19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[HumblePie]

The police report states that the screen had a hole/tear and was popped out of the frame.

Until actual forensic tests are done, the assumption/logical explanation is the tear was caused by tbe shotgun blast. At this point there is no information provide as to the description/location of the tear.

The fact the screen was popped is a big issue. Screens are mounted into their channel from the inside of the door. Being held by a latch against the frame.

Force from the inside would tear the screen, not pop it out of the channel.

Force from the outside is how the screens are removed from the door. Pushed out of the channel

This ^.

If the screen was popped out by McBride, it provides clear physical evidence for the defense that she was attempting to gain unlawful entry. At which point nothing else matters in the case.

The thing is, unless the defense can prove it was McBride that popped it inward, it just pure circumstantial evidence that sort of helps the case of the defense, but doesn't stop the prosecution. Which means that the case still comes down to the statements made to the police during their investigation.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The screen being popped out, presumably from the outside towards the inside of the home is huge..


A jury will eat that up. The fact that the only way that could happen is if the girl was attempting to enter the home. There's no other logical explanation.

 

[HumblePie]

The screen being popped out, presumably from the outside towards the inside of the home is huge..


A jury will eat that up. The fact that the only way that could happen is if the girl was attempting to enter the home. There's no other logical explanation.

Unless it was popped inwards from before... the defense will still have to to prove McBride did it.

 

[nehalem256]

The screen being popped out, presumably from the outside towards the inside of the home is huge..

A jury will eat that up. The fact that the only way that could happen is if the girl was attempting to enter the home. There's no other logical explanation.

Seems to me like the defense will be helped a lot by the deceased being about the most dislikeable victim possible. Most jurors are probably not going to be big on punishing a guy who shot a drunk and high girl who was fleeing the scene of a drunk driving accident and woke him in the middle of the night by banging on his door.

If they can show any kind of reasonable doubt the juror will probably rule "good shoot"

 

[waggy]

If the screen/frame was popped out of the track and the officer popped it back in/secured it with the screw then the screen/frame had to be dislodged inward.

Why would anyone manufacture a door where someone on the outside could remove the screen?

\


hmm why would the cop do that?

 

[classy]

The police report states that the screen had a hole/tear and was popped out of the frame.

Until actual forensic tests are done, the assumption/logical explanation is the tear was caused by tbe shotgun blast. At this point there is no information provide as to the description/location of the tear.

The fact the screen was popped is a big issue. Screens are mounted into their channel from the inside of the door. Being held by a latch against the frame.

Force from the inside would tear the screen, not pop it out of the channel.

Force from the outside is how the screens are removed from the door. Pushed out of the channel

Wrong. A shot gun blast from a foot or two would absolutely knock a screen completely out. I have a house with a 2 pane storm door with a screen in the lower pane. It sits in a channel from the inside and is secure by screws in the top. If this is the same type, a blow from the INSIDE could knock the screen out. It amazing how you super sleuths are ignoring the most important part. It was a tear.

A drunk person would make a hole not a tear in a screen. If the person knocked out the screen, there would be no screen for the man to shoot through. Unless you go by the struck by lightening odds LJ is throwing out, he shot through the exact same hole. Whatever made the tear is what knocked out the screen. Especially given if its a full length screen, a drunk human being trying to BREAK IN there would a whole lot more damage than a tear.

But don't let common sense get in the way.................

 

[nehalem256]

Unless it was popped inwards from before... the defense will still have to to prove McBride did it.

Defense doesn't have to prove anything. It just has to provide reasonable doubt.

 

[nehalem256]

Wrong. A shot gun blast from a foot or two would absolutely knock a screen completely out. I have a house with a 2 pane storm door with a screen in the lower pane. It sits in a channel from the inside and is secure by screws in the top. If this is the same type, a blow from the INSIDE could knock the screen out. It amazing how you super sleuths are ignoring the most important part. It was a tear.

A drunk person would make a hole not a tear in a screen. If the person knocked out the screen, there would be no screen for the man to shoot through. Unless you go by the struck by lightening odds LJ is throwing out, he shot through the exact same hole. Whatever made the tear is what knocked out the screen. Especially given if its a full length screen, a drunk human being trying to BREAK IN there would a whole lot more damage than a tear.

But don't let common sense get in the way.................

You want to explain how a shotgun blast is going to make a tear?

Seems like a person could easily make a tear in a screen. By for example poking a finger through and then ripping down so you could get your arm in.

