19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[BlitzPuppet]

death by weapon aimed with intent but without malice

I just have to lol at that charge.

 

[werepossum]

I just have to lol at that charge.

It's to differentiate between those people with an accidental discharge which just happened to strike some poor unfortunate, and those people who intentionally point a gun at someone and then have an accidental discharge striking the person. In the first category, striking the victim is just bad luck; in the second, striking the victim is by far the most likely result of an accidental discharge.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Judge has determined that the prosecution has met their burden of probable cause and this case will move forward to trial.

 

[umbrella39]

I just have to lol at that charge.

Yeah that is pretty silly. Maybe if the judge had believed that he accidentally shot her as he claimed but that's a silly charge indeed. There was expert testimony that said the shotgun was in working order and that force was needed to fire it and that it could not have gone off accidentally.

Just in he has been bound over for trail, based on the judges words from viewing the live stream that just ended and the trial will be about accidental vs intent. The judge made it pretty clear it didn't matter who was banging on the door, you have to have some sort of accountability for your firearm.

 

[classy]

Judge has determined that the prosecution has met their burden of probable cause and this case will move forward to trial.

You can look here, view the first hour. It has all the pictures and a lot of details. Some things that really stand out. One the front door also had a peep hole. The defense alluded that maybe it was broken? You can clearly see the front window would allow you to see who is on the porch. The screen was knocked loose and it was only being held by two clips one at the bottom and one at the top. But the officer said without some more info it is hard to determine if the screen was in or out before the shot. The screen door was locked and there was no evidence of forced entry. The defense said that there was some scratches on the front door that may have come from the screen. Not sure where he was going with that. Quite a few other things, like the vestibule is very small, meaning he had to step back to open the door. I think there is very little doubt he will go down for manslaughter given the evidence. Good stuff in that video.


And she clearly had some serious head trauma if that was her head that hit the windshield. That windshield was cracked pretty bad.
http://www.freep.com/article/201312...omebody-says-Renisha-McBride-shooter-911-tape

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You can look here, view the first hour. It has all the pictures and a lot of details. Some things that really stand out. One the front door also had a peep hole. The defense alluded that maybe it was broken? You can clearly see the front window would allow you to see who is on the porch. The screen was knocked loose and it was only being held by two clips one at the bottom and one at the top. But the officer said without some more info it is hard to determine if the screen was in or out before the shot. The screen door was locked and there was no evidence of forced entry. The defense said that there was some scratches on the front door that may have come from the screen. Not sure where he was going with that. Quite a few other things, like the vestibule is very small, meaning he had to open step back to open the door. I think there is very little doubt he will go down for manslaughter given the evidence. Good stuff in that video.

http://www.freep.com/article/201312...omebody-says-Renisha-McBride-shooter-911-tape

I've been watching since yesterday, there is evidence that can both ways. Even the judge said that this case could end differently than his decision that the prosecution had met it's burden to meet probable cause.

 

[classy]

I've been watching since yesterday, there is evidence that can both ways. Even the judge said that this case could end differently than his decision that the prosecution had met it's burden to meet probable cause.

What evidence did you see, lol. This should be good. Outside of the screen being dislodged and when, there is nothing to support this girl tried to break into his house with any kind of force.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What evidence did you see, lol. This should be good. Outside of the screen being dislodged and when, there is nothing to support this girl tried to break into his house with any kind of force.

So please explain how the screen being dislodged could not be consistent with someone trying to make entry.

Remember this trial will be to a reasonable doubt burden and not the same burden for the hearing held yesterday and today. I do believe you were quite confident that Zimmerman would be found guilty as well.

 

[classy]

So please explain how the screen being dislodged could not be consistent with someone trying to make entry.

Remember this trial will be to a reasonable doubt burden and not the same burden for the hearing held yesterday and today. I do believe you were quite confident that Zimmerman would be found guilty as well.

