Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

Unlike Ms. McBride, Mr. Utash was an innocent. Ms. McBride did not deserve to die, but she was hardly innocent.

[iheartthed]

Unlike Ms. McBride, Mr. Utash was an innocent. Ms. McBride did not deserve to die, but she was hardly innocent.

If she didn't deserve to die then she was innocent. There is no inbetween.

[mam2009]

Unlike Ms. McBride, Mr. Utash was an innocent. Ms. McBride did not deserve to die, but she was hardly innocent.

WM, I think it's safe to say Ms. McBride, the dead, unarmed woman is innocent of trying to kill Mr. Wafer.

And, on what planet is an uncoerced admission of killing a human being considered a "technicality?" On earth we call that a legally admissible confession.

And if u want to discuss "innocent," why are you ignoring Mr. Wafer's prior convictions for drunk driving. Does the fact that he is not perfect make you feel better about him going to jail for 17-30 years?

[corktownyuppie]

Ms., McBride, the deceased, is definitely innocent of trying to kill Mr. Wafer. She is also most certainly guilty of absurdly reprehensible and irresponsible behavior. That doesn't in any way justify her death. At all.

When a hitchhiker decides to stand with his thumb out at 3 am on a Thursday night looking to hitch a ride, does he deserve to be killed by a homicidal serial killer? No, of course not.

But just because the victim was innocent by any "criminal" standard, that doesn't mean he's not guilty of any stupid decision-making, either.

Ms. McBride is dead. She did not deserve to die. The person who killed her made a mistake. It wasn't out of malice, but the mistake left a person dead. He deserves to go to jail.

One person is dead. One person is guilty of a crime.
But both people are guilty of stupidity.

[Danny]

That's all comes the a conclusion! Wafer killed McBride out of fear! A bad judgement call when he heard a bump in a night.

[Downriviera]

Now we get to pay to imprison and feed this guy for 17 or more years. And he's been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, so we get to pay for those treatments, too. Very poor legal representation, should have been manslaughter and fire arms charge, 5 - 10 years. This was a tragic accident.

[iheartthed]

Now we get to pay to imprison and feed this guy for 17 or more years. And he's been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, so we get to pay for those treatments, too. Very poor legal representation, should have been manslaughter and fire arms charge, 5 - 10 years. This was a tragic accident.

The price we pay for civilization.

[Wesley Mouch]

Now we get to pay to imprison and feed this guy for 17 or more years. And he's been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, so we get to pay for those treatments, too. Very poor legal representation, should have been manslaughter and fire arms charge, 5 - 10 years. This was a tragic accident.

Big lesson here isn't be careful with firearms. Its to avoid high-profile, race-focused situations. You will be hounded and treated harshly by the legal system. No benefit of doubt.

[mam2009]

Big lesson here isn't be careful with firearms. Its to avoid high-profile, race-focused situations. You will be hounded and treated harshly by the legal system. No benefit of doubt.

U are the only one here focused on race. You keep trying soooooo hard to make comparisons based on race when the skin color of the victim and her killer were not relevant here. Mr. Wafer wasn't "railroaded." He was tried and convicted by a jury of HIS peers after admitting to killing an unarmed woman. All of the trial attornies on both sides were white. The police officers and investigators were white. The medical examiner was white. Southeast Michigan is overwhelmingly white. The Michigan Legislature is overwhelmingly white. There is no long tradition of whites receiving biased and unequal treatment in our justice system. Mr. Wafer wasn't defended by an overwhelmed and overworked public defender. Give it up, dude. Those of us who say his version of the facts makes the shooting seem like an accident, give him the benefit of the doubt when we except his word that he shot because he was frightened. It is entirely possible and conceivable he shot out of anger and vengeance. Mr. Wafer is the ONLY living eyewitness. He may have just decided he would shoot a person because he thought he could get away with it. Maybe he just wanted to know what it felt and looked like to shoot a person. We don't know. But we do know he shot and killed an unarmed woman.

[Honky Tonk]

But we do know he shot and killed an unarmed woman.

He had no idea who he was shooting @. Someone was running around his home, beating on windows and doors, furiously, @ 4:30 a.m. When he opened the door, she jumped out and he pulled the trigger. An unarmed, drunken, high, teenager, who had no idea where she was or what she was doing. Stop with the interjections and Girl Scout stories. Maybe you should give it up, 'Mam.

