Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[SyGolden48236]

Update: Wafer Sentenced.

This just in:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ights-shooting

[bailey]

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...

[stinkytofu]

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...

Maybe I'm off base here, but I've found it interesting that it almost seems like the national media has been more on this than the local media.

[Johnnny5]

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.

[canuck]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

[canuck]

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.

If Wafer's testimony had not wavered, the jury would not have been swayed by the only witness' inconsistency.

[emu steve]

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.'

[bailey]

I trust the jury knew more than we do... because from what I know, there is certainly 'reasonable doubt'.

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.

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.

there is no doubt here. this is just silly.

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.

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.

personally, to me it looks like there is zero controversy to be found here other than what people want to manufacture.

Maybe I'm off base here, but I've found it interesting that it almost seems like the national media has been more on this than the local media.

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?"

[emu steve]

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..."

[Cincinnati_Kid]

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.

[corktownyuppie]

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.

[emu steve]

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.

[PlymouthRes]

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.

[Mark Smiles]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

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?

[emu steve]

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

[Meddle]

Maybe it's just me but, how can you fear for your life from a 19 year old woman?

Ask the kid who got stabbed to death by a 12 year old on a Kentwood playground. Or the guy that got yanked out of his car and beaten by a 16 year old. Or any of the multitudes of others beaten or killed by teens or younger.

[mam2009]

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.

[ABetterDetroit]

Ask the kid who got stabbed to death by a 12 year old on a Kentwood playground. Or the guy that got yanked out of his car and beaten by a 16 year old. Or any of the multitudes of others beaten or killed by teens or younger.

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.

[Johnnny5]

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'm all for the guy going to prison and paying for his actions, but do you really think the maximum sentence [[Life in prison) would be justified is this case?

[Johnnny5]

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.

I'm rather sure Meddle was just suggesting that just because someone is a teen, it does not mean that can't pose a serious threat.

[gazhekwe]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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

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.

[EastsideAl]

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.

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.