Black Woman Killed For Seeking Help

[Gravekeeper]

The police scanner audio has been released.

According to the police scanner, the homeowner called 911 and reported he thought he shot someone on his porch ( Yes, thought, he wasn't sure. ). Then he hung up for some reason. 911 had to call him back and verify. So it would seem he did not call 911 prior to shooting her. The police scanner also indicates the police discovered her on the porch. Which really begs the question where did the thing about her body being dumped come from?

Interesting, the police scanner narrows down the location of the shooting to Outer Drive and Dolphin. Combined with new details on the accident report and we know the shooting took place right around here. Possibly at the house on the corner of Outer Drive and Dolphin there on the left.

We also now know the location of the accident. Its quite a ways away.

She was definitely wandering in a confused state:

Just before 1 a.m. Nov. 2, police received a call about a no-injury accident at Bramell and Majestic on the city’s west side. Detroit police spokesman Sgt. Michael Woody said the 911 caller said a woman had been speeding down the street, struck a parked car, got out of the vehicle and then left.

Police initially considered the incident a low priority, so no officers were immediately dispatched, he said. Officers responded to the scene about 40 minutes later after they got a second call saying the woman had returned, but she was gone when police and EMS arrived.

The neighbours that spotted her the second time reported her as bleeding and confused. Before she wandered off again. They tried to find her but were unsuccessful. This also means that the time between her leaving the scene and being shot is actually around hour and 20 minutes. Because she returned to the scene of the crash once.

So I'd venture to say she was in really rough shape by the time she ended up on that porch. She was injured and likely erratic. But I highly doubt she was violent in any way.

I think its coming down to bad judgement and negligence on the homeowner's part.

[HYHYBT]

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

Not all porch lights are created equal. For that matter, some don't even work, in which case it would be silly to fault someone for not using it.

[Gravekeeper]

Not all porch lights are created equal. For that matter, some don't even work, in which case it would be silly to fault someone for not using it.

Can I fault someone for having a porch light that doesn't work yet STILL opening the door with a shotgun despite that and shooting someone? >.>

[Jester]

The media completely vilified Trayvon. The victim blaming in that case was ridiculous.

"Completely" vilified? Either your media is different than mine, you only watched certain media, or you have a completely different definition of the word "completely" than most of the people I know.

SOME of the media vilified Trayvon Martin, certainly. Some media also vilified George Zimmerman. The media as a whole, however, did not completely vilify either one. Sometimes even on the same network you'd get competing opinions or presentations of either one of them.

Myself, during the whole thing, I saw both Martin and Zimmerman vilified AND portrayed as the innocent in the situation.

According to police, she was shot point blank in the mouth. Contrary to what the family said about being shot in the back of the head. So there seems to be a second miscommunication.

As time goes on, more facts and details come to light, some of it contradicting earlier reports. Which is why several people here said they wanted to wait to see what facts came out. You said we already had the facts, and one of the "facts" you stated that we had was that she was shot in the back of the head, which now is apparent was not the case. So we did not actually have the facts. We still don't have all of them. There is still much we don't know, and there will likely be things that we never know.

Why didn't she goto a nearby business or a phone booth? Surprisingly, they do still exist.

They exist, sure. But are they plentiful? No. Are they everywhere? No. Were there any in that area? I don't know. Based upon descriptions of the area that have been posted here, many using variations of the word "decrepit," there's a good likelihood that even if there were any pay phones or phone booths in the area, they weren't necessarily operational.

Also, let's say for the sake of argument that, unlike most places in America, this area did have operational pay phones. Did the woman know this? Would she have seen them in the dark? If she was confused or disoriented from the accident, would she have thought to use them? If she was scared from her confusion, would she have sought a pay phone or a living person to help her? And if she wasn't confused, but was injured and knew the police might take a long time to respond, based upon her knowledge of the area or a general feeling that the local cops were unresponsive or untrustworthy in general, might she not seek the help of a living person rather than waiting on the cops?

More questions to ponder.