[Wesley Mouch]

U are the only one here focused on race. You keep trying soooooo hard to make comparisons based on race when the skin color of the victim and her killer were not relevant here. Mr. Wafer wasn't "railroaded." He was tried and convicted by a jury of HIS peers after admitting to killing an unarmed woman. All of the trial attornies on both sides were white. The police officers and investigators were white. The medical examiner was white. Southeast Michigan is overwhelmingly white. The Michigan Legislature is overwhelmingly white. There is no long tradition of whites receiving biased and unequal treatment in our justice system. Mr. Wafer wasn't defended by an overwhelmed and overworked public defender. Give it up, dude. Those of us who say his version of the facts makes the shooting seem like an accident, give him the benefit of the doubt when we except his word that he shot because he was frightened. It is entirely possible and conceivable he shot out of anger and vengeance. Mr. Wafer is the ONLY living eyewitness. He may have just decided he would shoot a person because he thought he could get away with it. Maybe he just wanted to know what it felt and looked like to shoot a person. We don't know. But we do know he shot and killed an unarmed woman.

Yes, I am the sole voice here wanting to have the 'dialog about race' that I always here we need to have because racism is alive and well. I believe racism does need to be buried. But if you believe this case wasn't about race, then our dialog isn't going to go anywhere.

The other word you and other focus on a lot is 'unarmed'. I don't see why that matters. And its very hard to know that during an altercation. If you want to be safe, you have to assume that the aggressor is armed. To do otherwise if foolish.

[Jimaz]

Yes, I am the sole voice here wanting to have the 'dialog about race' that I always here we need to have because racism is alive and well. I believe racism does need to be buried. But if you believe this case wasn't about race, then our dialog isn't going to go anywhere.

The other word you and other focus on a lot is 'unarmed'. I don't see why that matters. And its very hard to know that during an altercation. If you want to be safe, you have to assume that the aggressor is armed. To do otherwise if foolish.

You're just beginning to slip off your precarious "fair and balanced" pedestal — just in case you might wish to retain your characteristic façade.

[corktownyuppie]

The other word you and other focus on a lot is 'unarmed'. I don't see why that matters. And its very hard to know that during an altercation. If you want to be safe, you have to assume that the aggressor is armed. To do otherwise if foolish.

I think this is where we diverge. Of course it makes total sense that in an altercation you must assume that the aggressor is armed until you know otherwise. This is the reason why police are required to put their hand on their firearm as they are approaching any car, even in a routine traffic stop.

What was foolish isn't that he assumed the aggressor was armed; what is foolish is opening the door to an armed gunman.

There are all sorts of racial issues that I think are worthy of discussion here, and I'm not afraid of having them. Yes, if she were white, he probably would not have been as scared. Yes if he were black, fewer people would be angry about more "unjustified white on black crimes".

The problem is that his story fails tests of logic. If he was afraid she was armed, then he wouldn't have opened the door and engaged. If he knew that she wasn't armed, he shouldn't have fired. If he was acting irrationally, that too can't justify the use of deadly force.

I can't see a plausible scenario where he acting in self-defense. I think he fired the weapon because he was scared or because it was an accident. But if he was truly scared, then why did he open the door at all?

Do I think that the comparisons to Trayvon Martin are overdone and sometimes totally irrelevant? Yes. But the bottom line is that a scared man did a stupid thing and a person ended up dead. Unfortunately, that's at least manslaughter. As soon as you say you did it on purpose, then it's 2nd degree murder.

[mam2009]

Yes, I am the sole voice here wanting to have the 'dialog about race' that I always here we need to have because racism is alive and well... But if you believe this case wasn't about race, then our dialog isn't going to go anywhere.

Picture the "scales of justice." I just engaged your desire for a race dialogue when I pointed out above that Mr. Wafer started with the scale tipped more heavily in his favor, from a systemic and cultural point of view, than against him. If he had all of that in his favor, please share your thoughts on what, other than the heavy weight of the facts, the law and logic [[on the other side of the scale), could have overcome all that? And why would anyone want anything other than the facts, the law and logic to prevail? What exactly IS your point of view on how race applies here?

The other word you and other focus on a lot is 'unarmed'. I don't see why that matters. And its very hard to know that during an altercation. If you want to be safe, you have to assume that the aggressor is armed. To do otherwise if foolish.

Corktown articulated my point of view exquisitely above already. No need for me to muck it up.

[mam2009]

You're just beginning to slip off your precarious "fair and balanced" pedestal — just in case you might wish to retain your characteristic façade.

