19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

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.

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.

Based on the fact no charges have been filed at this point most of what is known to the police and prosecuters office must line up with what the homeowner is claiming versus what the family is claiming. I also believe the family knows that the chances of the homeowner being charged is slim so they've tried to put out several different narratives, once they were debunked then changed over to the racial profiling narrative sought out help pushing this narrative (Sharpton and company)

 

[2timer]

...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

You may want to perform another search as a police officer stated that the woman not shot from behind, when leaving, or shot in the porch and dumped elsewhere. He also stated he had no clue where the family was getting information.

 

[ElFenix]

You may want to perform another search as a police officer stated that the woman not shot from behind, when leaving, or shot in the porch and dumped elsewhere. He also stated he had no clue where the family was getting information.

that doesn't rebut that spidey's claim (shot from behind) about what the family is saying is wrong. because i'm not seeing anywhere that the family says she was shot from behind.

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

well, no, the main premise of castle doctrine law is that you don't have to retreat from your castle.

 

[Geosurface]

http://www.wxyz.com//dpp/news/region/wayne_county/michigan-state-police-now-assisting-in-renisha-mcbride-case#ixzz2kU5BEHT5

(WXYZ) - Michigan State Police took pictures and measurements in the car that Renisha McBride crashed the night she was killed.
The crash took place 6 blocks and 3 hours away from the front porch where her life ended.

Her white Ford Taurus has severe front end damage. Calls to Detroit Police started at 12:57 saying a woman was speeding and she hit a parked car.
Did Renisha have a head injury from the crash? Her family's attorney, Jerry Thruswell tells 7 Action News Renisha left her home at 11 p.m. to go to a friend's house, and that Renisha talked with a resident near where she crashed at Majestic and Bremell in Detroit.

That resident has talked with investigators and reportedly said Renisha was bleeding from the head, disoriented and said she wanted to go home and walked away.

Had she been drinking? Toxicology results are not finished but police sources say a preliminary blood test shows 19-year-old Renisha had alcohol in her system.

She walked across Warren Avenue into Dearborn Heights and was shot in the face and killed on a front porch at 4:30 a.m. The 54-year-old white homeowner has not been charged as the case is reviewed.

Legal experts say his actions, his state of mind and whether they are reasonable under the circumstances are important in the decision on whether he is charged with murder, manslaughter, accidental discharge of a weapon or cleared of wrongdoing.

Interesting.

So if the first call to 911 about her wreck happens at 12:57, we have to assume the wreck itself took place at least a few minutes prior to that... could easily be 10 minutes prior to that.

If she left her place at 11pm to go to a friend's, why is she still out on the roads driving at 12:50ish? Has she already gone to her friends and is done there? That's a brief visit... or does she have a friend in the Detroit metro area who lives a 2 hour or more drive away?

Now we're hearing the shooting took place at 4:30am... that's possibly pushing up close to 4 hours after the wreck. And she's still within 6 blocks, after disappearing twice from the scene of the wreck... very strange.

We have a shooter claiming (seemingly) that she was acting strangely and illegally at his house at 4:30... which isn't entirely unbelievable given that we have documented instances of her breaking the law at least twice that night (underage drinking, leaving the scene of an accident) and behaving strangely, as well. Perhaps due to a concussion, perhaps due to alcohol (and other intoxicants?) perhaps all of the above.

One thing is for sure... every one of these big ticket media items they use to rub our noses in how out of control our gun culture is, and how out of control racism is in our society... turn out to be considerably less clear than they are initially billed. Every time.

 

[nehalem256]

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?

Well which side was present when the incident occurred, and which one wasn't?

 

[2timer]

Based on the fact no charges have been filed at this point most of what is known to the police and prosecuters office must line up with what the homeowner is claiming versus what the family is claiming. I also believe the family knows that the chances of the homeowner being charged is slim so they've tried to put out several different narratives, once they were debunked then changed over to the racial profiling narrative sought out help pushing this narrative (Sharpton and company)

Not necessarily. It may just mean they are choosing not to press any criminal charges until a more certain picture of the incident emerges.

