Attorney: Wafer wants to apologize at sentencing today for porch shooting
12:12 AM, September 3, 2014
By Elisha Anderson, Detroit Free Press Staff Writer

Theodore Wafer wants to apologize to the parents of the 19-year-old woman he fatally shot 10 months ago and plans to make a statement during his sentencing this morning.

That is what Wafer’s attorney said in a court document asking Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines of second-degree murder when she sentences the Dearborn Heights man for killing Renisha McBride.

“He wants to tell the McBride family that he is so sorry for taking their loved one’s life,” defense attorney Cheryl Carpenter said in the document. “He wishes he could have taken it all back and not opened that door. He beats himself up for opening the door.”

...more at link
http://www.freep.com/article/20140902/NEWS02/309020180

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Well if that was "Justice" we've had it.

Wafer got 2 yrs mandatory on weapon conviction and 15-30 on second murder and 7-15 yrs on the manslaughter. he'll serve at least 17 yrs

It seems ridiculous to me.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I don't see how that can stand up in appeals.

Mung... I would not count on ANYTHING.. but I hope you are right


oralandar brand-wms
Wafer atty says she will not handle his appeal, he will get a court-appointed atty who will do that

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't understand the problem?

A jury convicted him of second-degree murder, and manslaughter. The sentence seems appropriate for second-degree murder.

Now, if the issue is whether the second-degree murder *conviction* will stand up on appeal? That's anyone's guess. But if the jury rejected the self-defense claim, then at a minimum, manslaughter by act is an appropriate conviction. And from the little I know about the case, the facts don't seem to support a self-defense claim.

What am I missing?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Nothing Chip.

The conviction was incorrect (IMO) the appeal might redress that.....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

oralandar brand-wms

wafer atty says his demeanor after sentencing was "pure panic" like a "wild animal" who doesn't know what happened to him

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

That is just it Chip, it should have been manslaughter at most. There is no way that the burden of proof for murder 2 was met. They never proved any malice at all. There really needs to be an independent review process after convictions like this that checks to see if the requirements for the statute that the defendant was found guilty of. I mean come on, they didn't even attempt to present all of the requirements for murder 2 and the jury still found him guilty.

The real issue is that if the reason it couldn't be self defense was because he claimed it was an accident, doesn't that mean it HAS to be manslaughter or that states equivalent of negligent homicide?

So, second-degree murder standard wasn't met, but he was convicted anyway - when he should have been convicted only of manslaughter? So, the appeal will address that, but the Judge's hands were tied with mandatory-minimum sentencing?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I dont know, but the defense attorney's submissions were that Judge had leeway to sentence to less.

Dont know how familiar you are with case, Chip. IMO should have not been charged, or SD. That is why I am disapointed with length of sentence, but you are correct it is appropriate for M2.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I've been reading about this case, and what does it remind me of....a verdict we are currently waiting for in SA.

I think Mr. Wafer acted too quickly without first waiting to see who the 'intruder' was, but who knows, he was there, I wasn't.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

If I bent over backwards to ignore the complete circumstances I MIGHT accept some sort of manslaughter.. Murder2 is just silly.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I couldn't see how they got murder 2 out of this but I did not follow all of it. All I know is I know people who have had someone rush their door and before they knew it the door was kicked in a flash. So I can totally understand how he could have been in fear and acted due to that fear. And through the screen distorts what a person see. And these mandatory sentences need to go.

I know next to nothing (i.e. nothing except what I read in the sentencing articles yesterday) about this case, and don't wish to re-hash what you've spent 36 pages discussing. But unless there are other facts involved, him unlocking and opening the door is not a reasonable response to fear of an intruder, and his claim that he fired the shotgun while believing that it was unloaded is also unreasonable. Manslaughter sounds appropriate.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

There is more Chip

4:30 am. A man minding his own business, asleep (in his "castle")

NOT just knocking on door.. a ruckus, pounding on door. from several sides. She tried side door and perhaps climbed on aircon at rear) McBride very drunk and stoned (intentionally) and fleeing from crashing her car (again) into a parked car (and a tree). She avoided "help" and preferred to flee the scene. She was on Wafers small porch area (conceded to be part of his home) and had managed to wrench the screen panel out of its (locked) frame... As Wafer opened the door her face loomed from the side, in the dark.
(It is speculated: VERY disorientated she mistook Wafers house for home and was loud and belligerent and persistent in trying to get in).

This was a neighborhood not unfamiliar with crime, drugs etc. Wafer had the situation imposed on him, McBride had willfully got into a lot of trouble already that night, and was likely going to cause more for herself and or somebody else.. whoever she met up with if not Wafer.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I still don't have a big problem with a manslaughter conviction. He opened the door, and fired at an unknown target.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I can see that at a pinch.. but even if manslaughter.. it has mitigating factors?

But I can not get past the fact that he was in his own home asleep and had this brought to him. Surely in your own home you are entitled to make less than perfect decisions.. especially roused at 4:30 am.

IF there had been an intruder.. and Wafer had NOT SHOT.. he may well have found himself over-powered.. maybe shot with his own gun.
I dont have problem imagining myself in that situation being genuinely in fear for my life. "Reasonable man" test I think?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Bear in mind that I'm 95% ignorant of all of the details of the case.

But from what little I know: she wasn't inside the house. If you make that one change, IMHO he's justified in using deadly force, and has the presumption of reasonableness. But she wasn't. She was still outside, and he opened the door. That's the sticking point for me. Had she broken in the door and entered his home: justifiable homicide.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

A bit of a side issue too:
Seems Cops put it down to self defense early on. Did not secure crime scene or do finger prints etc until a week+ later. Did not take screen with gun-shot hole... told Wafer he could remove it and put in storage etc. Later retrieved it from his basement... etc.

I see your post ahead of me posting this, Chip
I agree that "in the house" is a step further.... (it was actually conceded by Judge that "the Porch" is regarded as part of his house)
Seems little doubt she did manage to dislodge the screen panel and so was (technically) breaking and entering? the house proper.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light