Her hair kinda looks like a hoodie.
LOL Dude! That is SOOO wrong!
Very odd story....who hits a parked car at 1:30AM?
Detroit + accident with a stationary vehicle + 2 hrs passing + getting shot because you scared a home owner= wtf?
Was the woman drunk or on some sort of drug?
Drunk people, sleepy people, stoned people, texting people, hydroplaning people, blowout-having people, map-reading people, headlight-blinded people, distracted people in general. People have done a LOT worse than hitting a parked car without being drunk or stoned. It takes only a mechanical failure, a misjudgment, or a tiny lapse in attention.
Regardless if she was drunk, concussed, or on drugs does not mean anything to me. If she was not trying to force her way into the man's house or was not threatening in any way... she did not deserve to be killed. That is not something you can just pass off as a "consequence".
Wandering the neighborhood is irrelevant. Crashing into a parked car is irrelevant.
If she wasn't breaking the law or posing a threat to anyone she did not deserve to be killed. Period.
I'd go farther than that. A grown man inside his house should not be so sufficiently threatened by a woman trying to get into his house that he shoots her, period, unless she actually gets in. This is not an unarmed woman alone, but a man with a shotgun, which beats rock, paper OR scissors.
That said, it's possible that she thought she was home and attempted to get into his house, either because she was drunk/stoned or because of her head injury. Many things are possible that would make the shooter not at fault. However - given the little we know and the possibilities, assuming that the shooter is at fault seems to be reasonable at this point as the ways one can be at fault for shooting an unarmed, injured woman drastically outnumber the one can be not at fault for shooting an unarmed, injured woman, both in sheer numbers and in perceived likelihood.
If it turns out we were wrong, we can always apologize to the Internet.