19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[2timer]

I suspect the homeowner had no clue whether the person trying to get in his house was a man or woman when he shot.

The real question is, did the homeowner have an honest and reasonable belief that the person knocking on the door was trying to break in?

It will be interesting to see what the jury decides. I wonder if knocking on doors now is justification for shooting? That's kind of a... worrisome prospect if you think about it.

According to the home owner's lawyer this is what was occurring.

And according to the victims lawyer that is not what was occurring.

Funny how that works, eh?

 

[Geosurface]

It's hard to believe he would describe knocking or door bell ringing as "the sounds of someone trying to enter his home" or that he would shoot someone for such.

Her established weird behavior earlier in the evening makes it easier to believe she was behaving in a weird way at his door... but how did it manifest exactly? We don't know.

I feel like if it was this super straight forward thing where his story had no merit or evidence to back it up, he'd be charged and arrested by now.

 

[2timer]

It's hard to believe he would describe knocking or door bell ringing as "the sounds of someone trying to enter his home" or that he would shoot someone for such.

The only way I could reasonably imagine she was actually jiggling on the door handle is if she was drunk or high? Who knows, if she was drunk or high and actually trying to open the door, that would certainly then bolster the homeowner's case of self defense, seems like.

 

[spidey07]

Per Michigan state law fear of life is not necessary. Attempting to enter illegally is all that is necessary to use deadly force to stop the unlawful entry.

 

[nehalem256]

The only way I could reasonably imagine she was actually jiggling on the door handle is if she was drunk or high? Who knows, if she was drunk or high and actually trying to open the door, that would certainly then bolster the homeowner's case of self defense, seems like.

It would also explain the hitting a parked car at a high rate of speed.

I suspect that the prosecutor is waiting for the toxicology report before making a determination of what to do.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The real question is, did the homeowner have an honest and reasonable belief that the person knocking on the door was trying to break in?

It will be interesting to see what the jury decides. I wonder if knocking on doors now is justification for shooting? That's kind of a... worrisome prospect if you think about it.



And according to the victims lawyer that is not what was occurring.

Funny how that works, eh?

Maybe a jury will decide and maybe the prosecution will decide they lack the evidence required to charge the homeowner. Most likely why no charges have been filed at the time.

Yeah, funny how the family claimed the girl was shot in the back of the head, shot while she was leaving the porch, or shot and then dumped in another location.

 

[werepossum]

The only way I could reasonably imagine she was actually jiggling on the door handle is if she was drunk or high? Who knows, if she was drunk or high and actually trying to open the door, that would certainly then bolster the homeowner's case of self defense, seems like.

She had just had a fairly violent auto accident and by an eye-witness account was bleeding from the head. It's possible that she was neither drunk nor high, but was injured and disoriented, possibly with a severe concussion.

If I had to bet, then yes, I'd guess she was drunk or high. But as I have no particular need to bet, I'll extend to her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[werepossum]

The real question is, did the homeowner have an honest and reasonable belief that the person knocking on the door was trying to break in?

It will be interesting to see what the jury decides. I wonder if knocking on doors now is justification for shooting? That's kind of a... worrisome prospect if you think about it.
SNIP

Certainly adds a level of suspense to being a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe a jury will decide and maybe the prosecution will decide they lack the evidence required to charge the homeowner. Most likely why no charges have been filed at the time.

Yeah, funny how the family claimed the girl was shot in the back of the head, shot while she was leaving the porch, or shot and then dumped in another location.

You forgot this gem from the family

she was going door-to-door looking for help after her car broke down and her cell phone was dead

Apparently crashing into a parked car at a high rate of speed is "breaking down" and leaving the scene of the accident where help has already been summoned and wander the streets for 2 hours is "looking for help".

 

[spidey07]

I bet the family already contacted some PR firm to cook up these lies. As you can see they will stick in the mind of the liberal that by it's nature shuns facts and reality.

They didn't learn with martin, and they'll be damned to repeat their lies and belief system.

 

[Geosurface]

You forgot this gem from the family

Apparently crashing into a parked car at a high rate of speed is "breaking down" and leaving the scene of the accident where help has already been summoned and wander the streets for 2 hours is "looking for help".

