19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[Zargon]

You don't know what she was doing. You don't know that she was simply knocking on the door looking for help. That's the story from her family and they were not even there. I'm still confused as to why most of you seem to have already accepted this story as fact. The woman was on a drunken binge that night, crashed a car, left the scene and refused help, then is unaccounted for for 3 hours and shows up pounding on some guys door at 4am.

Who knows what the hell this woman was up to. Certainly we should consider she may have been behaving badly at this guy's door, at the very least. I'm not saying she deserved to be shot, but let's get the full story before we go labeling this guy a murderer and calling him a "monster", as the victim's parents already have. Let's not be so quick to paint her as a girl scout going door to door selling cookies.

yeah I don't get how its assumed she was 'looking for help' after she left help at the scene

 

[nehalem256]

I don't think she was trying to get help. I believe that in her drunken and disoriented state she believed she had reached her home or that of a friend. Possibly even decided to just enter whatever house she happened to see and sleep it off, or any of the other stupid things Mr. Alcohol suggests to drunks. However, once again: It should not be a crime to try to open the wrong door, for fuck's sake.

Sounds like you are saying she might have been trying to break in

And I am pretty sure it is a crime to just decide to go sleep on some random person's couch

If I were Ted I'd be asking: "Can't we just pretend she died in the car wreck and I can go home? You can even have my shotgun."

Which raises an odd question. If she had died in the car wreck due to her own drunk driving how many people would be upset?

But the fact that she survived to commit another felony, fleeing the scene of an accident, somehow makes her death more tragic?

 

[Paratus]

Statements from the victim's attorney. His attorney has assured us there is ample evidence that shows attempted home invasion.

Do NOT touch the door of somebody's home at 3 in the morning. You might get rightfully and lawfully dead.

Do NOT shoot someone through a screen door at 3 in the morning. You might get rightfully and lawfully brought in on murder charges.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/15/renisha_mcbride_theodore_wafer_michigan_man_charged_with_second_degree_murder.html

 

[tgferg67]

Sounds like you are saying she might have been trying to break in

And I am pretty sure it is a crime to just decide to go sleep on some random person's couch



Which raises an odd question. If she had died in the car wreck due to her own drunk driving how many people would be upset?

But the fact that she survived to commit another felony, fleeing the scene of an accident, somehow makes her death more tragic?

Mr. Wafer has a couple drunken driving arrests in his past. He could have also died in a wreck due to his choices and this all could have been avoided.

 

[spidey07]

So the police entering the wrong house with a no knock warrant should be dead too?

Yes.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Do NOT shoot someone through a screen door at 3 in the morning. You might get rightfully and lawfully brought in on murder charges.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/15/renisha_mcbride_theodore_wafer_michigan_man_charged_with_second_degree_murder.html

True, you can be charged but that does not necessarily guarantee a conviction on the charges. If the evidence doesn't back up the charges the jury can decide that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[mizzou]

Steps to increase security when a suspicous person is knocking and screaming at your door.

Step #1: DON'T OPEN THE FUCKING DOOR

Step #2: CALL THE FUCKING POLICE LET THEM DEAL WITH IT

Step #3: Go back to sleep, because you r Sleepy!

 

[Paratus]

True, you can be charged but that does not necessarily guarantee a conviction on the charges. If the evidence doesn't back up the charges the jury can decide that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly. In these situations where it's unclear the shooter should be charged and let a grand jury/trial decide. If he's guilty he should be punished, if he's not, let him go, and if there's mitigating circumstances make the punishment slight.

Allowing a person who was likely of no threat to be gunned down without a significant investigation is just as much a travesty as not allowing homeowners to defend themselves.

 

[spidey07]

If the intruder has tried multiple times to enter via different doors it's better to shoot them. The police won't get there in time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Exactly. In these situations where it's unclear the shooter should be charged and let a grand jury/trial decide. If he's guilty he should be punished, if he's not, let him go, and if there's mitigating circumstances make the punishment slight.

Allowing a person who was likely of no threat to be gunned down without a significant investigation is just as much a travesty as not allowing homeowners to defend themselves.

Okay, now I see where you're coming from on this case and agree. There should always be an investigation and if there's overwhelming evidence of self defense it should stop there. If there's questionable evidence or doubt let the legal system determine guilt or not.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If the intruder has tried multiple times to enter via different doors it's better to shoot them. The police won't get there in time.

Sorry Charlie, no Castle Doctrine allows such.

 

[spidey07]

Yes it does.

You are allowed to shoot to stop the unlawful entry. There have been plenty of cases where home owners have done such.

No charges filed.

 

[nehalem256]

Sorry Charlie, no Castle Doctrine allows such.

