Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[Kevgoblue]

Interesting. Excuse after excuse after excuse being thrown out to try to justify exonerating Mr. Wafer for shooting an unarmed 19 year old girl. From speculation of his mental state, to the neighborhood kids with a paintball gun to her Facebook page pics, etc, etc, etc.

Quite different than the tone of the conversation when discussing the beating of Steve Utash. No questions or concerns about the perpetrators of that crime or neighborhood they live in. The high levels of crime. The lack of police response to crime in the area. They were just all animals and deserved as much jail time as afforded by the law. And Utash is still alive.

Why the disparity? Don't all that show disregard for others' lives deserve the same level of disdain? Where's the concern of those that would "rather let [[them) 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."

[Zacha341]

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.

Well stated in regards to what impact her photos are to have in this case. Mr. Wafer OPENED his door, shot out without verifying who he was shooting after first claiming he did NOT know the gun was loaded?? Which further makes it crazy to be opening a door and pointing an unloaded gun [[presumably unloaded or accidentally so)!

Her photos are immaterial to that. Even had she been a 'ten-yard' record, just released from jail, serial robber holding her own gun on his porch he needed to have called 911 then be ready to shoot once the door was breached: with a loaded gun - deliberately loaded.

[Downriviera]

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.

I'll simply disagree. I feel the threat was reasonable. When you live in an area where citizens are being killed by home invaders, car jackers, muggers, etc and little babies being shot and killed while sleeping in their beds, theres plenty of reasonable threat. He was awoken with the sound of what he reasonably thought was a home invasion. But he did break the law, I just think manslaughter and the firearms charge was enough. Do you really want your taxes to pay to feed this guy in prison for the rest of his life? Wouldn't you rather have that cell used by a real criminal? This guy wasn't looking to kill somebody that night. He was looking for a good nights sleep.

[Vic01]

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.

It may not have been in the original article, but one of the many articles said that she had purchased a fifth of vodka and gone to a party to "play a drinking game" with a friend... One of the posts here in the last 24 hrs stated that her blood alcohol level was .21 something. If it was that high at time of death [[3 to 4 hrs after she wrecked her car), then it was surely well above .30 earlier in the night. I'm not getting into should she have been driving... only pointing out the risk of alcohol poisoning, with a B.A.C. in the .30 [[or higher) range there's not much brain function going on.

[esighed]

I think she thought Wafer's house was her parent's home and that's why she banged on the door so persistently. In her alcohol induced altered view, she would never have stopped banging on all the doors because she was mad that her "parents" were not answering the door.

[bailey]

I'll simply disagree. I feel the threat was reasonable. When you live in an area where citizens are being killed by home invaders, car jackers, muggers, etc and little babies being shot and killed while sleeping in their beds, theres plenty of reasonable threat.

The threat was unreasonable so long as it was outside his home. End of dispute. Any further "disagreement" is irrational at best and at this point just a willfully ignorant stance to have.

He was awoken with the sound of what he reasonably thought was a home invasion.

that reasonable thought became unreasonable once he realized the door was locked and secure. At that point the REASONABLE response is to put down the gun and pick up the phone and dial 911 NOT unlock and open the door and start blasting away without ANY IDEA what you're shooting at.

But he did break the law,

...but you don't think he should do any time...because; reasons!

I just think manslaughter and the firearms charge was enough. Do you really want your taxes to pay to feed this guy in prison for the rest of his life? Wouldn't you rather have that cell used by a real criminal? This guy wasn't looking to kill somebody that night. He was looking for a good nights sleep.

He's going to jail because his negligence in use of his firearm caused the death of some other person. If he had driven a car at a reckless speed and run her over it'd be same result. His need for sleep doesn't trump his negligence.

[emu steve]

I'll simply disagree. I feel the threat was reasonable. When you live in an area where citizens are being killed by home invaders, car jackers, muggers, etc and little babies being shot and killed while sleeping in their beds, theres plenty of reasonable threat... .

Are you talking about W. Warren and Outer Drive in DEARBORN HEIGHTS?

Or are you speaking of some area five, 10 or 15 miles away?

[corktownyuppie]

Originally Posted by Downriviera

I'll simply disagree. I feel the threat was reasonable. When you live in an area where citizens are being killed by home invaders, car jackers, muggers, etc and little babies being shot and killed while sleeping in their beds, theres plenty of reasonable threat... .

I actually agree that he was reasonable to perceive McBride as a *potential* threat. That wasn't the problem, I don't think. The problem was his response to that threat. If you are really feeling threatened by people outside your home, and the only things stopping them from entering are locked doors and locked windows, what sense does it make for you to unlock and open that door?