Which, if you think about it, actually makes a lot of sense. It's in the prosecution's best interests to be fully acquainted with all the facts of the case before they decide how they want to move forward.

Something Werepossum mentioned which I should point out: since the homeowner claimed the shooting was an "accident," does this mean that the Castle Doctrine defense gets dismissed? Because an accidental shooting is not a home defense shooting.

 

[Geosurface]

Maybe the home owner told police it was "an accident" or "I didn't mean to kill her" or something along those lines, but what he may have meant was that once he saw it was a young woman, and once he was faced with someone with their head blown apart laying there... it changed very rapidly from a situation where he was terrified someone was breaking into his house, and intended to shoot, into a horrible "oh my god what have I done? this is a young, small female not some big dude with a ski mask on and a crowbar..." etc etc...

There may be a world of difference between his mindset as he pulled the trigger, and his mindset as he beheld the result.

But the only pertinent question is what his mindset was when that gun went off. And whether that was reasonable for him to think.

 

[2timer]

http://www.wxyz.com//dpp/news/regio...sisting-in-renisha-mcbride-case#ixzz2kU5BEHT5


Interesting.

That story is very interesting, for sure. It certainly changes a few of the "facts" that we had become acquainted with until now. First, the shooting happened at 4:30 am apparently, not 3:40 am. Secondly, a blood test shows she had alcohol in her system.

You know what? It may very well be that this young lady was wandering around because she didn't want anyone to know why she had crashed her car. (the drinking?)

If that's the case, it's possible she was still drunk when she approached the house. She could have jiggled on the door knob or tried to open the door.

I could see a situation something like this: drunk girl crashes her car, doesn't want to call the cops or her family. Wanders around aimlessly for some time. Realizes eventually she wants to go home. Starts knocking on doors, may or may not be sober at this point. Does she try to bang and jiggle on a door handle at a particular house because she's losing her cool? The scared homeowner answers with a gun, accidentally shoots, kills her.

It's a tragic death, that's certain. But it may be the homeowner is not criminally at fault for the death, if the above hypothetical scenario was how it happened.

One thing is for sure... every one of these big ticket media items they use to rub our noses in how out of control our gun culture is, and how out of control racism is in our society... turn out to be considerably less clear than they are initially billed. Every time.

 

[umbrella39]

It is right on the border of Dearborn Heights and Detroit. IIRC, the car crash was in Detroit, and she was shot in Dearborn Heights. I believe that is what a Dearborn Heights cop said.

This happened near the southern end of River Rouge Park on the West side of this map. You can even see that a bit of Detroit is West of the park and farther west than the East border of Dearborn Heights. This is why you keep hearing both cities named. They are nearly intertwined in the area.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Detroit7_421326_7.pdf

You can see the Southern end of the park in the map of the address you posted.

Again for those not keeping track:

I AM FROM THIS AREA. I grew up 3 miles from here. The house in question you have to travel another mile down hines past the very nice and oft visited Parkland Park then turn right down Warren and go down another mile before you come to the first home in Detroit. This is a good neighborhood. I take Hines Drive right past Outer Drive almost daily. I have friends who graduated Dearborn High School that grew up and lived in this neighborhood. It's proximity to the city of Detroit has shit all to do with this case. Can't use it's Detroit's fault here. Sorry. I posted the google link so others can see there isn't anything sketchy about this area. The part of Detroit that it touches is one of the better parts of Detroit if that counts for anything. Seriously, what she was doing there remains in question as does what was going on in the shooters head before during and after but I honestly don't think this guy is going to be able to use but, but, but Detroit as an affirmative defense.

 

[Geosurface]

For you Detroit experts: is it normal that she is said to have left her house at 11pm to go to a friend's place and still isn't there about 2 hours later?