Here's an interesting video on the case from OutFront on CNN tonight - it runs 7 minutes long.

Sunny Hostin is on there insisting the case involves race, when she doesn't even know that Ted was in a position to see Renisha's race.

The defense attorney guy they brought in came out much stronger than I expected, he's always very reasonable and correct, particularly on the Zimmerman thing he was. He said charges should not have been brought. He backed up Spidey quite a lot, actually.

Worth watching.

According to the defense attorney in the video you are wrong Londo.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You better make sure they're in the process of trying to enter or entered your home when you shoot them. If they tried to enter, backed off, was walking away from the entrance to a home, and then you shot them that would not be legal by the Castle Doctrine.

 

[tgferg67]

Per Michigan law he would have needed to have reasonable belief deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

The legal definition of reasonable belief pertains to justification of a person of "average" caution - not extreme.

 

[spidey07]

Wrong. The law has been posted.

Can use deadly force to stop unlawful entry. No fear of life required

 

[2timer]

You better make sure they're in the process of trying to enter or entered your home when you shoot them. If they tried to enter, backed off, was walking away from the entrance to a home, and then you shot them that would not be legal by the Castle Doctrine.

That's kind of obvious and seems like common sense. This homeowner made a really dumb mistake. Now he is going to pay for that mistake.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's kind of obvious and seems like common sense. This homeowner made a really dumb mistake. Now he is going to pay for that mistake.

Don't forget he's innocent until proven guilty. Now the prosecution must proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't in the process of trying to enter the house when the homeowner shot her. The lack of signs of a forcible entry isn't all telling as one can be in the process of entering the house without using a tool or device.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Wrong. The law has been posted.

Can use deadly force to stop unlawful entry. No fear of life required

Did you read the law? It doesn't say unlawful entry, it says breaking and entering or home invasion. That is a more significant requirement that may not have been met.

 

[Paratus]

Did you read the law? It doesn't say unlawful entry, it says breaking and entering or home invasion. That is a more significant requirement that may not have been met.

Don't bother Spideys dream is to be able to shoot an intruder. He'll tell you he's got guns in every room in the house and he's ready.

 

[spidey07]

Did you read the law? It doesn't say unlawful entry, it says breaking and entering or home invasion. That is a more significant requirement that may not have been met.

Home invasion is attempting to enter illegally and without permission

Her attempts to enter via 2 different doors certainly meets the requirement and why charges never should have been filed.

One guy here shot the person attempting to enter the front door through the adjacent window. No charges filed.

This scenario has happened plenty of times before and charges weren't filed. So why now?

Because racists.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Home invasion is attempting to enter illegally and without permission

Her attempts to enter via 2 different doors certainly meets the requirement and why charges never should have been filed.

One guy here shot the person attempting to enter the front door through the adjacent window. No charges filed.

This scenario has happened plenty of times before and charges weren't filed. So why now?

Because racists.

You keep making these same claims as evidence and citing the accused's lawyer. Can you please post to his specific statement(s) that disclose her exact actions as you keep stating?

I mean this legitimately. I've looked and found no statements from his lawyer that references any specific action that lead him to believe she way trying to break in. Just the claim he thought she was. I'd like to read his exact words for myself since you seem to have found information I cannot.

 

[tgferg67]

Wrong. The law has been posted.

Can use deadly force to stop unlawful entry. No fear of life required

The law states breaking and entering. The legal definition of the "breaking" in Michigan requires an element of force to break in.

 

[spidey07]

The law states breaking and entering. The legal definition of the "breaking" in Michigan requires an element of force to break in.

Breaking and entering is just one of the listed reasons in the law. Home invasion is the other which, by precedent, means entering the home unlawfully. This is one of the very foundations of castle doctrine in that you don't have to wait until they enter illegally - you can use deadly force to stop the home invasion. It's that way in other states with castle doctrine and it is the same in Michigan.

There are plenty of other cases just like this one and the home owner isn't charged.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(te...72&query=on&highlight=duty AND to AND retreat

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Wrong. The law has been posted.

Can use deadly force to stop unlawful entry. No fear of life required

The issue is the homeowner needs to show that there was unlawful entry in progress or an attempt. Knocking on a door does not cut it. Attempting to enter house without permission becomes subjective based on circumstances. Attempting to force entry or forcing entry will be covered.

Home invasion is attempting to enter illegally and without permission

Her attempts to enter via 2 different doors certainly meets the requirement and why charges never should have been filed.

One guy here shot the person attempting to enter the front door through the adjacent window. No charges filed.

This scenario has happened plenty of times before and charges weren't filed. So why now?

Because racists.

Where is the second door? If the outer door was locked, she could not be attempting the inner door.