So I'd venture to say she was in really rough shape by the time she ended up on that porch. She was injured and likely erratic. But I highly doubt she was violent in any way.

You highly doubt she was violent. But you don't know that she wasn't. More importantly, the homeowner didn't know, either.

Look, none of us were there. But let's put ourselves in the homeowner's shoes. It's late at night. There is someone he doesn't know at the door, perhaps banging violently on it. (If you are panicked or disoriented or injured, are you more likely to knock politely or bang on a door in desperation?) He does not live in the best part of town. Perhaps he's been woken up by the person at the door and is himself a bit disoriented or worried or panicked by it.

I am not defending the guy. I am merely saying we don't know what happened, nor what his perception of the situation was. He may have viewed her as a threat because of the time and area, or he may have viewed her as a threat because she was black, and to him black=threatening.

Personally, I think the homeowner was wrong, based upon what we know (which still isn't everything), but it's unclear to me whether he was simply negligent or willfully violent, or somewhere in between.

[Gravekeeper]

"Completely" vilified? Either your media is different than mine, you only watched certain media, or you have a completely different definition of the word "completely" than most of the people I know.

His social media accounts were hacked, fake photos of him being "gangsta" were circulated by morons from Fox News, conservative websites had a field day with it, a fake Facebook page was created to smear him, the Sanford police released irrelevant details about him that had no baring on the case but served only to cast him in a negative light, Geraldo said he was a wanna be gangster dressed to hold up convenience stores, Bill O'Reilly concurred, Dan Riehl and a few other prominent sites suggested he was a drug dealer, several sites falsely reported he had assaulted a bus driver, that he was "disrespectful" to Zimmerman and thus deserved to be shot, Zimmerman's lawyer released Trayon's school records, social media messages, cell records, etc in an attempt to muddy the jury pool waters prior to the trial. Even though those should be legally protected because he's a minor. He even stated he had cell phone video of Travyon filming two of his friends beating up a homeless man. Which was of course completely untrue and he later gave an "Oopsy, my bad" apology.

He was called out for his bullshit by the prosecution. The judge ending up barred all of it from being admissible during the trial. But as it had all been released publically before the trial it was kind of too little too late.

I can go on if you wish. There was a concentrated effort for about 48 hours to smear Trayvon. Then another round of it before and during the trial.

I think that counts as completely vilified. Did every media outlet do it? No, of course not, but I didn't say. The majority of the media, however, did.

You said we already had the facts, and one of the "facts" you stated that we had was that she was shot in the back of the head, which now is apparent was not the case. So we did not actually have the facts. We still don't have all of them. There is still much we don't know, and there will likely be things that we never know.

That was what the family stated they were told by police. Additionally, I was the one that corrected myself on that. Finally, front or back ultimately didn't matter much with the claim of an accidental discharge.

You highly doubt she was violent. But you don't know that she wasn't. More importantly, the homeowner didn't know, either.

But again, if she WAS violent somehow. Why did he open the door and fail to call 911?

I am not defending the guy. I am merely saying we don't know what happened, nor what his perception of the situation was. He may have viewed her as a threat because of the time and area, or he may have viewed her as a threat because she was black, and to him black=threatening.

Unless he was lying to the cops, we know what his basic perception of the situation was. A perception his lawyer reinforced rather tastelessly. No one has touched on the race aspect yet, as that's a whole different can of worms.

The problem his perception of the situation ( He thought he heard someone breaking in ) and his actions are out of whack. Showing some rather bad judgement. I mean, he opened the door. Then called 911 and told them he thought he shot someone. Then hung up on 911. The 911 operator had to call him back to get verification of what was going on.

Personally, I think the homeowner was wrong, based upon what we know (which still isn't everything), but it's unclear to me whether he was simply negligent or willfully violent, or somewhere in between.

I'm leaning more towards him being an idiot with poor judgement, with a fear in the back of my head that race might be a factor.

[HYHYBT]

Can I fault someone for having a porch light that doesn't work yet STILL opening the door with a shotgun despite that and shooting someone? >.>

That depends. If someone is acting in a manner you believe to be endangering your life, is it reasonable to expect you to stop and fix the light fixture before defending yourself?