Not saying she can't have stopped somewhere on the way, etc, but I'm just wondering whether it would be normal to have a friend who lived that far away within the metro area.

Of course, there is a type of visit to a "friend" I can think of which has you there for only short while, then leaving to head back home. There are innocent versions of that scenario... but if she went to her dealer's place or something, and suddenly she's had a car wreck while DUI, and has weed or something on her, that would help (a lot) in explaining why she wouldn't want to stick around at the scene of the accident until police arrived.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The only thing that matters is what she was doing at the guys door. She could have just run over a bunch of nuns while smoking crack but if all she did was knock on the door then it's manslaughter. Her actions in the preceding hours are only relevant insofar as they tell us what she was doing there.

 

[SheHateMe]

How is it 6 blocks and 3 hours away from where she crashed? Dearborn Heights is not that far out

 

[Geosurface]

How is it 6 blocks and 3 hours away from where she crashed? Dearborn Heights is not that far out

They're speaking of time in a strict sense not saying 3 hours drive or 3 hours walk or something. They're saying she died 6 blocks from the crash, and 3 hours after it.

 

[Geosurface]

The only thing that matters is what she was doing at the guys door. She could have just run over a bunch of nuns while smoking crack but if all she did was knock on the door then it's manslaughter. Her actions in the preceding hours are only relevant insofar as they tell us what she was doing there.

agreed for the most part but if she was DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, or had illegal drugs in her system, it makes him claiming she behaved strangely more believable.

No?

 

[Jaskalas]

I believe the Castle Doctrine is automatically applied until proven otherwise and this is why the prosecutors office is looking for more information.

http://www.freep.com/article/201311...hot-in-face-not-back-of-head-Dearborn-Heights

Remind me not to knock on doors...

 

[werepossum]

How is it 6 blocks and 3 hours away from where she crashed? Dearborn Heights is not that far out

It is if you're drunk. As Earlie Kyler says, "Don't time fly when you're drunker'n hell."

As Geo says, those are just two metrics, not directly related. The girl may have been passed out or wandering around the whole time. We don't know how much alcohol she had in her system or how badly she was injured, so we really can't guess either way.

agreed for the most part but if she was DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, or had illegal drugs in her system, it makes him claiming she behaved strangely more believable.

No?

Yes, but does it matter? "She was acting strangely, so I shot her. Um, accidentally."

Remind me not to knock on doors...

No joke. If I'm in an accident late at night, no way in hell am I going to anyone's house unless I expect to bleed out in the next hour. Otherwise I'm sitting tight until morning, or at worst I'll scream in the street until someone gets irritated and calls the cops on me.

Of course, that doesn't apply if you're too stunned to think straight, or if it's a loved one hurt and bleeding. Who thinks they're going to get buckshot in the face for trying to get help?

 

[Geosurface]

No joke. If I'm in an accident late at night, no way in hell am I going to anyone's house unless I expect to bleed out in the next hour. Otherwise I'm sitting tight until morning, or at worst I'll scream in the street until someone gets irritated and calls the cops on me.

Of course, that doesn't apply if you're too stunned to think straight, or if it's a loved one hurt and bleeding. Who thinks they're going to get buckshot in the face for trying to get help?

Yea, but the odd thing here is she had 2 people helping her right at the scene of the accident. She had people calling an ambulance for her.

Then apparently 40 minutes later she was back there and they were calling again.

She had help twice, and left the scene of the accident before it could arrive both times.

I realize there is no accounting for what someone with a concussion might do, but I have a really hard time not thinking her leaving had something to do with her under age drinking DUI. If the alcohol level was in fact beyond the legal limit.

 

[spidey07]

Remind me not to knock on doors...

Im reminding you.

Don't knock on doors at 3 in the morning.

Don't touch that door at 3 in the morning.

Don't bang on that door at 3 in the morning.

Don't do anything to that door at 3 in the morning.

Otherwise you may get dead.

 

[HomerJS]

Trayvon wasn't being stalked, and wasn't defending himself.

