Black Woman Killed For Seeking Help

[Aethian]

Titi, she could have been so badly damaged from the gun shot that she couldn't have been readily identified. It's happened before.

There are NO pay phones in that area. At night that area is also pretty dark. Driving through there it was a guess on which houses had people living there and which didn't. A few did have lights but they were few and far between. Most of the businesses looked pretty vacant to.

This info brought to you by a tired Bunny who took a two hour drive.

[Aethian]

Wow, I killed the thread...

[crashhelmet]

Wow, I killed the thread...

Not sure if it was you or the lack of new information about this case.

Although I did read somewhere that the shooter's lawyer is claiming that he called 911 BEFORE he shot her, but another report claims that he never called. It was a neighbor that called.

[Titi]

Wow, I killed the thread...

No you didn't. I just comment at night.

I can understand what you said in your comment to me but the reports that I have read she had her driver's license on her as well as her dead cell phone. I actually think that the guy meant to show he was armed but stupidly had his finger on the trigger (you NEVER put your finger on the trigger unless you intend on shooting someone.) and got scared when he opened the door. Then he went into complete panic mode because he has just killed someone and does NOT want to go to jail.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, it was just due to lack of new details.

However, the shooter has lawyer'd up and the lawyer says her client was "justified" in shooting Mcbride even if it was an accident.

So, let the shit storm begin.

I find it interesting we still don't know who the shooter is though.

[Panacea]

Yeah, it was just due to lack of new details.

However, the shooter has lawyer'd up and the lawyer says her client was "justified" in shooting Mcbride even if it was an accident.

So, let the shit storm begin.

I find it interesting we still don't know who the shooter is though.

He hasn't been charged with anything yet. The laws in Michigan may prohibit that, or the press might be using some discretion for a change. But that's the reason cited in the local news article I read on this case.

The autopsy report has been released. You can get it here I've downloaded and yet yet.

She was NOT shot in the back of the head. She was shot in the FACE, and not at close range. So a lot of your suppositions about how she died are incorrect.

While the coroner's report says it didn't happen at close range (because there is no gunpowder tattoo'd into the skin, which is what you'd see), it didn't happen at far range, either, because wadding was found in the brain. The blast entered the right side of her face and went to the back of the left side of her head. There was no exit wound (typical with shotgun blasts).

The shooter claims it was an accidental discharge. If he had good reason to fire his weapon, then it would still be a justifiable homicide even if it was accidental.

The real question is, why did he open his door? He did not need to do that. All he needed to do was call the cops. Right now, I'm not convinced either the Stand your Ground laws or the Castle Doctrine apply here.

The person whose car she hit has stated McBride seemed confused; it's a shame EMS wasn't called but McBride apparently refused it. The police had been looking for her, but didn't get to the area for 40 minutes after the initial call. She was shot 2 hours after the accident.

I'll be interested to see the toxicology reports. Those aren't available yet.

I still have no opinion on this case.

[Gravekeeper]

While the coroner's report says it didn't happen at close range (because there is no gunpowder tattoo'd into the skin, which is what you'd see), it didn't happen at far range, either, because wadding was found in the brain. The blast entered the right side of her face and went to the back of the left side of her head. There was no exit wound (typical with shotgun blasts).

Forensically speaking, for a shotgun a close range discharge that would leave gunpowder tattoo'ing on the skin would be less than three feet ( per the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology: Principles And Practice ). So we can assume the distance was around three feet or so.

So that's close range, just not close range from a forensic definition.

The person whose car she hit has stated McBride seemed confused; it's a shame EMS wasn't called but McBride apparently refused it. The police had been looking for her, but didn't get to the area for 40 minutes after the initial call. She was shot 2 hours after the accident.

They also stated she was bleeding from the face. So shock or a head injury could be the cause of the confusion. Though if she was visibly injured that makes the homeowners actions even more questionable.

[Aethian]

Forensically speaking, for a shotgun a close range discharge that would leave gunpowder tattoo'ing on the skin would be less than three feet ( per the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology: Principles And Practice ). So we can assume the distance was around three feet or so.

But there was no tattoo'ing so she would have been more the three feet away. I'm starting to wonder if she had started walking back towards the house, got fired upon, and the brain kept the body moving forward before she fell upon the porch.

[Panacea]

Forensically speaking, for a shotgun a close range discharge that would leave gunpowder tattoo'ing on the skin would be less than three feet ( per the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology: Principles And Practice ). So we can assume the distance was around three feet or so.

So that's close range, just not close range from a forensic definition.

Exactly. Wadding doesn't travel very far, so three feet or so is probably about right. That's why it was found in the brian.

They also stated she was bleeding from the face. So shock or a head injury could be the cause of the confusion. Though if she was visibly injured that makes the homeowners actions even more questionable.

Yes, and unfortunately the shotgun blast probably concealed that injury to really know for sure how serious that injury actually was.