Way too many levels of guesswork here. But I can imagine this happening somewhere like my back door. There is no porch light, working or otherwise. There are lights on the corner of the house, but they're burned out because I never use that door and only go to the back yard in the daytime, and because the bulbs are 20 feet off the ground. Were they working, the lit area would be behind anyone at the door and would not light their face well. The door lacks a peephole, and it would be difficult or impossible to see the area from the nearest window. If I were the sort to have and use a shotgun, and if there were noises like someone or something was there, I'd pretty well have to open the door to see what was going on. (Going out the front and around is also an option, but one that would put me in a less safe position.) And at some point you have to act on the information you have.

[Panacea]

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. -.-

That's your porch. Not everyone's works so great. But let's assume his worked as well as yours. It still isn't the best choice to use in an emergency because the sudden flooding of light in your eyes means it takes a few seconds for your eyes to adjust and sort out what you are seeing. A flashlight is more focused and less likely to blind you at a crucial moment.

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

This is what I originally said:

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.

It's not that you were disagreeing. It's that you repeated something I'd already said without understanding what I really meant. If she was acting confused, as you said, then the person is in an altered mental state. If that was the case, the homeowner may have had justification to shoot this person if her actions made him feel in danger. You stated, "But given she was around 3 feet away when shot its doubtful they were in any sort of physical altercation." What you didn't understand is that is not true at all. I've seen people who are mentally altered for all sorts of reasons be quite confrontational. Things can happen very quickly and three feet really is not all that far away.

While I don't know what happened, the idea that she made some sort of threatening move is not implausible just because she was three feet away and confused.

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

Because you've made a lot of statements in this thread that have turned out to be flat out wrong . . . like that McBride was shot in the back of the head. She wasn't. You're still trying to find reasons to conclude he's at fault. But the truth is we still don't have enough information to make that kind of conclusion.

Maybe the police are being overly cautious in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case. Cops in that case blew the shooting off, and the blowback was pretty severe. That could be why they want to make an arrest . . . for appearances.

Or maybe they really are suspicious of something, but don't have any evidence. You know, cops can get search warrants on their own . . . when they ask the DA to do it, it is for a reason.

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

Yes, and that's a GOOD thing. The DA has to prove whatever the cops allege. Cops are sometimes wrong.

.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.

Maybe she is dead due to negligence. Maybe she's not. It's all speculation right now. Not enough information has been released to make any kind of conclusion.

That he claims it was accidental gives credibility to what he's stated so far; he could have lied and that would have ended the matter a lot more quickly than the Martin case: he was on his own porch, it was the middle of the night, and he didn't instigate the situation by chasing after a stranger in the middle of a rainy night like Zimmerman did.

According to the police scanner, the homeowner called 911 and reported he thought he shot someone on his porch ( Yes, thought, he wasn't sure. ). Then he hung up for some reason. 911 had to call him back and verify. So it would seem he did not call 911 prior to shooting her. The police scanner also indicates the police discovered her on the porch. Which really begs the question where did the thing about her body being dumped come from?

That's an excellent question, and it's why I'm disinclined to form any kind of opinion on this case. Too many inconsistent reports and statements.

.She was definitely wandering in a confused state:

So I'd venture to say she was in really rough shape by the time she ended up on that porch. She was injured and likely erratic. But I highly doubt she was violent in any way.

I think its coming down to bad judgement and negligence on the homeowner's part.

Again, you're making an assumption. Confused people can be violent. When people are in an altered state of mind, they can become impulsive and erratic. Their normal behavior patterns can change.

I don't know that she was violent. But it's not impossible that she was. There's still not enough definitive information to make any kind of conclusion.

I want to hear a full statement from the homeowner on what happened, and see if it is consistent with the physical evidence. That's probably not going to be forthcoming for awhile.