Yea, she left the scene of the accident TWICE apparently. Once at 1am and again at 1:40am, or so I've heard.

Both times people in the area of her crashed car called 911 on her behalf. She disappeared both times.

Then two hours after that, and nearly 3 hours after the accident itself (seemingly) she shows up at one particular house. Odd...

If she'd been knocking on all sorts of doors and ringing all sorts of doorbells, I really believe she would have gotten a response at most houses.

I'll be curious to see if any other neighbors attest to her having come to their house but they didn't go to the door or didn't get there before she'd left, and what the shooter says about what she did at his door.

 

[2timer]

Maybe a jury will decide and maybe the prosecution will decide they lack the evidence required to charge the homeowner. Most likely why no charges have been filed at the time.

Yeah, funny how the family claimed the girl was shot in the back of the head, shot while she was leaving the porch, or shot and then dumped in another location.

I agree with everything you said, but here's the thing:

There is indisputed evidence that the homeowner killed the girl. He even confessed to it. That's not the question. The question is, is there clear evidence that shows there was a reasonable and honest belief for the homeowner to fear bodily harm? Because that's how the law is written in cases of self defense. And what is that evidence?

The homeowner confessed to the killing, but as of right now, there isn't much to say he had a reasonable and honest belief of bodily harm. This shooting occurred outside of the house. What was the reasonable and honest belief of great bodily harm?

Unless and until there is clear evidence to give reasonable and honest belief of a break in, this appears to be a manslaughter case in my opinion. That's my opinion as of right now. However, new evidence may still come out which bolsters the self defense claim of the homeowner.

 

[spidey07]

Per michigan state law fear of life is not a requirement to use deadly force. Only an attempt to unlawfully enter the dwelling. The act of attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling automatically, per state law, allows the occupant to use deadly force to stop the entry.

This isn't self defense, this is castle doctrine. There is no fear of life required at all. If she was so much as jiggling the doorknob that is enough to lawfully warrant deadly force.

 

[werepossum]

Per michigan state law fear of life is not a requirement to use deadly force. Only an attempt to unlawfully enter the dwelling. The act of attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling automatically, per state law, allows the occupant to use deadly force to stop the entry.

This isn't self defense, this is castle doctrine. There is no fear of life required at all. If she was so much as jiggling the doorknob that is enough to lawfully warrant deadly force.

Well, we know she was not in the house when shot, and apparently she was not near the door either, being at least several feet away from the shooter. If "on the porch" meets the definition of "attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling", how much longer until we progress to "on the sidewalk"? To "hesitated on the street in front of my house"? If she's trying to break down his door or climb in his window, fine. Apparently she was neither. "Not close range" requires either that the homeowner was backed away from the door (in which case were she trying to enter the house she'd have been inside the house) or that she was backed away from the door (in which case if she was trying to enter the house she was doing a very, very poor job of it) or both. Either way, doesn't look like she was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling at the time she was shot, which presumably is the intent of the statute. Pretty sure that if the cops catch someone breaking into your house, when you come to the door they don't give you the option of shooting the perp even though he was recently trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling.

 

[Geosurface]

Well, we know she was not in the house when shot, and apparently she was not near the door either, being at least several feet away from the shooter. If "on the porch" meets the definition of "attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling", how much longer until we progress to "on the sidewalk"?

I think cases like this happened in the 80's, 60's, whenever, too.

I think they were tough cases for police and prosecutors to judge back then, too.

I think the impression that baffling self-defense shootings against minorities are happening at this increasing pace in the nation and that the reasonableness required of shooters is getting less and less is a false one created by the media through what they choose to cover and take national.

They could have created this same drumbeat and impression at any time in the past, in any two or three year period if they had made the same decision to latch onto these stories, which are always happening across this vast and populated nation.

We live in an era of 24 hour news and a million news sites, channels, etc always looking for the new story. Right now, they've decided this whole "guns are bad, and self-defense is a crock used to kill blacks!" is their favorite story for a while. They sift through the local news to find incidents which, at least until the facts come in, look like they can be fit into that narrative.

