19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[HomerJS]

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.



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.

The word was "accidental discharge" not "I made a mistake because she was not really robbing me"

Again how can pointing a loaded gun at someone with finger on trigger be an accident??

 

[Exophase]

I don't understand why most of the discussion here is focused on what the woman was doing that night and how strange her behavior is, how intoxicated she was, or what laws she broke. The way I see it, the only really relevant question here is this - did he or did he not open the door? Because if he did I don't see how his actions are really justifiably. And her opening the door seems like the far less likely scenario here - if the door was unlocked she'd already be in the house when she was shot. But the door was probably not unlocked to begin with.

You can't say he acted out of survival instinct to protect himself or even his property because in that case opening the door is stupid. Any reasonable person would have called the police then waited inside the house within line of sight of the door (but not directly in front of it), with the shotgun, ready to fire if the person entered. If any interaction is done at all it should be yelling at the person, maybe telling them you're armed and you called the police, although I wouldn't even do that.

Going up to the door and opening it is just putting yourself in further risk and escalating the situation. I don't see how it can be seen any other way.

Here's what I think happened here.. the home owner heard someone at his door (knocking, trying to open the knob, whatever) and assumed it was a burglar. Having been robbed a couple times in the past (if Geosurface's source is correct on this) he was pissed off and wanted to personally run the burglar off or even wanted to actually shoot him/her. After shooting the woman he would have realized she had no vehicle, weapons, tools, accomplices, anything so was probably not a burglar.. and then the "what have I done" reaction would sink in.

 

[HomerJS]

We don't have all the facts but that sounds like a reasonable theory.

Here's a scanario...

Homeowners wife goes away for 2 week business trip. Trip cut short she decides to come home early and surprise husband. Gets home at 3am because of last minute flight changes.

Has trouble getting in the front door. Homeowner hears someone trying to get in. Knows wife isn't due home for another week. Assumes he is being robbed. Gets gun and shoots, killing wife.

Does castle doctrine apply here??

 

[LTC8K6]

We don't have all the facts but that sounds like a reasonable theory.

Here's a scanario...

Homeowners wife goes away for 2 week business trip. Trip cut short she decides to come home early and surprise husband. Gets home at 3am because of last minute flight changes.

Has trouble getting in the front door. Homeowner hears someone trying to get in. Knows wife isn't due home for another week. Assumes he is being robbed. Gets gun and shoots, killing wife.

Does castle doctrine apply here??

Wife knows husband well, so she won't try to get in unannounced.

That would be some form of manslaughter.

But you are posting a scenario where all the facts are known. That's not what we have. We are short of info to make a decision regarding McBride.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I too have a hard time believing this wasn't alcohol-induced. But as she is dead and not going anywhere, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

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

I have a very hard time with that. A gun owner HAS to maintain gun safety. Assuming his porch has a light, I see no reason he should have pointed the gun at her. Had the gun been pointed in a safe direction, an accidental discharge would have been no big deal. If you intentionally point a gun at someone, and that gun goes off, as far as I am concerned you have intentionally shot that person, absent some mitigating circumstances. Merely having someone at your door - even banging on it and/or trying to get in with a key - should not be grounds for pointing a gun at that person.

We don't have all the facts but that sounds like a reasonable theory.

Here's a scanario...

Homeowners wife goes away for 2 week business trip. Trip cut short she decides to come home early and surprise husband. Gets home at 3am because of last minute flight changes.

Has trouble getting in the front door. Homeowner hears someone trying to get in. Knows wife isn't due home for another week. Assumes he is being robbed. Gets gun and shoots, killing wife.

Does castle doctrine apply here??

Far too many family members and friends shot like that.

I have no problem with someone shooting a burglar or home invader, but no one should shoot without identifying his target and the background.

 

[Geosurface]

Here's a timeline on Huffington Post from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/renisha-mcbride-timeline_n_4262019.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices

12:57 a.m. Detroit police receive an initial phone call that there was an auto accident with no injuries and the driver fled the scene. Because of those factors, the accident was determined to be a low priority call. According to the Detroit Free Press, a woman was speeding, hit a parked car, and then left on foot.

1:23 a.m. Another person calls 911 about the accident. The individual said the driver of the vehicle seemed to be intoxicated, though the dispatcher realized that an injury may have caused the apparent intoxication. The dispatcher ordered EMS units, but no units were available at that time.

1:37 a.m. A unit became available and was dispatched. It arrived three minutes later, and no one was at the scene.

1:52 a.m. An ambulance arrived.

2:50 a.m. Officers left the scene, after spending over an hour clearing the accident scene and investigating. No one returned to the scene within that time.

4:46 a.m. A Dearborn Heights dispatcher said she had just received a call from a homeowner who said he had shot someone on his porch, according to the Detroit News. Less than five minutes later, units were on the scene at the 16800 block of West Outer Drive, several blocks from the Detroit accident.

the article also includes a brief audio clip of police dispatch exchanges at the time the homeowner called 911 after he shot her.