However, the homeowner is under no duty to render medical assistance and it wouldn't necessarily deprive him of a justification defense under the Stand your ground law or the Castle Doctrine. Just because the person who attacks you is altered because of intoxication, a diabetic illness, mental illness, or a head injury doesn't mean you have to put your own safety at risk.

Sure it looks bad, but it's not illegal. It's not a private citizen's job to figure out if the person is sick or a criminal when he's under attack.

NB: I'm not saying the homeowner had any justification at all. I still have no opinion on that. I'm simply saying that that a citizen who is attacked by someone with a head injury can lawfully defend himself. Of course, we don't know that's what happened, and it's not what he claimed.

But there was no tattoo'ing so she would have been more the three feet away. I'm starting to wonder if she had started walking back towards the house, got fired upon, and the brain kept the body moving forward before she fell upon the porch.

The brain, or inertia. Yeah, with the wadding in the brain, she wouldn't have been more than a few feet away. But we don't know the direction she was moving, or why. We only have a partial statement from the homeowner; he's lawyered up.

He might skip a criminal charge, but I see a wrongful death suit coming.

[HYHYBT]

"Visibly injured" would depend on lighting. It makes sense that someone might not notice the stranger on their porch is bleeding during the wee hours of the morning.

[Aethian]

Papers here are being mostly quiet since 1. They have multiple deaths right before hers and right after hers. And 2. This is Detroit, one of the most dangerous cities to live in the us and the press doesn't care anymore unless your someone that could be known outside of the city.

[Gravekeeper]

"Visibly injured" would depend on lighting. It makes sense that someone might not notice the stranger on their porch is bleeding during the wee hours of the morning.

Seeing as he inexplicably opened the door, you would think he would turn the porch light on as well. Otherwise he's even more of a moron than the current story suggests. >.>

Just because the person who attacks you is altered because of intoxication, a diabetic illness, mental illness, or a head injury doesn't mean you have to put your own safety at risk.

True, though there's no indication that is the case here. At best she may have been acting confused. But given she was around 3 feet away when shot its doubtful they were in any sort of physical altercation.

The essential problem with the homeowner's story is his lawyer saying the shooting was justified because he believed he heard someone trying to break into his home. But he would have had an opportunity to verify whether or not that was really the case. Seeing as he inexplicably opened the door and confronted her.

[mikoyan29]

Papers here are being mostly quiet since 1. They have multiple deaths right before hers and right after hers. And 2. This is Detroit, one of the most dangerous cities to live in the us and the press doesn't care anymore unless your someone that could be known outside of the city.

Actually it was Dearborn Heights...but same difference. Honestly, I don't know what to say about this because the devil is in the details. If the guy suspected something, why open the door? Why not just let the cops deal with it.

[Panacea]

Seeing as he inexplicably opened the door, you would think he would turn the porch light on as well. Otherwise he's even more of a moron than the current story suggests. >.>

Not necessarily. The porch light would blind you to what's out on the street or in the yard. I'd use a flashlight.

True, though there's no indication that is the case here. At best she may have been acting confused.

Gravekeeper, that's what altered means.

But given she was around 3 feet away when shot its doubtful they were in any sort of physical altercation.

And the homeowner is not claiming that.

The essential problem with the homeowner's story is his lawyer saying the shooting was justified because he believed he heard someone trying to break into his home.

Here's where it gets confusing, because Michigan has a Stand Your Ground law that doesn't require the homeowner to retreat. Under the Castle Doctrine, the person has to actually be IN your home before you can use lethal force.

But he would have had an opportunity to verify whether or not that was really the case. Seeing as he inexplicably opened the door and confronted her.

He might have just opened the door to see if he could see anything. He had the gun in case someone tried to get the jump on him. She was there. He's said the gun went off accidentally.

I've opened the door once when I thought someone was breaking into my house. My room mates and I set the dog on the would be burglar. He outran her (Bree wasn't a big dog, though she had the heart of one).

We're still engaging in speculation. We don't know the homeowners full story. Certainly the cops are not convinced; that's why they wanted a warrant. The DA is not convinced; that's why he refused to go to a judge for one. I'm wondering what they know that we don't.

I'm still not convinced a crime actually took place.

[Gravekeeper]

Not necessarily. The porch light would blind you to what's out on the street or in the yard. I'd use a flashlight.

My porch light illuminates the yard just fine and it certainly illuminates someone in front of my door so that I can see them through the peephole or the window. -.-

Gravekeeper, that's what altered means.

....yes, and what? I was not disagreeing with that. I was answering the part about attacking.

And the homeowner is not claiming that.

I did not say he was, you're the one that brought up the subject. Why are you turning this on me? -.-

Certainly the cops are not convinced; that's why they wanted a warrant. The DA is not convinced; that's why he refused to go to a judge for one. I'm wondering what they know that we don't.

The cop's are convinced, the DA wanted more information of some sort.

I'm still not convinced a crime actually took place.

Someone is dead due to someone else's negligence. That's a crime alright. Ironically, given Stand Your Ground, if he had intentionally shot her it might be easier to avoid jail than him admitting it was accidental.