Marissa Alexander has a mythos around her, too. She returned to a supposedly threatening situation with a gun when she could have left, and opened fire toward not only her ex but two kids as well.

They fled and called police. She did not call.

You should generally assume that the media narrative on any racially tinged shooting is BS, and proceed with that understanding when researching it.

We don't need you to do that. Guess it only applies sometimes.

BTW - I have yet to see an answer to this...

Homeowner says the discharge was accidental. How can you grab a loaded gun, point it at someone with your finger on the trigger and have it be "accidental"???

Sounds like credibility problem for homeowner.

 

[nehalem256]

We don't need you to do that. Guess it only applies sometimes.

BTW - I have yet to see an answer to this...

Homeowner says the discharge was accidental. How can you grab a loaded gun, point it at someone with your finger on the trigger and have it be "accidental"???

Sounds like credibility problem for homeowner.

Well you would start with being woken up in the middle of the night by a drunk woman banging around on your door.

 

[Jaskalas]

Im reminding you.

Don't knock on doors at 3 in the morning.

Don't touch that door at 3 in the morning.

Don't bang on that door at 3 in the morning.

Don't do anything to that door at 3 in the morning.

Otherwise you may get dead.

If you stop to consider the law, "3 in the morning" has nothing to do with it.

 

[HomerJS]

Well you would start with being woken up in the middle of the night by a drunk woman banging around on your door.

Again we don't know if she was drunk. Need a tox report. Just as likely suffering from a concussion and was confused.

And stating all that pointing a loaded gun at someone with finger on trigger is no accident

 

[HomerJS]

If you stop to consider the law, "3 in the morning" has nothing to do with it.

It is if you have a predetermined outcome.

Wonder what the cutoff time for knocking on someones door is before owner has right to shoot to kill? Gotta check law books for that one. Is it 3am...2am...1am...midnight...11pm...10pm...9pm...8pm................???? Let me know when I get it right!

 

[Geosurface]

We don't need you to do that. Guess it only applies sometimes..

There was never any evidence that Zimmerman didn't "comply" with the optional, non-binding suggestion by a civilian phone operator that he should cease following Trayvon. The evidence indicates he did cease, but remained outside of his vehicle and kept an eye out from what he had every reason to believe would be a substantial distance from Trayvon, and getting more substantial by the second.

A completely lawful and reasonable move on his part, and not one which entitles anyone to launch a felony assault upon him in retaliation for slights real or perceived.

So I'm not sure I see the parallel to a woman who goes to get a gun, comes back, and fires at her husband, who then calls police after running from her, and she doesn't call police.

Just because the race baiting grievance industry is able to weave a story to pull your heart strings, doesn't magically turn that into the truth. There is a very strong agenda in this nation right now to try to erode gun rights and self-defense, and they are playing very dirty to try to achieve those ends. Lying about incidents involving blacks seems to be the crown jewel of their campaign of bullshit.

BTW - I have yet to see an answer to this...

Homeowner says the discharge was accidental. How can you grab a loaded gun, point it at someone with your finger on the trigger and have it be "accidental"???

Sounds like credibility problem for homeowner.

Well, if you'll recall in the Zimmerman case there was a lot of bad information floating around early on about what he had said to police. One story going around was that he and Trayvon had had a conversation while he was still in his truck, and another thing people were claiming is that he said it wasn't him screaming... neither were true. There were several others.

It's entirely possible that the homeowner in this case said something to indicate "it was an accident" but the meaning may very well have been that he THOUGHT she was a burglar or burglars, a large male, someone with a weapon, whatever... but that when he found out it was a female who'd had a car wreck, he then retroactively perceived and categorized it as "an accident" in the sense of "I didn't mean to shoot someone like that in a situation like that."

One could simultaneously convey that feeling without invalidating a claim that at the time they did shoot, they had what they still consider to be legitimate reason to do so.

We'll just have to see what he said, exactly.