[Gravekeeper]

That's your porch. Not everyone's works so great. But let's assume his worked as well as yours. It still isn't the best choice to use in an emergency because the sudden flooding of light in your eyes means it takes a few seconds for your eyes to adjust and sort out what you are seeing. A flashlight is more focused and less likely to blind you at a crucial moment.

But that's just bringing us right back around to why did he open the door? For that scenario to play out he would have had to run to the door, flip the porch light on then immediately fling to door open.

It's not that you were disagreeing. It's that you repeated something I'd already said without understanding what I really meant.

All I did was *agree* with you but point out we have no indication that that was the case here. As the homeowner did not say he was assaulted and the victim was shot 3 feet away with an accidental discharge.

You stated, "But given she was around 3 feet away when shot its doubtful they were in any sort of physical altercation." What you didn't understand is that is not true at all. I've seen people who are mentally altered for all sorts of reasons be quite confrontational. Things can happen very quickly and three feet really is not all that far away.

There is a difference between confrontational and a physical altercation. All I am saying is there is no indication that an assault or struggle of any sort took place. You're mincing words.

While I don't know what happened, the idea that she made some sort of threatening move is not implausible just because she was three feet away and confused.

But I didn't say that. I said physical altercation. As in she laid hands on him. Additionally, the homeowner claims accidental discharge. If she had truly made a threatening move towards him or laid her hands on him I think he would mention that immediately. Given how relevant that would be to his claim of self defense.

Because you've made a lot of statements in this thread that have turned out to be flat out wrong . . . like that McBride was shot in the back of the head. She wasn't.

I have a made a lot of flat out wrong statements, yet you only have one example of it? And that's the one I corrected myself? Meanwhile, everything else I said about the case to begin with stood despite disagreement.

You're still trying to find reasons to conclude he's at fault. But the truth is we still don't have enough information to make that kind of conclusion.

I don't have to find reasons, there are reasons. He shot an unarmed woman dead on his porch and by his own admission it was negligent handling of a firearm.

Maybe the police are being overly cautious in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case. Cops in that case blew the shooting off, and the blowback was pretty severe. That could be why they want to make an arrest . . . for appearances.

As you mentioned earlier, his name hasn't been released because he hasn't been charged. I'm not sure if that's the law in Michigan, but I've seen a few recent articles that mentioned that that's why they didn't have his name.

On the flip side though, the police have basically told everyone where he lives. Which may not have been that wise depending on how this plays out.

Or maybe they really are suspicious of something, but don't have any evidence. You know, cops can get search warrants on their own . . . when they ask the DA to do it, it is for a reason.

I thought they were seeking an arrest warrant? Do they need a search warrant if there's a corpse on your porch? That kind of seems like just cause there.

Maybe she is dead due to negligence. Maybe she's not. It's all speculation right now. Not enough information has been released to make any kind of conclusion.

All signs point to negligence thus far, unless this turns out to be an elaborate bullshit story by the homeowner. But if it is, it doesn't make much sense for him to admit to an accidental discharge instead of claiming she made a threatening move and he feared for his life.

That's an excellent question, and it's why I'm disinclined to form any kind of opinion on this case. Too many inconsistent reports and statements.

The only real inconsistencies were the wound location and the location of the body. Which, as I originally surmised, seems to be a case of miscommunication somewhere. As the police scanner proves the police were immediately aware of the correct location of the body.

Again, you're making an assumption. Confused people can be violent. When people are in an altered state of mind, they can become impulsive and erratic. Their normal behavior patterns can change.

I was speculating, hence starting the sentence "I'd venture". There's a difference. I'm doing the exact same thing you are. But you're saying I'm some how wrong for it?

I don't know that she was violent. But it's not impossible that she was. There's still not enough definitive information to make any kind of conclusion.

I want to hear a full statement from the homeowner on what happened, and see if it is consistent with the physical evidence. That's probably not going to be forthcoming for awhile.

Again, if she was violent the homeowner would leap on that right away as his defense. ( Unless he's an idiot anyhow ). By all accounts she was showing signs of a severe concussion. ( Confusion and repeating statements are classic telltale signs ). If she was wandering in a concussed state for 2 hours, she would be a total wreck by the time she landed on his porch. Slow, badly coordinated, barely aware of where she was, etc. Concussions don't cause violence and aggression.

