19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[nehalem256]

Absolutely. Even if it was an accidental killing, it's still a killing.

Why does every killing need to result in someone going to jail? We are assuming no intent/malice, and no overt negligence or stupidity on behalf of the killer.

Just a guy who was startled awake in the middle of the night and may not have been as careful with his gun as he could have been minutes or perhaps seconds after waking.

 

[Geosurface]

I don't see how society is served by such a person being in prison.

 

[2timer]

Nope. That's why the law is practically all 50 states is the same on this issue. Basically, if it's after dark don't go screwing around on other people's property where they may have a hard time trying to figure out of you are just confused or up to no good.

I'm afraid that the Castle Doctrine law you are referencing requires not just a belief alone of "imminent death or great bodily harm," but rather a reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm. When the criminal charges are filed in this case, it will be up to a jury to decide whether or not the shooter had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm. Here is the text of the law, you can read it yourself:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0311.htm

So far, the sole reason we have for this belief is knocking on a door, unless someone has evidence that shows otherwise? I haven't seen any in this case yet.

 

[2timer]

I don't see how society is served by such a person being in prison.

Society is bettered when justice is served for criminal actions. Assuming the shooting was criminal, then justice ought to be served.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm afraid that the Castle Doctrine law you are referencing requires not just a belief alone of "imminent death or great bodily harm," but rather a reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm. When the criminal charges are filed in this case, it will be up to a jury to decide whether or not the shooter had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm. Here is the text of the law, you can read it yourself:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0311.htm

So far, the sole reason we have for this belief is knocking on a door, unless someone has evidence that shows otherwise? I haven't seen any in this case yet.

I also haven't seen any statements from the home owner through his lawyer or other means actually stating why he held the belief someone was trying to break in. Just that he believed it. Just a lot of assumption as to why he might have felt that way with no facts.

 

[Geosurface]

I also haven't seen any statements from the home owner through his lawyer or other means actually stating why he held the believe someone was trying to break in. Just that he believed it. Just a lot of assumption as to why he might have felt that way with no facts.

It is potentially telling that he hasn't been charged yet, though.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It is potentially telling that he hasn't been charged yet, though.

Potentially yes. But that doesn't make any of the assumptions either way based in fact. It's just too premature.

 

[2timer]

I also haven't seen any statements from the home owner through his lawyer or other means actually stating why he held the belief someone was trying to break in. Just that he believed it. Just a lot of assumption as to why he might have felt that way with no facts.

This is my understanding of it as well.

 

[cyclohexane]

Statements from the victim, that's evidence.

Victim? You mean the white guy who shot her on the back? Lol

Why are gun nuts such pussies?

 

[spidey07]

I'm afraid that the Castle Doctrine law you are referencing requires not just a belief alone of "imminent death or great bodily harm," but rather a reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm. When the criminal charges are filed in this case, it will be up to a jury to decide whether or not the shooter had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm. Here is the text of the law, you can read it yourself:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0311.htm

So far, the sole reason we have for this belief is knocking on a door, unless someone has evidence that shows otherwise? I haven't seen any in this case yet.

Absolutely FALSE.

The main premise of castle doctrine laws is the PRESUMPTION of fear of life if somebody is attempting to enter your dwelling illegally.

Read the law again, it does not say what you are stating in any way.

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).

The victim stated he believed the woman was trying to break in. That makes it a good shoot. There is absolutely no fear of life necessary when it comes to castle doctrine.

I see many are repeating the lies of that family again of being shot in the back. Didn't you learn that last time!!!?

 

[nehalem256]

Society is bettered when justice is served for criminal actions. Assuming the shooting was criminal, then justice ought to be served.

That seems like highly circular reasoning.

The basic question is why should accidentally shooting someone who wakes you in the middle of the night, by banging on your door, be a criminal action. Again we are assuming no gross negligence.

Isn't it possible that accidents can happen? Especially when someone is startled awake in the middle of the night?

 

[ElFenix]

That seems like highly circular reasoning.

The basic question is why should accidentally shooting someone who wakes you in the middle of the night, by banging on your door, be a criminal action. Again we are assuming no gross negligence.

Isn't it possible that accidents can happen? Especially when someone is startled awake in the middle of the night?

because we dont want people opening the door ready to go.

 

[2timer]

Absolutely FALSE.

The main premise of castle doctrine laws is the PRESUMPTION of fear of life if somebody is attempting to enter your dwelling illegally.

