19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[Londo_Jowo]

You're saying that (b) by itself justifies deadly forth. But why are you ignoring (a)? The text you've quoted CLEARLY states that deadly force is justified "if BOTH of the following apply." And "both of the following" includes (a).

If (b) alone justifies deadly force, then why does the law say "BOTH?"

I think you need to reread what (b) states, specially the last sentence where it states "engaging in conduct described in subsection (a)".

 

[Geosurface]

The more I contemplate this case, I think he was in the wrong and 4-5 years in prison is probably appropriate.

You cannot blast someone who shows up at your door no matter how loud or drunk they are.

I think it likely was an accident, even if that means a reflex pull of the trigger as she made a sudden move or noise.

I have little sympathy for the serial drunk driver whose decision to flee the scene rather than face the consequences has now ruined this man's life. I wish she'd died in the car crash.

But you cannot blow people's heads off for banging on your front door at any hour.

 

[spidey07]

The more I contemplate this case, I think he was in the wrong and 4-5 years in prison is probably appropriate.

You cannot blast someone who shows up at your door no matter how loud or drunk they are.

I think it likely was an accident, even if that means a reflex pull of the trigger as she made a sudden move or noise.

I have little sympathy for the serial drunk driver whose decision to flee the scene rather than face the consequences has now ruined this man's life. I wish she'd died in the car crash.

But you cannot blow people's heads off for banging on your front door at any hour.

Banging implies trying to enter with force. There are plenty of cases out there that prove this.

You need to understand castle doctrine and not employ emotion.

You are falling for the families lies of "she was just knocking, looking for help"

The family wasn't there. Don't fall for the lies again. Castle doctrine was meant to prevent what is happening.

 

[Geosurface]

To me, banging implies impatience and/or desperation not an attempt to enter unless it's banging via battering ram.

Shooting was inappropriate under the currently known facts. But if it was accidental or done in fear, I'd like to see a lenient sentence. If I was in charge I'd give him like 2 years minimum security prison and a year probation afterward.

 

[Jaskalas]

Banging implies trying to enter with force. There are plenty of cases out there that prove this.

You need to understand castle doctrine and not employ emotion.

You are falling for the families lies of "she was just knocking, looking for help"

The family wasn't there. Don't fall for the lies again. Castle doctrine was meant to prevent what is happening.

I'd feel comfortable if there was proof of "trying to enter with force".

When the burden on the prosecutor is to prove a negative, to prove something did not happen, it's improbable that such a burden could ever be met. Improbable that anyone could "legally" be convicted for killing anyone adjacent to their house.

Your argument is that it is legally open season on anyone at the door.

Don't !@#$ tell us she's a drunk and she deserved it. The law is to apply precedent, to apply to us all. You want to get blown away for knocking on someone's door? You're arguing that they can do so.

You are falling for the families lies of "she was just knocking, looking for help"

There is no evidence otherwise. You call lie to what you do not know.


Excuse me for wanting some valid, rationale basis before permitting the murder of someone. A drunk, injured, lonely 19 year old woman who had no weapon and no entry into the house. She is a threat? She may be killed for waking you?

Here's an idea. The homeowner was honest. She wasn't a threat, but he was armed and she startled him. He pulled the trigger on accident, when he did not need to do so. Because there was no breaking and entering.

Stop defending the slaughter of an unarmed person. It is disgusting to witness.

 

[tgferg67]

Banging implies trying to enter with force. There are plenty of cases out there that prove this.

You need to understand castle doctrine and not employ emotion.

You are falling for the families lies of "she was just knocking, looking for help"

The family wasn't there. Don't fall for the lies again. Castle doctrine was meant to prevent what is happening.

Why do you think she trying to enter, was she trying to steal? She had a good job for her age working at the Ford Rouge plant as an inspector.

 

[spidey07]

Why do you think she trying to enter, was she trying to steal? She had a good job for her age working at the Ford Rouge plant as an inspector.

Statements by victims attorney.

You guys keep taking statements by the attackers family as gospel. I do not.

 

[shira]

I think you need to reread what (b) states, specially the last sentence where it states "engaging in conduct described in subsection (a)".

That makes no sense. If only (b) is required, than the (b) would contain all of the relevant information. (A) clearly states that the person who was killed must have been in the process of a home invasion or breaking and entering. There's no ambiguity. Both A and B must be true. Not just B.

 

[WackyDan]

I don't know he said he accidentally discharged his weapon killing her. If he had just said I feared for my life and dragged her inside then righteous shoot. I'm sure this guy fears for his life all the time in fact.