 

[2timer]

Per michigan state law fear of life is not a requirement to use deadly force. Only an attempt to unlawfully enter the dwelling. The act of attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling automatically, per state law, allows the occupant to use deadly force to stop the entry.

Gotcha. My question is, other than the shooter's statement, what evidence is there of an unlawful attempt at entry into the house? If the girl genuinely tried to enter the house, then I'm all for dropping charges. But I just wonder what evidence is there that makes you think so? Nothing I've read so far suggests this occurred. Maybe you know something else?

Examples of evidence:

1)Security cam footage
2)Some type of burglary apparatus found on the body or at the scene
3)Forced entry marks or cracks on the door/windows
4)Statements from the neighbors of suspicious activity
5)A criminal record which corroborates the homeowner's statments
6)Something else I may not have mentioned?

Anything?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I agree with everything you said, but here's the thing:

There is indisputed evidence that the homeowner killed the girl. He even confessed to it. That's not the question. The question is, is there clear evidence that shows there was a reasonable and honest belief for the homeowner to fear bodily harm? Because that's how the law is written in cases of self defense. And what is that evidence?

The homeowner confessed to the killing, but as of right now, there isn't much to say he had a reasonable and honest belief of bodily harm. This shooting occurred outside of the house. What was the reasonable and honest belief of great bodily harm?

Unless and until there is clear evidence to give reasonable and honest belief of a break in, this appears to be a manslaughter case in my opinion. That's my opinion as of right now. However, new evidence may still come out which bolsters the self defense claim of the homeowner.

I don't think you're correctly applying the Castle Doctrine as your trying to intermingle self defense with protecting one's home or business from a person or persons trying to break into said domicile or business. The home or business owner may use force including deadly force against a person that's in the process of breaking and entering or has entered the domicile or business.

 

[werepossum]

I think cases like this happened in the 80's, 60's, whenever, too.

I think they were tough cases for police and prosecutors to judge back then, too.

I think the impression that baffling self-defense shootings against minorities are happening at this increasing pace in the nation and that the reasonableness required of shooters is getting less and less is a false one created by the media through what they choose to cover and take national.

They could have created this same drumbeat and impression at any time in the past, in any two or three year period if they had made the same decision to latch onto these stories, which are always happening across this vast and populated nation.

We live in an era of 24 hour news and a million news sites, channels, etc always looking for the new story. Right now, they've decided this whole "guns are bad, and self-defense is a crock used to kill blacks!" is their favorite story for a while. They sift through the local news to find incidents which, at least until the facts come in, look like they can be fit into that narrative.

Maybe. I don't think home invasions were really common until maybe the sixties though.

I don't think you're correctly applying the Castle Doctrine as your trying to intermingle self defense with protecting one's home or business from a person or persons trying to break into said domicile or business. The home or business owner may use force including deadly force against a person that's in the process of breaking and entering or has entered the domicile or business.

Ought to be a differentiation between someone breaking into a home and someone rattling the door of a home or trying to unlock the door. Apparently the home owner agrees as he's using the accidental discharge defense.

Confusion should not equal death. I have zero problem with shooting someone who is burglarizing your home - I think death is a reasonable job risk if your profession is burglar - but not merely any confused person who honestly thinks she has a perfect right to enter your home. This is how people accidentally kill children and family friends. If you suspect someone is trying to get into your home, why not just fetch your gun and wait? If indeed they are trying to break into your home, you can gun them down in the act and be perfectly justified. If you are wrong, you won't have gunned down an innocent. Everybody wins.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ought to be a differentiation between someone breaking into a home and someone rattling the door of a home or trying to unlock the door. Apparently the home owner agrees as he's using the accidental discharge defense.

Confusion should not equal death. I have zero problem with shooting someone who is burglarizing your home - I think death is a reasonable job risk if your profession is burglar - but not merely any confused person who honestly thinks she has a perfect right to enter your home. This is how people accidentally kill children and family friends. If you suspect someone is trying to get into your home, why not just fetch your gun and wait? If indeed they are trying to break into your home, you can gun them down in the act and be perfectly justified. If you are wrong, you won't have gunned down an innocent. Everybody wins.