I've rendered first aid to someone with a concussion before. They barely know wtf they are, never mind anything else. Its difficult to engage their attention as they have no focus. And yeah, you do kind of have to sit them down and keep them from wandering off.

So, as I said before, its likely she was confused and erratic. She would likely come across as drunk. But she would not be violent and sudden movements wouldn't exactly be her forte either. If she somehow was violent or made a threatening move towards him, that would be the first thing out of his lawyers mouth.

Instead, his lawyer's argument is that yes the shooting was accidental, but he was completely justified in shooting her anyway so it doesn't matter if its accidental. If there was any sort of violent or threatening aspect to the victim's actions, the lawyer sure as hell would have added them on to her statements. Given what her argument is.

[bara]

UPDATE

Prosecution is going for Murder 2 and Manslaughter.

[Panacea]

But that's just bringing us right back around to why did he open the door? For that scenario to play out he would have had to run to the door, flip the porch light on then immediately fling to door open.

You're changing the subject; we were talking about bright lights on a porch. Why he would do is isn't relevant to the issue of light affecting your ability to see.

All I did was *agree* with you but point out we have no indication that that was the case here. As the homeowner did not say he was assaulted and the victim was shot 3 feet away with an accidental discharge.

You agreed without understanding what I said. We have incomplete statement from the homeowner. We really don't know what he's told police, and certainly not what he's told his lawyer. We'll have to wait for his trial date (he's been charged as of the time I write this)

There is a difference between confrontational and a physical altercation. All I am saying is there is no indication that an assault or struggle of any sort took place. You're mincing words.

No, I'm not. You don't have to have a physical altercation to make use of the Stand Your Ground law. You just have to feel an imminent threat. I'm not saying there was one in this case, but I AM saying that if a person (any person) is altered due to injury, intoxication, or whatever other reason, if that person makes you feel threatened, in Michigan you can legally kill that person. I'm neither agreeing with the law or disagreeing with it; I'm just telling you what it says.

But I didn't say that. I said physical altercation. As in she laid hands on him. Additionally, the homeowner claims accidental discharge. If she had truly made a threatening move towards him or laid her hands on him I think he would mention that immediately. Given how relevant that would be to his claim of self defense.

Now who's mincing words? This still goes back to what I was talking about in regards to a homeowner having the right to defend a person who makes them feel threatened, even if they are altered.

I have a made a lot of flat out wrong statements, yet you only have one example of it? And that's the one I corrected myself? Meanwhile, everything else I said about the case to begin with stood despite disagreement.

Because you were pretty emphatic about this particular wrong point, even when others pointed out to you that the reports kept shifting and were inconsistent. And I don't recall specifically where you corrected yourself. Regardless, I don't need to cite more than one. But feel free to out yourself if you need to. It doesn't change the original point I made, or invalidate it, either way you go.

I don't have to find reasons, there are reasons. He shot an unarmed woman dead on his porch and by his own admission it was negligent handling of a firearm.

Well, here you've said something flat out wrong again. He didn't admit to negligent handling of a firearm. He said it accidentally discharged. There is a BIG difference between the two.

As you mentioned earlier, his name hasn't been released because he hasn't been charged. I'm not sure if that's the law in Michigan, but I've seen a few recent articles that mentioned that that's why they didn't have his name.

Police have decided to charge him. He's been given a deadline to turn himself in. They charged him with manslaughter and possession of a gun in commission of a felony. They've posted his name.

Toxicology is back on McBride. Her BAC was three times the legal limit, which is consistent with the behavior cited by witnesses who saw her between the time of the accident and the shooting. It explains why she refused help; probably didn't want to be arrested for DUI.

We still don't have the full story from the homeowner. That'll have to wait for the trial, if his lawyers are smart (and they seem to be). I don't see a conviction as a forgone conclusion here.

