19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[spidey07]

Fear of life is not required if she attempted to enter the home or open the door. If she does that it's an automatic good shoot.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Is that from the medical report? Or is that just an assumption being made?



Why is it impossible to be in fear of your life and accidentally discharge your weapon?

Is there a requirement to shoot someone the moment you start being afraid for life?

The head trauma comes from statements by witnesses who attended to her immediately after the accident who's stated she's had bruising and lacerations and was bleeding from the head and has been linked previously in this thread.

As to the other I make no claim as to his state of mind nor did I say it was impossible. What I am saying is making a statement that you had no intention to discharge your weapon could be a difficult think to overcome should he be charged in this case.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

None of that is evidence that justifies his actions either which is what you claimed. So far the evidence shows nothing conclusive. The evidence is she had an accident, had head trauma, somehow ended up at his home and was shot in the face. The shooter then claimed it was an accidental shooting which in a self defence case could show he didn't actually fear for his life since he didn't intend to discharge his weapon.

There is nothing that shows she attempted to gain entry and there is nothing that demonstrates she acted aggressively towards the home owner.

I think you need to go read Michigan's Castle Doctrine. The act of breaking into a home gives the home owner the right to protect himself using force including deadly force. The fact no charges have been filed and the DA requested more information from the police tells me DA feels they lack the required evidence per the Castle Doctrine to disprove the homeowner's claim he felt she was attempting to break into the house.

 

[nehalem256]

As to the other I make no claim as to his state of mind nor did I say it was impossible. What I am saying is making a statement that you had no intention to discharge your weapon could be a difficult think to overcome should he be charged in this case.

You don't think that he apparently had the gun aimed at her head implies some degree of fear?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think you need to go read Michigan's Castle Doctrine. The act of breaking into a home gives the home owner the right to protect himself using force including deadly force. The fact no charges have been filed and the DA requested more information from the police tells me DA feels they lack the required evidence per the Castle Doctrine to disprove the homeowner's claim he felt she was attempting to break into the house.

And that is your assumption. If he is charged, will you immediately change your position and then claim the evidence supports guilt? I suspect not.

My entire point is you are casually throwing around the word evidence where none exists either way based one what we as uninvolved parties know. He may be guilty, he may be completely justified. I see no actual evidence at this point to go either way.

 

[spidey07]

And that is your assumption. If he is charged, will you immediately change your position and then claim the evidence supports guilt? I suspect not.

My entire point is you are casually throwing around the word evidence where none exists either way based one what we as uninvolved parties know. He may be guilty, he may be completely justified. I see no actual evidence at this point to go either way.

We have evidence via the shooters statements that he believed she was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling. That automatically justifies deadly force. No fear of life required.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's the respective section from Michigan Law (Castle Doctrine)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%281g52wqva0z1rzcei52czcx45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951

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).

 

[spidey07]

Notice the "in the process". You can shoot if they are attempting to open the door or are in the process of opening the door.

If her finger prints are on the doorknob then shooter is justified.

 

[werepossum]

We have evidence via the shooters statements that he believed she was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling. That automatically justifies deadly force. No fear of life required.

Is that where we're at in our society, that when some drunk, stoned and/or injured young woman tries to open our door we shoot her in the face with a shotgun? Doesn't sound very Christian.

There are legitimate reasons to fear opening the door, but opening the door and killing whomever is there is not a good solution to those fears. In this case, with the benefit of hindsight we can guess that the chances she was trying to break into his home are virtually nil. It's entirely possible that she was trying to enter his home thinking it was her own or that of a friend, but surely that alone doesn't justify killing her. How many of us haven't had an experience with a drunk trying to get into our home or car? I'm guessing close to half. How many of us have killed them? I'm guessing none.

Personally I'm taking the home owner at his word that it was an accidental discharge. An accidental discharge that kills someone a few feet away should be at best negligent homicide, except in the very unlikely event of a firearm malfunction or some mitigating circumstances, as the shooter did not control his muzzle and trigger finger.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, that's where we are at. If you try to enter my home illegally I'm shooting you.

There are too many stories of a woman knocking on the door claiming to need assistance and then a bunch of folks bum rush the door breaking in. I'm not letting that happen.

Don't want to get shot? Don't attempt to enter another's dwelling illegally.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like she was loopy from injuries received in the car accident, and acting strange.

 

[nehalem256]

Is that where we're at in our society, that when some drunk, stoned and/or injured young woman tries to open our door we shoot her in the face with a shotgun? Doesn't sound very Christian.

Well according to liberals the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing Christian values

Sounds like she was loopy from injuries received in the car accident, and acting strange.

Is it really normal to start wandering the streets for 2+ hours, including perhaps returning to your vehicle and then leaving again, after being injured?

Post-accident injuries also fail to explain why she hit a parked car, at likely a high rate of speed, in the first place.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I suspect the woman possibly thought she was home and was trying to enter or was entering the house when she was shot. The home owner had no clue of what happened to her hours earlier and only knew someone was trying to enter his house at 3:40am.