Here in NC you can shoot them through your door or window if they are attempting to gain entry. As one officer told me... Drag them in? No, not according to NC law and killing them once they get in just makes a big mess.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Statements by victims attorney.

You guys keep taking statements by the attackers family as gospel. I do not.

Historically speaking, with the similar racially fueled incidents we've had the past few years, you cannot believe a word that comes from the family or their lawyers.

"My baby didn't do nuthin"

 

[HomerJS]

Here what I find amazing that anyone would take either sides story as gospel.

The other amazing thing is spidey has a wife. How any woman can stomach such a horrible human being absent being chained up in the basement is beyond me.

 

[waggy]

Here what I find amazing that anyone would take either sides story as gospel.

agreed! it looks like a crazy accident. I don't think she was trying to break in. I don't think he set out to murder her either.

I think it was he was scared had his finger on the trigger and boom.

but i can wait until the trail. i suspect this will be on TV often enough

The other amazing thing is spidey has a wife. How any woman can stomach such a horrible human being absent being chained up in the basement is beyond me.

bwhaha. I will say this. Spidey may come off as a racist gun nut. but other times in threads he seems sane and a nice guy.

Since i'm white and not a gun grabber i think i could go have a lunch with him. Also know if someone tries to rob us he will shoot them so i am ok.

lol

though i admit though i would have lunch with almost anyone here and if they pay i would have lunch with everyone! even moonbeam!

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Spidey is absolutely no worse than the race brigaiders on here who defending someone with absolutely no hard details or facts - or worse, will defend them in the face of all facts.


Voices need to be heard on both sides.

 

[nehalem256]

Here what I find amazing that anyone would take either sides story as gospel.

The other amazing thing is spidey has a wife. How any woman can stomach such a horrible human being absent being chained up in the basement is beyond me.

Probably afraid that if she tries to leave him he knows how to arrange things so it is legally a "good shot"

 

[waggy]

Spidey is absolutely no worse than the race brigaiders on here who defending someone with absolutely no hard details or facts - or worse, will defend them in the face of all facts.


Voices need to be heard on both sides.

this too. there are some on the flip side as bad.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Statements by victims attorney.

You guys keep taking statements by the attackers family as gospel. I do not.

The victim's attorney has a job to do; spin the facts/rumors in the clients favor.

They do not have to provide the evidence to back up the story until court.

Without facts/evidence to back up the story; that is all they are; just stories.

At present; both sides are play the public opinion game.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Here what I find amazing that anyone would take either sides story as gospel.

The other amazing thing is spidey has a wife. How any woman can stomach such a horrible human being absent being chained up in the basement is beyond me.

We have plenty of facts already, certainly enough to make some preliminary judgements in a social settings.


It involves a very troubled young woman going through CURRENT problems, who was over 3 times the legal limit DUI, was also on drugs, who has a history of alcohol and drug-fueled problems, who spent a couple of hours wondering around wasted trying to enter people's homes after totaling her car.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The victim's attorney has a job to do; spin the facts/rumors in the clients favor.

They do not have to provide the evidence to back up the story until court.

Without facts/evidence to back up the story; that is all they are; just stories.

At present; both sides are play the public opinion game.

My problem is when the "spin" revolves constant shrieking about everything being racially motivated.


As a society, we will never move past these issues as long as ANY situation involving a burnt umber or darker and a dirty ivory or lighter is automatically due to racial hate...... When in reality this seems to very very rarely be the case.


It's 'the boy who cries wolf' to a T. It's gotten to where the young person who truly is persecuted due to race will certainly never be heard, due to the likes of the martin family, the jordan family, and now this case.


I also don't understand why the black community props up these losers to support. You'd think they would pick an 'upstanding victim', not bottom feeder thugsters and substance abusers.

 

[bshole]

We have plenty of facts already, certainly enough to make some preliminary judgements in a social settings.


It involves a very troubled young woman going through CURRENT problems, who was over 3 times the legal limit DUI, was also on drugs, who has a history of alcohol and drug-fueled problems, who spent a couple of hours wondering around wasted trying to enter people's homes after totaling her car.

And she was shot by a bad tempered drunk who was a total asshole (see link). None of which matters.

In addition I haven't heard one single shred of evidence that indicates she was trying to enter people's homes. Why are you lying? Argue the FACTS, not the facts as you want them. It makes you look very small, racist and bigoted to make up facts not in evidence or even hinted at in the known record.

Speaking to MailOnline, Wafer’s ex-girlfriend – who didn’t want to be identified – claimed he had a bad temper and was a heavy drinker.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-theodore...t-man-who-shot-killed-renisha-mcbride-1473142

 

[SheHateMe]

Here what I find amazing that anyone would take either sides story as gospel.