The cops say he fired through the screen door, which was locked. I can envision a scenario: he opens the door, gun to shoulder, gun goes off. The issue will be: was opening the door reasonable, and was the discharge really an accident, and why or why not?

I still have no opinion on culpability; I can see it either way at this point.

On the flip side though, the police have basically told everyone where he lives. Which may not have been that wise depending on how this plays out.

They've literally said it now, though the family already knew. They've been in the neighborhood holding vigils.

I thought they were seeking an arrest warrant? Do they need a search warrant if there's a corpse on your porch? That kind of seems like just cause there.

They need a search warrant to search the inside of the house. The crime scene is on the porch. If they think they have enough to charge, they don't need an arrest warrrant . . . but when they're not sure, they like the DA to back them up. The DA didn't, at least not right away.

All signs point to negligence thus far, unless this turns out to be an elaborate bullshit story by the homeowner. But if it is, it doesn't make much sense for him to admit to an accidental discharge instead of claiming she made a threatening move and he feared for his life.

You see, this is why I have no opinion on what happened. There are too many what ifs. It could be negligence . . . but to prove that you have to prove he took an action that a reasonable and prudent person would not take. For example, you'd have to prove he didn't have the safety on, and had his finger on the trigger. That's a high bar, hard to prove. You have to prove he had a duty to do those things; he may not have depending on what the gun laws are in Michigan. With the SYG law, that may not have been a duty on his part. With no duty, you have a hard time proving negligence.

There's a difference between negligence and accident. If there's reasonable doubt, if what happens points to accident rather than negligence, then he could well be acquitted. In short, I can see this case going either way. What the prosecutor has to prove is that opening the door was unreasonable, and that he had a duty to do something else. That's going to be tough.

The only real inconsistencies were the wound location and the location of the body. Which, as I originally surmised, seems to be a case of miscommunication somewhere. As the police scanner proves the police were immediately aware of the correct location of the body.

Exactly. Which is why we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions in this case.

I was speculating, hence starting the sentence "I'd venture". There's a difference. I'm doing the exact same thing you are. But you're saying I'm some how wrong for it?

You are NOT doing the exact same thing I am. You've made it pretty clear you don't think it was reasonable for him to have opened the door, and that he was negligent in handling his fire arm. You can say "I'd venture" all you like, but your intent is crystal clear. I, OTOH, have said quite clearly "I have no opinion one way or the other." I've simply said what some of the evidence might mean, and what conditions could have affected an outcome. I haven't said he's negligent, or that she was threatening.

Again, if she was violent the homeowner would leap on that right away as his defense. ( Unless he's an idiot anyhow ). By all accounts she was showing signs of a severe concussion. ( Confusion and repeating statements are classic telltale signs ). If she was wandering in a concussed state for 2 hours, she would be a total wreck by the time she landed on his porch. Slow, badly coordinated, barely aware of where she was, etc. Concussions don't cause violence and aggression.

We still don't have a complete statement from the homeowner. What I've said about threatening behaviors was never directed specifically to the circumstances of THIS case. What I've done is explain why a self defense claim could work in this case, or a similar one.

Concussions CAN cause violence and aggression; they can change normal behavior patterns. I have seen head injured people behave in erratic and violent manners. And, as we now know, she was highly intoxicated that night and alcohol intoxication absolutely can cause violent behavior in people not normally violent.

I've rendered first aid to someone with a concussion before. They barely know wtf they are, never mind anything else. Its difficult to engage their attention as they have no focus. And yeah, you do kind of have to sit them down and keep them from wandering off.

Well, I've only spent a good part of my career working with people who've suffered traumatic injuries, something I shouldn't have to point out to you considering how long we've both been members here and on CS. People in an altered mental status, for whatever reason, can behave in bizarre and frightening ways, including aggression. You simply do not know what you are talking about on this.

If she somehow was violent or made a threatening move towards him, that would be the first thing out of his lawyers mouth.