This is one of the biggest question marks in the self-defense argument, and pro "stand-your-ground" advocate, NRA member, and self-defense attorney Andrew Barca says the same.

[[2) Wafer’s decision to unlock and open the steel front door of his home. McBride never, in FACT, threatened entry–whatever she might have done to the screen door, there remained the steel door to get through. Had that steel door been substantively damaged or had there been any evidence to suggest an actual entry was imminent, I think Wafer would have been fine.

Perhaps some will disagree with me, but I think that Wafer was right to have suspected McBride was a threat. I sure would have.

But suspecting that someone is a threat is not the same as concluding that they are a threat. And before you pull the trigger and argue self-defense, you better be sure.

[paddlebobb]

I adhere to most of the tenets of the NRA and am a proud gun owner. In consideration of what I believe I would do in this case is to just not answer the door. Always wanting to be of assistance to those who may be in distress, I would definitely communicate to the party through the door. I would certainly offer to make a phone call for anyone in need of one. With the door shut, I have all the control. With guns abound in the house, none would be needed unless the party chose to escalate the situation. I would make it my first priority to determine what the person's stated need was, then go from there. Should they begin to alternate from front to back door, or should the knocks on the door intensify to become more of a potential home invasion, then we have a different flavor of event. Again, depending on what has been [[or not been) communicated to me, a quick 911 call would be my next action. Any gun handling would be as a last resort, in judging that getting into my house against my will was possible and imminent.

[canuck]

[/I]

I actually agree that he was reasonable to perceive McBride as a *potential* threat. That wasn't the problem, I don't think. The problem was his response to that threat. If you are really feeling threatened by people outside your home, and the only things stopping them from entering are locked doors and locked windows, what sense does it make for you to unlock and open that door?

This is one of the biggest question marks in the self-defense argument, and pro "stand-your-ground" advocate, NRA member, and self-defense attorney Andrew Barca says the same.

[/FONT][/COLOR] Perhaps some will disagree with me, but I think that Wafer was right to have suspected McBride was a threat. I sure would have.

But suspecting that someone is a threat is not the same as concluding that they are a threat. And before you pull the trigger and argue self-defense, you better be sure.

Yes. Also, if you relativize this with crimes that involve negligence, the sentence of second degree homicide is not that far fetched. Someone, anyone, like miss McBride could be charged with this if they had hit and run for instance.
In Canada, where the laws are more lax regarding serious crime, we have a case of a young lady who stopped on a road to avoid a Duck and her ducklings a couple of years ago. A father and his daughter on a motorcycle rammed into her stalled car and both died. She was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death. Both carry a potential life and 14 year sentence respectively. She is waiting to receive her sentence in the next couple of weeks I believe. That is a very harsh reality to deal with.
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/...tal_crash.html

[emu steve]

I have one more general comment about this case [[and also the case in Florida):

In each case there were no witnesses and the victim is dead.

In Florida, the victim supposedly did 'ground and pound' Zimmerman yet he [[Zimmerman) was a full grown adult and the victim a young, thin teenager. Was the 'ground and pound' simply made up [[or one blow to the face became 'ground and pound' and accepted by the jury at face value?

In this case, Wafer could probably have written his own story of what happened and it might have been hard to disprove [[e.g., how does one prove or disprove that the screen door was opened or not opened???).

[emu steve]

Yes. Also, if you relativize this with crimes that involve negligence, the sentence of second degree homicide is not that far fetched. Someone, anyone, like miss McBride could be charged with this if they had hit and run for instance.
In Canada, where the laws are more lax regarding serious crime, we have a case of a young lady who stopped on a road to avoid a Duck and her ducklings a couple of years ago. A father and his daughter on a motorcycle rammed into her stalled car and both died. She was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death. Both carry a potential life and 14 year sentence respectively. She is waiting to receive her sentence in the next couple of weeks I believe. That is a very harsh reality to deal with.
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/...tal_crash.html

Wow!!!

I always thought that, within limits, that the driver of a vehicle is assumed to have control of his/her vehicle and able to stop it barring most unforeseen circumstances.

What happened if the 'stalled vehicle' was a car which ran out of gas or had some mechanical issue?

As sad as this case is, I assume folks stop to avoid dear, dogs, etc. crossing in front of them.

[[the case of a dear, hitting a dear is a potentially serious accident for the driver which I assume most drivers would try to avoid).