Here is the problem with the expert's testimony. He says that the girls face would have to been on the same line as the shot gun. His rational is that is unlikely, but if the home owner pointed the barrel of the shotgun downwards she could have seen the barrel of the gun causing her to look up at the gun. The other issue is the door had no signs of forced entry. There is no sign she pushed it in either. It could have fallen out because of the banging, that is possible, but still wouldn't equate to a person trying to break in. The officer testified that the door only had two clips as well. Of course given the all things involved here with the two people I am certainly not surprised at your hope for an acquittal.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here is the problem with the expert's testimony. He says that the girls face would have to been on the same line as the shot gun. His rational is that is unlikely, but if the home owner pointed the barrel of the shotgun downwards she could have seen the barrel of the gun causing her to look up at the gun. The other issue is the door had no signs of forced entry. There is no sign she pushed it in either. It could have fallen out because of the banging, that is possible, but still wouldn't equate to a person trying to break in. The officer testified that the door only had two clips as well. Of course given the all things involved here with the two people I am certainly not surprised at your hope for an acquittal.

To some a dislodged screen could be considered the beginning of a forced entry. The prosecution will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was already dislodged prior the morning of the shooting, this will be difficult at best as there's no witness to prove such. As for an acquittal unless it proved beyond a reasonable doubt I expect such per the laws of the US.

 

[umbrella39]

The screen isn't going to matter imo. Shooter should have used his words more wisely. He said he accidentally shoot her. The defense will be wise to focus on his words and not Ms McBride, again, imo. The case sure sounds like it is going to boil down to whether his attorney can prove he accidentally shot her. From the shooters own words and the defense that he is using, it wouldn't have mattered if a cop was banging on the door, he was going to accidentally shoot whoever was there as his shotgun went off by accident secondary to him losing balance/tripping.

 

[Sonikku]

What a terrible mistake the home owner made.



Why did they say it was an accident? Should have just gone with the "she was acting all crazy and I felt threatened" right off the bat and stuck with that through and through. Saying it was a mistake opens them up to prosecution, as does changing the story.

 

[HumblePie]

What a terrible mistake the home owner made.



Why did they say it was an accident? Should have just gone with the "she was acting all crazy and I felt threatened" right off the bat and stuck with that through and through. Saying it was a mistake opens them up to prosecution, as does changing the story.

I said that awhile ago.

Know what I believe in this case? The homeowner was a scared little man and didn't realize his own intent to shoot until he did. His automatic response to the cops that it was an accident was completely stupid response of a guilty conscience trying to cover over what he feels he did as wrong, but at the same time trying to defend himself from not only criminal repercussions but his own mental dis-cognizance.

I think in this case, unlike the Zimmerman case, the man is at least guilty of manslaughter. That's just my personal opinion of what I know of the case evidence and my own logical deduction conclusion based upon how the homeowner reacted to questioning.

Now, had the homeowner kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer do the talking he would be walking right now. That is a true enough statement. Which is fine in my book that he didn't because I do think he's guilty.

Still he could walk if the defense crafts enough reasonable doubt in their arguments. They should completely drop the accident defense part of the strategy if they want to win. It does nothing but screw them over in the end I think. Focus on the accident was just was an autonomous defensive response the man made to the cops only. That part of him was scared enough at seeing someone trying to break into his home at 3am in the morning and he fired in defense of his home. That his statements made to police was his brain still trying to gain some mental reigns over the entirety of the scenario and the fact he just killed someone for this first time.

Which is all that is needed for him to still receive a not guilty verdict at trial. However, I don't have confidence in his defense lawyers at this point based on their performance yesterday. Which is fine by me as I think he is guilty.

 

[classy]

The screen isn't going to matter imo. Shooter should have used his words more wisely. He said he accidentally shoot her. The defense will be wise to focus on his words and not Ms McBride, again, imo. The case sure sounds like it is going to boil down to whether his attorney can prove he accidentally shot her. From the shooters own words and the defense that he is using, it wouldn't have mattered if a cop was banging on the door, he was going to accidentally shoot whoever was there as his shotgun went off by accident secondary to him losing balance/tripping.

Well I am going to go out on a limb and say his own expert just did him in. The expert said that it was 5 1/4 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger. So the idea he accidentally pulled the trigger is going to be very hard to prove.

 

[DrPizza]

Well I am going to go out on a limb and say his own expert just did him in. The expert said that it was 5 1/4 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger. So the idea he accidentally pulled the trigger is going to be very hard to prove.

Apparently, you're fairly ignorant about firearms. Most recommendations are for a trigger pull weight between 4 and 6 pounds. His is right in the middle. Thus, for this to condemn him, you're saying an accidental trigger pull is impossible.

 

[classy]

Apparently, you're fairly ignorant about firearms. Most recommendations are for a trigger pull weight between 4 and 6 pounds. His is right in the middle. Thus, for this to condemn him, you're saying an accidental trigger pull is impossible.