Ok, Lowell, if we can't add a "thumbs up" button [[a la Facebook) for DYes posts, can we get a "high five" button?!

[canuck]

Ok, Lowell, if we can't add a "thumbs up" button [[a la Facebook) for DYes posts, can we get a "high five" button?!

Agreed.

Our Wesley really digs a deep as he can to make our man less guilty at each and every post. The "chick" was far from innocent in his words.

I have been thinking about the lack of corroborating evidence from neighbors about the ruckus at Wafer's place that fateful night. Did anyone hear or see her?
It seems that if witnesses are lacking, the testimony by Wafer amounts to hearsay, no?

[mam2009]

He had no idea who he was shooting @. Someone was running around his home, beating on windows and doors, furiously, @ 4:30 a.m. When he opened the door, she jumped out and he pulled the trigger. An unarmed, drunken, high, teenager, who had no idea where she was or what she was doing. Stop with the interjections and Girl Scout stories. Maybe you should give it up, 'Mam.

So, what am I supposed to be giving up? Am I supposed to give up and say it's okay to shoot "An unarmed, drunken, high, teenager, who had no idea where she was or what she was doing" [[YOUR words) from inside the safety and security of one's own home? Is that what YOU'RE saying, HT?

[mam2009]

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

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

Honky Tonk, I originally posted this question for WesleyMouch some time ago, but I don't think s/he ever responded. Now, I am really trying to understand where you are coming from on this issue. Would you please share your perspective on the scenario above?

[Downriviera]

Let's assume for a minute that Wafer never opened the door, and that eventually she was able to break in. He shoots her and everyone is ok with this, right? She's in the house and legally he's done nothing wrong. But everything else is the same. He's still distraught for killing an unarmed teenager who did not break in to harm him. She thought it was her house and she was now looking for her bed to pass out in or the bathroom to puke her brains out. She's still dead and its still a tragedy. The only difference is he's not doing any time. Why did he open the door. Maybe to confront his fear. He's got at least 17 years to think about it.

[MizMotown]

Shooting in Detroit Last Night....

gee it's crazy to assume one could possibly have fear when someone is banging on your door in the early am?

Detroit — A 22-year-old man was killed and two others were wounded early Monday morning on the city’s west side.
Police investigators are on the scene at a home on the 9200 block of Burt, near West Chicago and Evergreen after shots were fired around 4:30 a.m.

According to Detroit police, the victims heard banging on the front door of the home before shots were fired through the door.

One man, 22, was shot in the chest and died in the home, according to police. The two other men, ages 22 and 20, were wounded in the legs by the gunfire. Their immediate conditions weren’t reported.

Police are searching for at least one suspect in the incident.
Neighbors stood across the street from the home Monday morning as investigators from Detroit Crime Scene Services and the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office worked the scene. Police attached yellow crime tape to a parked, light-blue Dodge minivan. A body was then loaded into a white van, which drove away with a medical examiner’s SUV following.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3CjEUQFsw

[iheartthed]

Let's assume for a minute that Wafer never opened the door, and that eventually she was able to break in. He shoots her and everyone is ok with this, right? She's in the house and legally he's done nothing wrong. But everything else is the same. He's still distraught for killing an unarmed teenager who did not break in to harm him. She thought it was her house and she was now looking for her bed to pass out in or the bathroom to puke her brains out. She's still dead and its still a tragedy. The only difference is he's not doing any time. Why did he open the door. Maybe to confront his fear. He's got at least 17 years to think about it.

Why is it so hard for people to discern the difference between knocking on a door and breaking into a house?

[EastsideAl]

I actually feel a little sorry for Mr. Wafer. I feel much, much sorrier for Ms. McBride and her family.

[Honky Tonk]

Why is it so hard for people to discern the difference between knocking on a door and breaking into a house?

I don't know. Why is it so hard for people to discern between knocking on a door and pounding the bejeezus out of every door and window on someone's home @ 4:30 a.m.?

[iheartthed]

I don't know. Why is it so hard for people to discern between knocking on a door and pounding the bejeezus out of every door and window on someone's home @ 4:30 a.m.?

Breaking into someone's house is against the law. Knocking on someone's doors and windows is not.

[Honky Tonk]

Breaking into someone's house is against the law. Knocking on someone's doors and windows is not.

Pounding the bejeezus out of every door and window on someone's home @ 4:30 a.m. constitutes reasonable concern for one's safety.