[mam2009]

I watched the Let it Rip segment on myfoxdetroit.com. Either Mr. Wafer's attorney thinks the viewing audience is made up largely of idiots, I AM an idiot or she's not a very persuasive or sophisticated speaker/actor. I am not buying that she is as stunned about the verdict as she says she is. She didn't say what the clear evidence of a break in was. She just focused on how stunned she was by the jury's decision.

[Downriviera]

The threat was unreasonable so long as it was outside his home. End of dispute. Any further "disagreement" is irrational at best and at this point just a willfully ignorant stance to have.


that reasonable thought became unreasonable once he realized the door was locked and secure. At that point the REASONABLE response is to put down the gun and pick up the phone and dial 911 NOT unlock and open the door and start blasting away without ANY IDEA what you're shooting at.

...but you don't think he should do any time...because; reasons!


He's going to jail because his negligence in use of his firearm caused the death of some other person. If he had driven a car at a reckless speed and run her over it'd be same result. His need for sleep doesn't trump his negligence.

The threat was unreasonable because it was outside? All home invasions start with a threat outside then move inside. What about the guy in Bloomfield Hills that didn't open his door...they shot him through the door. If you think this guy should not have felt threatened then I would say that is an ignorant stance. I never said he was innocent. In my first post I stated this guy should do time. I just don't think life in prison is fair. To compare this to driving reckless and running someone over is a poor analogy. This guy didn't walk down the street and shoot someone. He shot someone that was trying to break into his house. By law you can't do that and thats why he goes to prison. We'll see what the judge gives him. I just don't think it should be life.

[corktownyuppie]

The threat was unreasonable because it was outside? All home invasions start with a threat outside then move inside. What about the guy in Bloomfield Hills that didn't open his door...they shot him through the door. If you think this guy should not have felt threatened then I would say that is an ignorant stance. I never said he was innocent. In my first post I stated this guy should do time. I just don't think life in prison is fair. To compare this to driving reckless and running someone over is a poor analogy. This guy didn't walk down the street and shoot someone. He shot someone that was trying to break into his house. By law you can't do that and thats why he goes to prison. We'll see what the judge gives him. I just don't think it should be life.

With the evidence provided, there's no way I see life in prison. And I agree, it shouldn't be.

[mam2009]

I watched the Let it Rip segment on myfoxdetroit.com. Either Mr. Wafer's attorney thinks the viewing audience is made up largely of idiots, I AM an idiot or she's not a very persuasive or sophisticated speaker/actor. I am not buying that she is as stunned about the verdict as she says she is. She didn't say what the clear evidence of a break in was. She just focused on how stunned she was by the jury's decision.

[bailey]

The threat was unreasonable because it was outside?

yes.

All home invasions start with a threat outside then move inside

which DID NOT HAPPEN HERE...thus negligent discharge of the firearm.

What about the guy in Bloomfield Hills that didn't open his door...they shot him through the door.

The man who shot that lawyer lured him to the door by posing as a police officer.

If you think this guy should not have felt threatened then I would say that is an ignorant stance.

Sure, he could "feel threatened" however, the fear of death or GBH is NOT REASONABLE if he's secure in his home behind a locked door. there are different threat levels.

I never said he was innocent. In my first post I stated this guy should do time. I just don't think life in prison is fair.

he's not getting life.

to compare this to driving reckless and running someone over is a poor analogy.

it is a completely apt analogy. In both instances one is operating a piece of machinery in a negligent or willfully unlawful and unsafe manner that results in the death of another.

This guy didn't walk down the street and shoot someone. He shot someone that was trying to break into his house.

No, he shot someone banging on his door. he THOUGHT they MIGHT be breaking in. so he OPENED THE LOCKED DOOR and BLINDLY fired at whatever was on the other side of it.

By law you can't do that and thats why he goes to prison.

exactly... because nothing about his actions were legitimate self defense.

We'll see what the judge gives him. I just don't think it should be life.

He's not getting life.

[MotorCityTrikes]

True story: About 15 years ago on a Labor Day weekend a young guy came knocking on our door at 2:00 a.m. Probably checking to see if we were out of town. My wife heard him and woke me up. I went to the door and thru the side glass I asked what he wanted. He gave me some lame excuse so I asked him to go but he kept yakking. I turned around and "yelled" honey get the shotgun!! He left my porch a.s.a.p. as she also called the Police. I'm very glad it didn't escalate and that he decided to move on........

[EastsideAl]

He shot someone that was trying to break into his house.

There was no evidence that she was trying to break into his house. The police didn't find any such evidence, and none was presented at trial.