We don't know if she was rattling the door or forcibly trying to open it. Or if she had successfully opened the door and was entering.

Well, we know she was not in the house when shot, and apparently she was not near the door either, being at least several feet away from the shooter. If "on the porch" meets the definition of "attempting to unlawfully enter the dwelling", how much longer until we progress to "on the sidewalk"? To "hesitated on the street in front of my house"? If she's trying to break down his door or climb in his window, fine. Apparently she was neither. "Not close range" requires either that the homeowner was backed away from the door (in which case were she trying to enter the house she'd have been inside the house) or that she was backed away from the door (in which case if she was trying to enter the house she was doing a very, very poor job of it) or both. Either way, doesn't look like she was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling at the time she was shot, which presumably is the intent of the statute. Pretty sure that if the cops catch someone breaking into your house, when you come to the door they don't give you the option of shooting the perp even though he was recently trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling.

We don't know if she entered the house or not. Not being at close range could be the shooting while standing in the living room several feet away from the door.

 

[2timer]

The home or business owner may use force including deadly force against a person that's in the process of breaking and entering or has entered the domicile or business.

Seeing as that's the case, was there evidence of an attempted break in?

We don't know if she was rattling the door or forcibly trying to open it. Or if she had successfully opened the door and was entering.

I'm pretty sure that the cops would know if someone tried to forcibly enter a door. They have the capability to determine if there was a forced entry attempt, do you agree?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Seeing as that's the case, was there evidence of an attempted break in?

I'm pretty sure that the cops would know if someone tried to forcibly enter a door. They have the capability to determine if there was a forced entry attempt, do you agree?

Most people would consider someone trying to get in their house at 3:40am as a possible instance of breaking and entering.

Funny how you took the word forcible as meaning using a tool or something similar. Jerking and pushing the door in a violent manner could be considered as being forcible.

It's possible that the homeowner had left the main door open to let the house air out/just locked the screen door and the woman was able to push through the screen/enter the house as the home owner came into the living room/foyer.

 

[2timer]

Most people would consider someone trying to get in their house at 3:40am as a possible instance of breaking and entering.

According to the homeowner who fired the shots, he feared that the girl was trying to "get in" his house. But according to the family's statments, she was only "knocking."

So which side is true? Is a homeowner being investigated for a possible manslaughter charge going to give an unbiased account of the shooting? I would think that rather than looking at the statements of the person who shot her as evidence, the cops and prosecution would look at all the available physical and circumstantial evidence and see if it backs up the story of the homeowner.

Funny how you took the word forcible as meaning using a tool or something similar. Jerking and pushing the door in a violent manner could be considered as being forcible.

That's my point - look at the evidence. If someone tries to force a door open, it would be evident in a damaged door. I'm sure the cops know what to look for in forcible entries.

It's possible that the homeowner had left the main door open to let the house air out/just locked the screen door and the woman was able to push through the screen/enter the house as the home owner came into the living room/foyer.

That certainly is a possibility. Do we know this is what happened yet? Or is that only an assumption. Because right now, I'm pretty sure you are just making assumptions.

 

[RampantAndroid]

According to the homeowner who fired the shots, he feared that the girl was trying to "get in" his house. But according to the family's statments, she was only "knocking."

According to which family? Family of the shooter? If that's the case, then the shooter is at fault. If you mean the family of the victim says she was only knocking....how do they know this? Were they there?

 

[spidey07]

How would the family possibly know she was only knocking?

They have already lied about much of what happened. They are lying about that as well.

She wasn't doing anything wrong they'll keep parroting.

You guys are getting duped. AGAIN!

 

[ElFenix]

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

no, the family said shot while leaving. it's in the OP. you can be shot in the face while leaving if you are backing away. which would be reasonable if someone is pointing a gun at you.




for me i want to know 2 things:
a) who opened the door?
b) where were each located when the shot was fired?

because there's a presumption, but the presumption is rebuttable rather than absolute and also depends on a reasonable belief that the person is trying to commit a crime:

(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).