Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-03-14, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

We cannot conclude Mr. Wafer got bad legal advice because all we KNOW is that he shot a human being on purpose according to his own testimony. He may have been given the best legal advice possible under those circumstaces.

And, no, there is no irony. Why do u insist on trying to compare or equate this case to guilty verdicts found in the cases of innocent black defendants? We don't KNOW he got bad advice. I assume u r referring to cases where black defendants have been wrongly convicted due, in large part, to biased juries, institutionalized racism within the judicial system and legislative indifference to it. I don't think those apply here.

Tis exactly my point. If you don't see that here, I suggest you are allowing your biases to show.

**MizMotown** · September-03-14, 02:17 PM

17-30 years is too long in my book for a completely *&^%#@ up situation all around. Yes, the police should have been called, yes there is total negligence, yes, i think his lawyers played dirty and probably directed him the wrong way, yes he made a huge irreversible mistake in judgement all around but I do not think that man deserves 17 years.

Willi · September-03-14, 02:54 PM

Maybe people should not bang on a strangers door/porch
when they are stinking drunk and high on drugs .......
That seems to be the lesson that should be taught

**Honky Tonk** · September-03-14, 02:58 PM

Several lessons can be taken away from this, Don't get so shit-faced stinking drunk, that you have no idea where you are, what you're doing, or who you're doing it with. When hiring some who'll have a profound effect on the rest of your life, choose someone with knowledge, experience, and competence, and not so much on physical attributes. When trying to pound someone's door in @ 4:30 a.m., wear hand protection.

**Scottathew** · September-03-14, 03:15 PM

I thought 10-15 years would have been appropriate.

The young lady was a catalyst in her own demise, but there's still no excuse for shooting her.

**Mark Smiles** · September-03-14, 04:23 PM

I just cant help but contrast this to the slight tap on the wrist to those who attempted to murder Steve Utash.

**mam2009** · September-03-14, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Several lessons can be taken away from this, Don't get so shit-faced stinking drunk, that you have no idea where you are, what you're doing, or who you're doing it with. When hiring some who'll have a profound effect on the rest of your life, choose someone with knowledge, experience, and competence, and not so much on physical attributes. When trying to pound someone's door in @ 4:30 a.m., wear hand protection.

...and always point a firearm in a safe direction [[away from anything or anyone you aren't willing to destroy or kill - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course)... And don't purposely shoot an unarmed person from inside your home unless you have determined, based on the circumstances, with reasonable certainty they intend to do you physical harm... And keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot your target [[to prevent ACCIDENTAL discharges - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course). And I'm sure there are many, many more lessons, as well.

**corktownyuppie** · September-03-14, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by MizMotown

17-30 years is too long in my book for a completely *&^%#@ up situation all around. Yes, the police should have been called, yes there is total negligence, yes, i think his lawyers played dirty and probably directed him the wrong way, yes he made a huge irreversible mistake in judgement all around but I do not think that man deserves 17 years.

I totally agree with you. I thought that 8-15 years could've worked if it was an accidental shooting due to negligence. AND...if I'm the prosecutor, I would've given up the easy 8 if he made a plea deal.

But he [[and his attorney) took that off the table the moment they decided to go for the self-defense claim. And, unfortunately, the sentencing guidelines mandate this.

This is a **ked up situation all around, for everyone involved. Tragic.

**MizMotown** · September-03-14, 05:02 PM

It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in Self-Defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes Deadly Force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

unfortunately not in this case

**iheartthed** · September-03-14, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by MizMotown

17-30 years is too long in my book for a completely *&^%#@ up situation all around. Yes, the police should have been called, yes there is total negligence, yes, i think his lawyers played dirty and probably directed him the wrong way, yes he made a huge irreversible mistake in judgement all around but I do not think that man deserves 17 years.

All murders are fucked up situations. He was convicted of second degree murder. His sentence is fully in line with the offense.

**corktownyuppie** · September-03-14, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by MizMotown

Advertisement [[Bad banner? Please let us know Remove Ads

Share: Cite / link:

It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in Self-Defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes Deadly Force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

unfortanely not in this case

I find it interesting [[and am glad to see) that there are legal concepts that say, "Yes, you were unreasonable for thinking the situation required the use of deadly force. However, it's clear that you honestly believed that was the case. You intended to kill, but out of necessity, not out of malice. We have the discretion to take that into consideration during sentencing."

I think the sentence might be successful in an appeal but not the verdict. I tried clicking on the hyperlinks but got an error message. This was a good find...where did you get it?

**Danny** · September-03-14, 05:56 PM

So wafer will not be released until the year 2031. Otherwise for good behavior, he will be released on parole by 2026.

**Danny** · September-03-14, 05:58 PM

Oh well! justice is served. Wafer will be released by 2026 on parole.

**Oddz313** · September-03-14, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Several lessons can be taken away from this, Don't get so shit-faced stinking drunk, that you have no idea where you are, what you're doing, or who you're doing it with. When hiring some who'll have a profound effect on the rest of your life, choose someone with knowledge, experience, and competence, and not so much on physical attributes. When trying to pound someone's door in @ 4:30 a.m., wear hand protection.

Another lesson that can be learned from this is to get an education and don't be so stupid all the time. This is a story of 2 stupid people crossing paths and bad things happening. The girl was 19 so she had more of excuse to be stupid. I know I was pretty stupid at 19,myself. Theodore Wafer is cut from the cloth of being able to make it in life being so stupid because of the generation he grew up in. He is like that half retarded assembly line worker who just got lucky in life. The lawyer did him no favors by letting someone so stupid that they cannot remember the stories they originally told the police, end up testifying.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-03-14, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

...and always point a firearm in a safe direction [[away from anything or anyone you aren't willing to destroy or kill - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course)... And don't purposely shoot an unarmed person from inside your home unless you have determined, based on the circumstances, with reasonable certainty they intend to do you physical harm... And keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot your target [[to prevent ACCIDENTAL discharges - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course). And I'm sure there are many, many more lessons, as well.