 

[nehalem256]

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

You missed this?

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.

The concussion things seems like BS. It is not normal for people to wander away from accidents after receiving help. She can hardly be the only person who ever received a concussion in an accident.

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

Well duh someone is trying to getting into your house at 3am.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't understand why most of the discussion here is focused on what the woman was doing that night and how strange her behavior is, how intoxicated she was, or what laws she broke. The way I see it, the only really relevant question here is this - did he or did he not open the door? Because if he did I don't see how his actions are really justifiably. And her opening the door seems like the far less likely scenario here - if the door was unlocked she'd already be in the house when she was shot. But the door was probably not unlocked to begin with.

The point of examining what the woman did is to attempt to establish what she would likely have been doing at the guy's house.

Also, to debunk the lies the family put out. Why do you think that the family felt compelled to put out a story that, at best, had significant issues with the truth.

 

[HomerJS]

The point of examining what the woman did is to attempt to establish what she would likely have been doing at the guy's house.

Also, to debunk the lies the family put out. Why do you think that the family felt compelled to put out a story that, at best, had significant issues with the truth.

I don't think the family lied they are putting the best spin on it. If she had been drinking doesn't preclude her going on foot looking for help.

I think their main point she would not have been trying to break in a house.

Did the homeowner open the door? If there is danger why open door?

 

[nehalem256]

I don't think the family lied they are putting the best spin on it. If she had been drinking doesn't preclude her going on foot looking for help.

So the family did say she was shot in the back of the head, when she was shot in the front? An undeniable falsehood.

The family did not say she had had "car problems"? Which seems like a pretty significant spin from crashing into a parked car while intoxicated.

The family did not say she was going door to door looking for help? When in actuality she had already had 2 attempts made to help her and she then wandered off for hours?

I think their main point she would not have been trying to break in a house.

I think their main point was to try and spin things and claim racism, so people would drop the ability to think rationally, before the truth came out.

Do you think anyone would be calling for homeowner to be charged with a crime if some intoxicated white frat boy had been trying to enter the dudes house and got accidentally shot?

Did the homeowner open the door?

Look at the rather small porch. It seems like it would be difficult to shoot her, at not-close range, from the doorway while she was still on the porch now wouldn't it?

If there is danger why open door?

The best defensive is a good offensive.

 

[nehalem256]

12:57 a.m. Detroit police receive an initial phone call that there was an auto accident with no injuries and the driver fled the scene. Because of those factors, the accident was determined to be a low priority call. According to the Detroit Free Press, a woman was speeding, hit a parked car, and then left on foot.

What happened to the she suffered a significant head wound?

 

[Exophase]

The point of examining what the woman did is to attempt to establish what she would likely have been doing at the guy's house.

I get that there are all these people saying "she was just looking for help" when that's almost certainly not the real story (given that she already was being helped and wandered away). But all of that's a distraction from the question of whether or not this guy made the right decision, which should really be what's most important here.

And as far as I'm concerned, if she hadn't successfully entered the house then I think the guy made a huge mistake, regardless of what the law says about his right to shoot people who are messing with his door. I think if this is what happened there's a good lesson for what not to do that I hope others pay attention to. I'm not personally that interested in punishing this guy, I think that unless he's a monster he'll have to live with guilt and regret that far outweighs any deliberate wrongdoings.

Of course there's a lesson for what not to do with the woman's story, but everyone already knows they shouldn't go out drinking and driving then wander away from the scene of an accident they caused.

Also, to debunk the lies the family put out. Why do you think that the family felt compelled to put out a story that, at best, had significant issues with the truth.

Does it really matter what the family's saying? They made assumptions based on too little information and colored by their own bias. But who really cares?

 

[spidey07]

Lol. They're doing it again.

What if, what if, what if

 

[HumblePie]

Well now, as more facts are coming out... things are looking a bit different. That is not to say the actual incident isn't still a crime yet, but..

1) Woman has a history of drinking and hitting parked cars.
2) Woman is underage.
3) Woman hits a parked car and flees the scene while being described by witnesses as intoxicated.
4) Woman refuses/runs from help being offered.
5) Woman shows up hours later somewhere else on someone's porch for some unknown reason and then ends up shot. This was at the witching hour time frame, not some place to be a stranger wandering around on someone elses property.
6) Homeowner has not been charged yet with any crime.

Those are the known factors in the case so far beyond the original lies reported to the media by the family over the incident. I'm not saying that the homeowner didn't commit a homicide related crime at this point yet, but I'm not thinking as much that he did either.

Really getting sick of the race bait narrative of the media lately over this crap.

 

[Jaskalas]

We don't have all the facts but that sounds like a reasonable theory.

Here's a scanario...

Homeowners wife goes away for 2 week business trip. Trip cut short she decides to come home early and surprise husband. Gets home at 3am because of last minute flight changes.

