the point of disparaging the murder victim's character? To say she somehow "deserved" death? No, she didn't.