I believe the prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place on this one as according to the law the homeowner was justified in his actions if she was attempting to enter/entered the house. If you go to google street view and look at the houses on the 16000 block of Outer Drive in Dearborn Heights you will see these houses have very small porches so for a person to remain on the porch after being shot would have to be in the doorway when they were shot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it really normal to start wandering the streets for 2+ hours, including perhaps returning to your vehicle and then leaving again, after being injured?

Post-accident injuries also fail to explain why she hit a parked car, at likely a high rate of speed, in the first place.

Lots of people who aren't drunk or high hit parked cars at high speeds...

Head injuries can certainly make you behave erratically. There can also be a time delay before someone with a head injury begins to behave erratically.

 

[Geosurface]

Here's an interesting video from ClickOnDetroit.com where they talk to the man whose car she hit, show pictures of the damage to her car, etc.

If anyone cares to see more details like that.

Her car looked pretty smashed on the front. Certainly looks like the kind of accident which could leave you with a concussion if your head hit the steering wheel or whatever. Would be interesting to know if her airbag deployed, I don't think that was visible in the picture.

The man whose car it was was apparently there with the woman we'd heard about before, though I don't think they were connected other than coming out to help. He said they were calling police and an ambulance, but she left because she was scared, having been in an accident. Sounds a bit like what I was saying before, she didn't want to interact with law enforcement.

That could be because she was out of it, or because she feared consequences. Or both. Who knows?

Ultimately the only thing that really matters on the question of what happens to the shooter, is what she was doing at his porch and to his door. How she was behaving there. The reason she was behaving that way matters less because he had no way of knowing it.

The pieces coming together seem to indicate he shot from within his dwelling, she was still facing the dwelling, and the door took no damage so it was open.

The key question becomes, did he open it, or did she?

 

[HomerJS]

We have evidence via the shooters statements that he believed she was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling. That automatically justifies deadly force. No fear of life required.

Homeowner already said discharge was accidental. If H/O is also claiming fear for life one of those statements is probably a lie

 

[werepossum]

Homeowner already said discharge was accidental. If H/O is also claiming fear for life one of those statements is probably a lie

Does seem strange. "I was afraid for my life, so I killed her. Um, accidentally."

 

[spidey07]

Homeowner already said discharge was accidental. If H/O is also claiming fear for life one of those statements is probably a lie

Let me repeat it again.

FEAR OF LIFE IS NOT REQUIRED if somebody attempts to enter your home illegally.

He is not claiming fear for life, he is claiming she was attempting to enter illegally which per state law means his shooting is justified.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Here's the respective section from Michigan Law (Castle Doctrine)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%281g52wqva0z1rzcei52czcx45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951

Also in Michigan it is considered manslaughter should you intentionally point a firearm at someone and then accidentally discharge that weapon. This is referenced in the video that Geo has linked above as well which is why I said earlier if he made the statement that the discharge was accidental as noted in the stories that could come back to haunt him.

 

[spidey07]

This is why you NEVER talk to police. Any word you say can and will be used against you.

As to manslaughter, there nothing criminal about pointing your weapon at somebody who is breaking into your home.

 

[HumblePie]

Also in Michigan it is considered manslaughter should you intentionally point a firearm at someone and then accidentally discharge that weapon. This is referenced in the video that Geo has linked above as well which is why I said earlier if he made the statement that the discharge was accidental as noted in the stories that could come back to haunt him.

Which doesn't matter if the shot was fired in accident if the person at the time was entering the home illegally or attempting to. It could be the homeowner had not intended to shoot, but the shot came out when he was attempting to ascertain the threat of the person entering the home without his permission.

 

[werepossum]

Also in Michigan it is considered manslaughter should you intentionally point a firearm at someone and then accidentally discharge that weapon. This is referenced in the video that Geo has linked above as well which is why I said earlier if he made the statement that the discharge was accidental as noted in the stories that could come back to haunt him.

Which it should be, though as Spidey and Humblepie point out, someone illegally entering your home may well be legally a mitigating circumstance. Take a lawyer to really know that and there'll still be another lawyer arguing the reverse.

 

[HomerJS]

Let me repeat it again.

FEAR OF LIFE IS NOT REQUIRED if somebody attempts to enter your home illegally.

He is not claiming fear for life, he is claiming she was attempting to enter illegally which per state law means his shooting is justified.

Really? How was she doing that? Kicking down door? Battering ram? Chanting open sesame?

I smell credibility stretch.

 

[spidey07]

Really? How was she doing that? Kicking down door? Battering ram? Chanting open sesame?

I smell credibility stretch.

Attempting to open the door and banging on it. That = attempting to enter illegally.

Per state law the homeowner is totally justified in using deadly force against the criminal attempting to enter the dwelling illegally.

 

[waggy]

Really? How was she doing that? Kicking down door? Battering ram? Chanting open sesame?

I smell credibility stretch.

lol

none of that is needed (though would love to see a law if someone is at your door chanting Seseme you can blow them away..they wouls deserve it). IF they enter the home you are free to use whatever you feel needed.


real question is did she enter? from what some poeple have said the door is i have my doubts.