The other amazing thing is spidey has a wife. How any woman can stomach such a horrible human being absent being chained up in the basement is beyond me.

It might just be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And she was shot by a bad tempered drunk who was a total asshole (see link). None of which matters.

<snip>

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-theodore...t-man-who-shot-killed-renisha-mcbride-1473142

LOL... That describes pretty much every > 50 year old man in this country, as described by their ex-girlfriends.

Reading her exact quote, he doesn't sound like a bad guy to me:

"Wafer&#8217;s ex-girlfriend &#8211; who didn&#8217;t want to be identified &#8211; claimed he had a bad temper and was a heavy drinker. But she did defend him against allegations that the shooting was racially motivated. &#8220;He wasn&#8217;t an angel, but I would never have considered him to be a racist. He didn&#8217;t ever do anything in front of me that suggested he had those kinds of views,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I haven&#8217;t seen him since [their breakup]. Despite all of that and how much of a jerk he was to me, I was still stunned when I heard he had been caught up in the shooting.&#8221;"

 

[nehalem256]

And she was shot by a bad tempered drunk who was a total asshole (see link). None of which matters.

In addition I haven't heard one single shred of evidence that indicates she was trying to enter people's homes. Why are you lying? Argue the FACTS, not the facts as you want them. It makes you look very small, racist and bigoted to make up facts not in evidence or even hinted at in the known record.

Wafer’s ex-girlfriend – who didn’t want to be identified – claimed he had a bad temper and was a heavy

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-theodore...t-man-who-shot-killed-renisha-mcbride-1473142

Because an ex-gf is obviously the most unbiased source of information about someone

 

[bshole]

Because an ex-gf is obviously the most unbiased source of information about someone

At least its a frigging source. You guys are making up stuff out of whole cloth and acting like it part of the written record.

You constantly repeat that she was walking around trying to break into houses. You base your arguments on that. You then ignore requests for any kind of source backing up your ridiculous fabricated "facts".

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I believe the case will come down to the status of the doors prior to the shooting. If the homeowner opened the storm door he's pretty much sunk unless he can prove she did something that made him fear she was going to harm him. The prosecution has the burden of proving the charges against him as the per the castle doctrine.

http://www.schwartzlawfirmpc.com/Articles/The-New-Self-Defense-Act-Defensible-or-Dangerous.shtml

Rebuttable Presumption of Self- Defense
People acting in self-defense now have substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the new laws. When using defensive force against someone, a person is now automatically presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, as long as both 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).13
​

This legal presumption must be overcome by the prosecutor, who is required to present evidence at each stage of the criminal proceedings, to rebut the presumption that the individual did not act within the constraints of the Self-Defense Act. Only if the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption that defensive force was justified under the Act, will the individual using such force be subject to prosecution.
There are, however, exceptions to the presumption cited above. These include the following:

• The person against whom force is used has a legal right to be present in the dwelling or vehicle (such as an owner, lessee or titleholder);
• the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in lawful custody of the person against whom the defensive force was used;
• the person against whom defensive force is used is a police officer engaged in performing official duties; or
• the person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity or using the dwelling or vehicle to further an unlawful activity.14

If none of these exceptions apply, then the person is essentially immune from criminal prosecution.
Similarly, an individual using force in self-defense or defense of another in compliance with the Self-Defense Act would not be civilly liable for damages caused to the person against whom the force was authorized or to anyone claiming damages arising out of the incident.15 Additionally, the court is required to award payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual sued for civil damages if that person is immune from civil liability under the Act.16 The rationale behind such a provision is that people who act in self-defense should not have to spend the time or money to go to court to justify their actions in protecting themselves or others.17

I think her state of intoxication will come into the trial but only to show that she was intoxicated to the point she couldn't realize that her actions could be mistaken for someone trying to break into another persons house.

As for the bad tempered/heavy drinker claim by an ex-girlfriend it will never make it into the trial.

During the police's interaction with him that night (at the scene/in the station) none of them detected any signs that he had been drinking or was intoxicated.

 

[nehalem256]

At least its a frigging source. You guys are making up stuff out of whole cloth and acting like it part of the written record.

Ex-gf is below foxnews when it comes to sources of "Fair and Balanced" information.

You constantly repeat that she was walking around trying to break into houses. You base your arguments on that. You then ignore requests for any kind of source backing up your ridiculous fabricated "facts".

No actually I don't recall claiming as a fact she was trying to break into houses