Read the law again, it does not say what you are stating in any way.

It sounds to me like you are trying to be the loudest voice possible out of fear that there may actually be some truth to what I'm saying. For the record, let's reiterate what the law actually says:

"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..."

Since you don't intend to be honest about this, and since someone who is biased in one way or another shouldn't be the authority, I suggest we turn to what legal experts on the case say. Here is one legal experts opinion on the case:

“The issue is whether ... the person who fired the gun honestly believed that the occupants of the home were in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm and whether that belief was reasonable,” said Larry Dubin, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

Source: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...lose-range?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

[EagleKeeper]

Absolutely. Even if it was an accidental killing, it's still a killing.

And it wad rules a homicide - which mean not by natural causes.

No one is arguing that point.

 

[2timer]

The basic question is why should accidentally shooting someone who wakes you in the middle of the night, by banging on your door, be a criminal action. Again we are assuming no gross negligence.

...

That was exactly the point I made, when I said "Assuming the shooting was criminal."

If the shooting is proved to not be criminal, then you are absolutely right.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, let's read what the law says...are you missing the bolded part? This is the very foundation of castle doctrine in that no fear of life is required, it is presumed.

"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..."

 

[EagleKeeper]

It sounds to me like you are trying to be the loudest voice possible out of fear that there may actually be some truth to what I'm saying. For the record, let's reiterate what the law actually says:

"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..."

Since you don't intend to be honest about this, and since someone who is biased in one way or another shouldn't be the authority, I suggest we turn to what legal experts on the case say. Here is one legal experts opinion on the case:

“The issue is whether ... the person who fired the gun honestly believed that the occupants of the home were in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm and whether that belief was reasonable,” said Larry Dubin, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

Source: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...lose-range?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

And it needs to be evaluated based on what was known and conditions at the time of the incident, not using 20/20 hindsight

 

[spidey07]

...

That was exactly the point I made, when I said "Assuming the shooting was criminal."

If the shooting is proved to not be criminal, then you are absolutely right.

Innocence doesn't have to be proven in this country.

A crime has to be proven. So far there's no evidence of a crime here and that's why he's not been charged.

 

[Exophase]

Except per Geosurface's video the door does not appear to be damaged, implying it was open when she was shot.

Since she was shot in the face this would imply that he was actively aiming the gun toward her.

Does that sound like a situation where he would have been inviting her in?

So someone opened the door, and you seem convinced it was the woman and not the man. You actually think that the guy has so little concern for break-ins that he left his door unlocked but has enough concern for break-ins that he's ready to grab his shotgun when he hears noise downstairs. Most people will lock their door regardless of whether or not they live in an especially crime heavy area. It's just such an easy thing to do and people are used to doing it out of habit.

But let's say he really did leave his door unlocked. The woman would have entered, he would have heard something, grabbed his shotgun, and went downstairs.. only to find that she wasn't in the house yet? Or am I not getting the scenario here?

 

[2timer]

Yes, let's read what the law says...are you missing the bolded part? This is the very foundation of castle doctrine in that no fear of life is required, it is presumed.

I think you may need to brush up a little on your reading comprehension skills. Nothing I've claimed so far has been proven "absolutely false," as you have tried to argue.

Innocence doesn't have to be proven in this country.

A crime has to be proven. So far there's no evidence of a crime here and that's why he's not been charged.

Really? You mean to say that a dead body isn't potentially evidence of a crime? Are you joking...?

 

[2timer]

And it needs to be evaluated based on what was known and conditions at the time of the incident, not using 20/20 hindsight

OK, fair enough.

 

[LTC8K6]

No they don't.



Do you know of another case where someone injured in an accident ran off after medical attention had been summoned for them?

Yes they do.



I really don't have time to keep track.

But if you are loopy, you do things that don't make sense, like run away from help.

 

[spidey07]

OK, fair enough.

A dead body is just a homocide. It's not evidence of a crime.

 

[LTC8K6]

Her fingerprints and handprints may show that she tried to enter the house.

They may even show that she opened the door.

We just don't know yet.

If the case were as cut and dried as some posters seem to think, it wouldn't be taking so long to investigate.

 

[HomerJS]

Statements from the victim, that's evidence.

Statement from victim is statement from victim, not evidence. BTW - that statement has been scrubbed by a lawyer. Laywer will put his spin on it. Family will put their spin on it.


One thing that remains constant who you side with is as predictable as sunrise.