 

[HumblePie]

Defense doesn't have to prove anything. It just has to provide reasonable doubt.

Incorrect. That in itself is not enough circumstantial evidence to provide reasonable doubt. If the defense tries to point to that as an attempt by McBride to gain unlawful entry, the prosecution is going to rightfully ask that the defense show that McBride was the one to pop out the screen and prove it wasn't popped out before she arrived. If the defense can't prove that, the evidence will more than likely be stricken and never make it into trial during an evidence hearing which usually takes places beforehand.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Wrong. A shot gun blast from a foot or two would absolutely knock a screen completely out. I have a house with a 2 pane storm door with a screen in the lower pane. It sits in a channel from the inside and is secure by screws in the top. If this is the same type, a blow from the INSIDE could knock the screen out. It amazing how you super sleuths are ignoring the most important part. It was a tear.

A drunk person would make a hole not a tear in a screen. If the person knocked out the screen, there would be no screen for the man to shoot through. Unless you go by the struck by lightening odds LJ is throwing out, he shot through the exact same hole. Whatever made the tear is what knocked out the screen. Especially given if its a full length screen, a drunk human being trying to BREAK IN there would a whole lot more damage than a tear.

But don't let common sense get in the way.................

There is no way a blow from the inside can push that screen out, unless you ghetto rigged it somehow.

And, there is no way a shotgun blast from either side will knock the screen out of a standard screen door. Rip the screen, sure, but the pullets will break the screen material well before there's enough force to bend the tabs/arms/screws out of an aluminum frame.

 

[nixium]

I am not defending him.

I attempt to point out to some assholes, how the facts as we know it could match a scenario.

People do not leave a door open at 40 degrees. Maybe at 60.

As to clutching at straws, those that come to crucify the homeowner are doing the same as those that want to defend him. Taking their opinion and trying to make the facts fit.

The only fact that's relevant in this case is that this dude opened the door and shot someone in the fact without closing it and dialing 911 like anyone normal would.

Only sociopaths/psychopaths kill so easily.

Sure, he might be acquited because of the way the law works.

I'm not defending this girl. She's an idiot for what she's done. But I have a severe issue with people who are making up implausible shit to morally justify what this homeowner has done.

Also the implication that this girl's moral character and the DUIs and such made it OK to be "put down" so brutally. After all, she's a deadbeat right?

Look in your own extended family, you'll find the same deadbeats.

I'd like all of you to spout this righteous moral bullshit at their funeral.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I have had family members with a history like hers who died young.

It was a relief, for most of the family. It's not fair for these lowlifes to make everyone around them miserable.

I doubt anyone around her was surprised that this happened. After destroying 4 cars, living that lifestyle, it's only a matter of time. At least she didn't take anyone else out with her.

 

[bshole]

I have had family members with a history like hers who died young.

Of that, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever. The larger question is do you have family members that DONT have a history like hers.

 

[nixium]

I have had family members with a history like hers who died young.

It was a relief, for most of the family. It's not fair for these lowlifes to make everyone around them miserable.

I doubt anyone around her was surprised that this happened. After destroying 4 cars, living that lifestyle, it's only a matter of time. At least she didn't take anyone else out with her.

I don't think this girl is an angel, and if she died in the car crash I'd say it was a natural course of matters.

But that's not what happened. And it could so easily be anyone else in her situation, even someone who isn't a deadbeat. That's the part that's so bothersome.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

All this thread needs now are pictures of the 19 year old "girl" at age 12 and it will reach TM levels of epicness.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think this girl is an angel, and if she died in the car crash I'd say it was a natural course of matters.

But that's not what happened. And it could so easily be anyone else in her situation, even someone who isn't a deadbeat. That's the part that's so bothersome.

Good people don't drive drunk or under the influence at all. I've slept my ass off in my car many a time instead of driving drunk. I've called cabs and friends for rides as well if I really had to be somewhere and I couldn't sleep it off to drive until later.

I'd say non-dead beats really wouldn't be in her position.

However, that is not to say I'm advocating she be shot in the face either. So don't be throwing that at me. I'm merely pointing out your position that non-deadbeat people could end up in her position. I'm making the counter argument that no, that would not happen. To be in that position you have to be a deadbeat of some sort.

 

[LTC8K6]

A screen popped inward generates more legality that she was trying to get in. (Intent)

Morally, from all we know, she should not have been shot. However it is a legal situation, not a moral one.