Has trouble getting in the front door. Homeowner hears someone trying to get in. Knows wife isn't due home for another week. Assumes he is being robbed. Gets gun and shoots, killing wife.

Does castle doctrine apply here??

Forget all that. Husband gets tired of wife, knows she went to the store. Waits for her to come back and...

Does castle doctrine apply here?

Its coming right for us!

 

[nehalem256]

We don't have all the facts but that sounds like a reasonable theory.

Here's a scanario...

Homeowners wife goes away for 2 week business trip. Trip cut short she decides to come home early and surprise husband. Gets home at 3am because of last minute flight changes.

Has trouble getting in the front door. Homeowner hears someone trying to get in. Knows wife isn't due home for another week. Assumes he is being robbed. Gets gun and shoots, killing wife.

Does castle doctrine apply here??

Sounds like what most people would call an accident. Do you think the husband would be charged with a crime in this case?

 

[Geosurface]

What happened to the she suffered a significant head wound?

In fairness, it seems likely that a person made the call before they noticed her head bleeding, or something like that.

Much like early media reports, early police reports before officers get on scene, etc, can be confused and inaccurate.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What happened to the she suffered a significant head wound?

In fairness, it seems likely that a person made the call before they noticed her head bleeding, or something like that.

Much like early media reports, early police reports before officers get on scene, etc, can be confused and inaccurate.

Notice that the ME report does not indicate any such head wound from their examination

 

[waggy]

Well now, as more facts are coming out... things are looking a bit different. That is not to say the actual incident isn't still a crime yet, but..

1) Woman has a history of drinking and hitting parked cars.
2) Woman is underage.
3) Woman hits a parked car and flees the scene while being described by witnesses as intoxicated.
4) Woman refuses/runs from help being offered.
5) Woman shows up hours later somewhere else on someone's porch for some unknown reason and then ends up shot. This was at the witching hour time frame, not some place to be a stranger wandering around on someone elses property.
6) Homeowner has not been charged yet with any crime.

Those are the known factors in the case so far beyond the original lies reported to the media by the family over the incident. I'm not saying that the homeowner didn't commit a homicide related crime at this point yet, but I'm not thinking as much that he did either.

Really getting sick of the race bait narrative of the media lately over this crap.

I'm betting she had major head truama. it does not always kick in right away (the effectS).

I bet she hit the car. seen she was in deep shit. ran off. Head continues to bleed (inside and out). she gets confused..finds car and thinks she is near home.

goes to try the house. bangs and tries to force her way in.




so far that's what evidence points to. but who really knows sad story though

 

[waggy]

Well now, as more facts are coming out... things are looking a bit different. That is not to say the actual incident isn't still a crime yet, but..

1) Woman has a history of drinking and hitting parked cars.
2) Woman is underage.
3) Woman hits a parked car and flees the scene while being described by witnesses as intoxicated.
4) Woman refuses/runs from help being offered.
5) Woman shows up hours later somewhere else on someone's porch for some unknown reason and then ends up shot. This was at the witching hour time frame, not some place to be a stranger wandering around on someone elses property.
6) Homeowner has not been charged yet with any crime.

Those are the known factors in the case so far beyond the original lies reported to the media by the family over the incident. I'm not saying that the homeowner didn't commit a homicide related crime at this point yet, but I'm not thinking as much that he did either.

Really getting sick of the race bait narrative of the media lately over this crap.

I'm betting she had major head truama. it does not always kick in right away (the effectS).

I bet she hit the car. seen she was in deep shit. ran off. Head continues to bleed (inside and out). she gets confused..finds car and thinks she is near home.

goes to try the house. bangs and tries to force her way in.




so far that's what evidence points to. but who really knows sad story though

being drunk + head trauma is not good.

 

[nehalem256]

Notice that the ME report does not indicate any such head wound from their examination

Well, to be fair there is probably a bigger head wound that took precedence

 

[LTC8K6]

What happened to the she suffered a significant head wound?

The shotgun may have erased the signs of it?

Also, closed head injuries can be very serious, and take a while to show effects, and have little visible sign of damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_death

 

[gothamhunter]

If the initial tox. screens are correct and she was intoxicated at the time of the incident, I feel no remorse for her. This could have been a different story where she ran over someone instead of hitting a parked car. RIP and condolences to her family for their loss but GG Darwin.

 

[werepossum]

The shotgun may have erased the signs of it?

Also, closed head injuries can be very serious, and take a while to show effects, and have little visible sign of damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_death

I knew a guy whose squad mate was concussed by an artillery or mortar shell. No visible wounds, but they had to tackle him and sit on him to keep him from running around during the bombardment. He lost most of a day IIRC before he regained his senses.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So much for the claim that the good ole boy network in Dearborn Heights (Wayne County) is protecting the home owner.

http://www.waynecounty.com/prosecutor/