All excellent advice.

And get yourself a good lawyer -- because if you're just a regular joe -- the system will chew you up.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-03-14, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Smiles

I just cant help but contrast this to the slight tap on the wrist to those who attempted to murder Steve Utash.

Utash was an innocent. Ms. McBride was far from innocent. There's little doubt that race is a factor. Let's have that dialog. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Wafer wasn't well defended here. Is this really justice? A man convicted on his own testimony and plea? If this were the south in 1940s, would we accept this? How will this look to us in the next few years. I don't like seeing someone convicted on technicalities of his own creation. Too much like our past treatment of blacks. You honor, I saw him furtively looking through the window at my white daughter. So he's guilty of something. She's dead. He must have done it.

**corktownyuppie** · September-03-14, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Utash was an innocent. Ms. McBride was far from innocent. There's little doubt that race is a factor. Let's have that dialog. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Wafer wasn't well defended here. Is this really justice? A man convicted on his own testimony and plea? If this were the south in 1940s, would we accept this? How will this look to us in the next few years. I don't like seeing someone convicted on technicalities of his own creation. Too much like our past treatment of blacks. You honor, I saw him furtively looking through the window at my white daughter. So he's guilty of something. She's dead. He must have done it.

Well I don't necessarily think that the solution is for Wafer to get less. I think that if one believes [[as I also do) that Utash's perpetrators are getting more lenient sentences than Wafer, then the solution is for Utash's perps to get higher sentences.

I'm generally with you about people getting convicted on technicalities, etc. The problem though is that it crosses a line when someone has died. That is totally irreversible. Utah suffered greatly, and his life is changed forever. But he is still alive. At the end of the day, that difference is the big game-changer for me.

**Honky Tonk** · September-04-14, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

All excellent advice.

And get yourself a good lawyer -- because if you're just a regular joe -- the system will chew you up.

Especially if the deck is already stacked against you.

**Honky Tonk** · September-04-14, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Oddz313

Another lesson that can be learned from this is to get an education and don't be so stupid all the time. This is a story of 2 stupid people crossing paths and bad things happening. The girl was 19 so she had more of excuse to be stupid. I know I was pretty stupid at 19,myself. Theodore Wafer is cut from the cloth of being able to make it in life being so stupid because of the generation he grew up in. He is like that half retarded assembly line worker who just got lucky in life. The lawyer did him no favors by letting someone so stupid that they cannot remember the stories they originally told the police, end up testifying.

Yeah, you know how those retarded assembly line workers are. I bet they're so dumb, they don't even shop @ Ho' Foods, or drink Crap Beers. We're better off turning all those jobs over to prisoners or sending them overseas. On another note, Hugh is offering all designer cufflinks @ 5% off this week.

**Honky Tonk** · September-04-14, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by mam2009

...and always point a firearm in a safe direction [[away from anything or anyone you aren't willing to destroy or kill - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course)... And don't purposely shoot an unarmed person from inside your home unless you have determined, based on the circumstances, with reasonable certainty they intend to do you physical harm... And keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot your target [[to prevent ACCIDENTAL discharges - not applicable in the case of self-defense, of course). And I'm sure there are many, many more lessons, as well.

Unless of course, someone is pounding the life out of your house @ 4:30 a.m. You wouldn't want them to jump from around the corner and plant a slug in your face?

**MizMotown** · September-04-14, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I find it interesting [[and am glad to see) that there are legal concepts that say, "Yes, you were unreasonable for thinking the situation required the use of deadly force. However, it's clear that you honestly believed that was the case. You intended to kill, but out of necessity, not out of malice. We have the discretion to take that into consideration during sentencing."

I think the sentence might be successful in an appeal but not the verdict. I tried clicking on the hyperlinks but got an error message. This was a good find...where did you get it?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Deadly+Force

**poobert** · September-04-14, 03:41 PM

If I disagree with the sentence, I suppose it would be acceptable for me to go ransack and loot stores in my neighborhood, n'est-pas? That's kind of the message I'm getting as of late from a different community.

Well I've actually got to go to work in the morning so that won't work.

**iheartthed** · September-04-14, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Well I don't necessarily think that the solution is for Wafer to get less. I think that if one believes [[as I also do) that Utash's perpetrators are getting more lenient sentences than Wafer, then the solution is for Utash's perps to get higher sentences.

I'm generally with you about people getting convicted on technicalities, etc. The problem though is that it crosses a line when someone has died. That is totally irreversible. Utah suffered greatly, and his life is changed forever. But he is still alive. At the end of the day, that difference is the big game-changer for me.

Did I miss something? Is Steve Utash dead?

**Honky Tonk** · September-04-14, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Did I miss something? Is Steve Utash dead?

No, Nothing @ all like that. He'll just be a permanently disabled vegetable for the rest of his life. Why he's lucky to be alive! What did he do again? Oh yeah, stopped to offer aid. Oh well, live and learn....

**iheartthed** · September-04-14, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

No, Nothing @ all like that. He'll just be a permanently disabled vegetable for the rest of his life. Why he's lucky to be alive! What did he do again? Oh yeah, stopped to offer aid. Oh well, live and learn....

Dude, you're seriously reaching here. Steve Utash is alive, walking, talking, and back to work [[http://www.freep.com/article/2014080...-Utash-Detroit). Renisha McBride is dead until the end of time. What happened to both of them is sad but using the sentence of Utash's attackers to say anything about the fairness of Wafer's sentence is beyond ridiculous. I'm being ridiculous for even taking the time to respond to this nonsense.