There are some here that can not separate the two. Like the poster I previously quoted

You would think the prosecutor would not claim there was no evidence of forced entry if the screen was pushed inwards...

That would be clear and obvious evidence of forced entry.

One would expect the shooter to mention that she pushed the screen in, either in a statement or during the 911 call. It's primary evidence for attempted entry and evidence for justification in firing the shotgun.

In fact, a pushed in screen would likely cause a prosecutor not to even think about murder charges, imo.

So, I'm going to stick with the muzzle blast blowing the screen outwards, or possibly even some shot hitting the frame.

 

[nixium]

Good people don't drive drunk or under the influence at all. I've slept my ass off in my car many a time instead of driving drunk. I've called cabs and friends for rides as well if I really had to be somewhere and I couldn't sleep it off to drive until later.

I'd say non-dead beats really wouldn't be in her position.

However, that is not to say I'm advocating she be shot in the face either. So don't be throwing that at me. I'm merely pointing out your position that non-deadbeat people could end up in her position. I'm making the counter argument that no, that would not happen. To be in that position you have to be a deadbeat of some sort.

We're going into a realm of speculation here, but you seriously can't imagine a case when someone non-deadbeat would be banging on your door at 3 am frantically? To the point when the screen door comes off?

If so, I can say you've lived a charmed, cushy life.

 

[HumblePie]

We're going into a realm of speculation here, but you seriously can't imagine a case when someone non-deadbeat would be banging on your door at 3 am frantically? To the point when the screen door comes off?

If so, I can say you've lived a charmed, cushy life.

Someone banging at my door at 3am? Sure a non-dead beat could potentially do that.

But nice strawman. The argument was over a drunk and drug addled person doing that. By definition that is a dead beat.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I don't think this girl is an angel, and if she died in the car crash I'd say it was a natural course of matters.

But that's not what happened. And it could so easily be anyone else in her situation, even someone who isn't a deadbeat. That's the part that's so bothersome.

Her drunk driving into a pole is no different than her drunkedly trying to break into a house and getting shot.

Both are sad situations, brought on by her own actions.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And no, it couldn't easily be someone else. Unless you have a habit of ripping down neighbors doors?

 

[Fern]

\


hmm why would the cop do that?

The officer said he pushed the screen back in to photograph the screen door.

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Wrong. A shot gun blast from a foot or two would absolutely knock a screen completely out. I have a house with a 2 pane storm door with a screen in the lower pane. It sits in a channel from the inside and is secure by screws in the top. If this is the same type, a blow from the INSIDE could knock the screen out. It amazing how you super sleuths are ignoring the most important part. It was a tear.

A drunk person would make a hole not a tear in a screen. If the person knocked out the screen, there would be no screen for the man to shoot through. Unless you go by the struck by lightening odds LJ is throwing out, he shot through the exact same hole. Whatever made the tear is what knocked out the screen. Especially given if its a full length screen, a drunk human being trying to BREAK IN there would a whole lot more damage than a tear.

But don't let common sense get in the way.................

As usual making up what others have said as you go along to back your point of view. Please go find where I said she tore the screen. I said it was possible that she was applying force and it popped out of the track.


As for tearing the screen it's no where as difficult as you make it out to be, a person broke into my parents neighbor's house using a car key to tear the screen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Unless it was popped inwards from before... the defense will still have to to prove McBride did it.

I think in this case; the prosecution will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that she did not do it.

Given McBride's condition, that will be a high hurdle.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Wrong. A shot gun blast from a foot or two would absolutely knock a screen completely out. I have a house with a 2 pane storm door with a screen in the lower pane. It sits in a channel from the inside and is secure by screws in the top. If this is the same type, a blow from the INSIDE could knock the screen out. It amazing how you super sleuths are ignoring the most important part. It was a tear.

A drunk person would make a hole not a tear in a screen. If the person knocked out the screen, there would be no screen for the man to shoot through. Unless you go by the struck by lightening odds LJ is throwing out, he shot through the exact same hole. Whatever made the tear is what knocked out the screen. Especially given if its a full length screen, a drunk human being trying to BREAK IN there would a whole lot more damage than a tear.

But don't let common sense get in the way.................

No one is claiming that McBride made the tear. Most agree that it was the shotgun.

Some are stating that a shotgun pellets going through the screen would not force the screen frame out of its channel inward.