And he's not going to get life in prison. That's part of the media hysteria here, but it's only the high end of the legally possible sentencing range for 2nd degree murder and almost no one ever gets that sentence, particularly with the list of circumstances in this case.

[Downriviera]

There was no evidence that she was trying to break into his house. The police didn't find any such evidence, and none was presented at trial.

And he's not going to get life in prison. That's part of the media hysteria here, but it's only the high end of the legally possible sentencing range for 2nd degree murder and almost no one ever gets that sentence, particularly with the list of circumstances in this case.

A ballistics expert testified that the damage to the door was caused by her and not the gun. Coroner testified that injuries to her hands were from banging on the doors. If she wasn't trying to get into the house what do you think she was doing? Don't say knocking on the door for help. She refused help at the accident scene and never called for help. Again, strong evidence that she thought this was her house and was trying to get in. The guy thought it was a home invasion. They were both tragically wrong. All he had to do was wait till she got in the house. The result would have been the same tragedy because she wasn't there to harm him or steal his belonging, she was just trying to get home to avoid police and the DUI. But he would have been innocent.

[Downriviera]

Sure, he could "feel threatened" however, the fear of death or GBH is NOT REASONABLE if he's secure in his home behind a locked door. there are different threat levels.

I'm sure victims of home invasions would disagree with you, especially those who suffered GBH or death.

[mam2009]

For those who just insist this case had larger racial overtones, my teen-aged offspring just reminded me how race was a factor. You know how in the horror or suspense-thriller movies, there is a Hollywood "truism" where the black character immediately flees overt signs of danger, but the white character tends to go toward the danger to "check it out?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IH6IeiLtts

[canuck]

For those who just insist this case had larger racial overtones, my teen-aged offspring just reminded me how race was a factor. You know how in the horror or suspense-thriller movies, there is a Hollywood "truism" where the black character immediately flees overt signs of danger, but the white character tends to go toward the danger to "check it out?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IH6IeiLtts

Thank you mam.

[mam2009]

A ballistics expert testified that the damage to the door was caused by her and not the gun. Coroner testified that injuries to her hands were from banging on the doors. If she wasn't trying to get into the house what do you think she was doing? Don't say knocking on the door for help. She refused help at the accident scene and never called for help. Again, strong evidence that she thought this was her house and was trying to get in. The guy thought it was a home invasion. They were both tragically wrong. All he had to do was wait till she got in the house. The result would have been the same tragedy because she wasn't there to harm him or steal his belonging, she was just trying to get home to avoid police and the DUI. But he would have been innocent.

Please, oh, please explain to me how a woman with no weapon and no break-in tools would break into a locked house??????????????

In the two minutes or so that Mr. Wafer said it took for him to run around the house looking for the phone... then looking for the bat... then looking for the shotgun... then peaking out the window [[before opening the door), if he had enough information to think the mystery "people" outside were really coming in, a REASONABLE person would have kept the door shut to the would-be "intruders." What is agreed upon by both sides is Ms. McBride had no means of getting into that house but for the occupant opening the door for her! Opening the door is not a reasonable way of defending oneself when one thinks their home is about to be invaded! Stop it! That is an illogical, irrational way of dealing with a threat on ones life. You cannot be serious.

At worst, he heard "banging" on the door by fists -- but even that is not supported by uncontested evidence because the only evidence of "banging" on the door is the word of the now convicted killer. It was agreed by both sides that Ms. McBride's hand print was on the door, so we know she at least knocked on it [[as in "consistent knocking"), but we still don't know she was banging or banging aggressively. Even if she was banging very aggressively, nineteen year old, female, five foot four, 180 pound fists do not get one into a secured house.

Her fists did not sound like metal break-in tools.
Her fists did not break any locks.

Mr. Wafer's alleged assessment of the level of threat of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable... She had given him no REASON to think she had a weapon or was going to do great bodily harm to him. In his testimony, he did not provide the jury with a reason they could understand for why he thought he his life was in imminent danger. Fear makes you assess the danger level. You only use deadly force when you reasonably believe deadly force is going to be used upon you.

I hope Tony Stewart isn't going to say he mowed down that poor fella on the race track on purpose with his little race car because he thought the young fella was going to attack him. But I guess that would be ok with WesleyMouch and Downriviera if he did, since the young man was aggressively approaching him without a weapon.

[mam2009]

"Reasonable" is defined as fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances . . . not immoderate or excessive . . . rational, honest, equitable, fair, suitable . . .-Black's Law Dictionary

"Reasonable Care" is that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances. -Black's Law Dictionary