Well I grew up a country boy, a real one. I don't care for guns but been around them all my life. I even know how to track through the woods. I have also fired multiple different shotguns and my grandfather had an arsenal that would make even the most hardcore gun nutt happy. Most shotguns are around 4 lbs. At 5 1/4 lbs that is not a trigger that would easily be pulled in accident. Don't confuse my dislike for guns as being ignorant.

Also much discussion about the weapon took place. This was not a hunting weapon. If this was a trigger under 4 or I would say even 4 1/2 for the purpose of saying it was an accident, he changed his mind I would say very possible. But 5 plus, he meant to pull the trigger.

 

[spidey07]

He should have never said anything about accidental. That's going to screw him. Never talk to police.

She was trying to illegally cross the threshold, shoot them.

She was on drugs and alcohol and a highly dangerous goblin attempting to enter.

 

[Screech]

She was on drugs and alcohol and a highly dangerous goblin attempting to enter.

I'm rather curious as to what the legal requirements are for someone to be, legally speaking, a goblin.

In any case, I have a feeling this will go down differently than the zimmerman trial.

 

[Geosurface]

If I were him I'd take the stand and say "when I said it was an accident I had only just learned that it was a young woman, alone, unarmed and that she'd been in a car accident. I was saying it with hindsight. I meant it was an accident in the sense that I hadn't intended to shoot someone who was merely disoriented or mistakenly thought my house was her own home. But let me be clear: at the time I shot the weapon, I was completely convinced that my home was being broken into, and that my life was in danger. You have to realize that at that time, I didn't know if it was one person or four... armed or unarmed... male or female. I felt absolutely awful once I learned the truth, but I stand by my action being reasonable at the time I did it."

 

[spidey07]

I'm rather curious as to what the legal requirements are for someone to be, legally speaking, a goblin.

In any case, I have a feeling this will go down differently than the zimmerman trial.

Only because dumbass talked to police and said accidentally.

When a drunk and drugged out goblin is trying to enter your home and cross the threshold there is no accident.

 

[surfsatwerk]

When did "goblin" become the new cache phrase to avoid using racial slurs?

 

[umbrella39]

When your account gets banned too much apparently...

I had such high hopes for this thread. Would be nice to be able to have a thread folks can actually discuss the case without all the silly attention whoring ePeniflexing.

 

[umbrella39]

Apparently, you're fairly ignorant about firearms. Most recommendations are for a trigger pull weight between 4 and 6 pounds. His is right in the middle. Thus, for this to condemn him, you're saying an accidental trigger pull is impossible.

Dr. P, from what I heard in the stream, he told the police the gun accidentally discharged after he lost his balance or tripped. The gun was inspected by two experts who after testing it stated in court that it accidentally going off was simply not possible. I am not convinced he had any malicious intentions and still think he made a very big mistake by talking. If you give someone enough rope to hang themselves with they tend to swing...

 

[HumblePie]

Dr. P, from what I heard in the stream, he told the police the gun accidentally discharged after he lost his balance or tripped. The gun was inspected by two experts who after testing it stated in court that it accidentally going off was simply not possible. I am not convinced he had any malicious intentions and still think he made a very big mistake by talking. If you give someone enough rope to hang themselves with they tend to swing...

This is nonesense. The human hand and fingers close with much more pressure than 5 or even 6 pounds of pressure. If the homeowner had his finger on the trigger and did trip, his autonomous response to clutch his hands while tripping would be far more than enough pressure to squeeze the trigger automatically.

5 pounds is actually a fairly modest weight trigger pull. Single action triggers that are considered light are around 3 pounds to as low as 2 pounds. Usually they don't go lighter than 2 pounds because the recoil of the gun may cause the trigger to shoot itself and turn the gun into a machine gun. Guns that are considered to have a heavy trigger, which are heavy double action pulls, are usually around 9 pounds. 5 pounds is fairly standard trigger pull and is about the average for most guns.

It could be an accidental shooting, and if it is he is still going to be convicted of criminal charges.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

One thing I don't understand is the prosecution claims Mr Wafer aimed the shotgun and shot Ms Mcbride. How could the pellets travel straight from front to back if she was shorter than Mr Wafer as well as standing several inches below the house floor level on the porch. Wouldn't the pellets have had a downward trajectory if he aimed/shot her?