You can't come to conclusions based on what a lawyer does or does not say. A smart lawyer does not lay out all his cards in front of the media right away. He waits for the state to complete its investigation, and completes his own before devising a strategy for the defense. We may still see a self defense claim in this case before all is said and done; that's not invalidated simply because the lawyer did not proclaim it on CNN as soon as this case made national headlines.

Instead, his lawyer's argument is that yes the shooting was accidental, but he was completely justified in shooting her anyway so it doesn't matter if its accidental. If there was any sort of violent or threatening aspect to the victim's actions, the lawyer sure as hell would have added them on to her statements. Given what her argument is.

Think that through a minute. Do you really think the lawyer wants to enrage the local community by bashing the victim before he has all the facts? He may in fact make such claims . . . later, when the homeowner finally gives his account of what happened. I think it likely he will have to take the stand and explain what happened at some point.

And if she were aggressive, violent, or seemed threatening in any way (and what you would interpret as aggressive or threatening does not have to be what HE would define as threatening or aggressive, or I would define), it may not even matter to the case. If he can prove it was accidentally, and that it was justified by other circumstances, then her actual behavior either way may not matter.

[Gravekeeper]

You're changing the subject; we were talking about bright lights on a porch. Why he would do is isn't relevant to the issue of light affecting your ability to see.

And a porch light affecting your ability to see was a wild stretch. Which is why we're having this disjointed argument. You accuse me of making assumptions even when I'm speculating while at the same time putting forward alternative scenarios that are far more unlikely.

You made a definitive statement that a porch light would blind you. I countered. So you made a definitive statement that the sudden light would blind you for several seconds. Which is, again, something that depends on far more factors and varies from person to person. Yet I'm the one making unreasonable assumptions.

You agreed without understanding what I said. We have incomplete statement from the homeowner. We really don't know what he's told police, and certainly not what he's told his lawyer. We'll have to wait for his trial date (he's been charged as of the time I write this)

So now the goal post is moved all the way back to his trial date? We cannot discuss a crime until the trial?

No, I'm not. You don't have to have a physical altercation to make use of the Stand Your Ground law. says.

You brought up the topic of physical altercation, all I said was there didn't seem to be any evidence of a physical altercation and I was correct.

Now who's mincing words? This still goes back to what I was talking about in regards to a homeowner having the right to defend a person who makes them feel threatened, even if they are altered.

But I'm not arguing against that. Seriously, I feel like this conversation is going through Babel Fish from English to Russian and back again before it gets to us.

Because you were pretty emphatic about this particular wrong point, even when others pointed out to you that the reports kept shifting and were inconsistent. And I don't recall specifically where you corrected yourself. Regardless, I don't need to cite more than one.

I corrected myself on page 3. If you are going to claim I made several, you're going to have to cite more than one to prove your statement. Prior to that I mentioned that detail in 3 posts including the OP. I was "emphatic" about it in one post. Though that detail could be removed from that post without changing it.

Well, here you've said something flat out wrong again. He didn't admit to negligent handling of a firearm. He said it accidentally discharged. There is a BIG difference between the two.

He disobeyed two of the cardinal rules of gun safety resulting in an accidental discharge with the worst possible result. That's negligence. In fact its called a negligent discharge the moment an accidental discharge has a culpability too it. IE you shot someone dead on your porch.

It explains why she refused help; probably didn't want to be arrested for DUI.

Is that not an assumption? She was exhibiting concussion symptoms as well. Witnesses said she was bloody and disoriented when she wandered off. All she was saying was "I want to go home" over and over. One of the tell tale signs of a concussion is also short term amnesia of the events prior to the concussion.

Its likely she didn't even remember being in a car accident.

You are NOT doing the exact same thing I am. You've made it pretty clear you don't think it was reasonable for him to have opened the door, and that he was negligent in handling his fire arm.

If he believed, as he stated, that someone was trying to break in. Not calling the police and opening the door do not seem reasonable, no. You've not notified anyone to come to your aid and you're granting the intruder access to your home.

He was negligent in handling his firearm. His finger was obviously on the trigger before he verified his target and surroundings. Thats two golden rules broken. He has become culpable for an accidental discharge. That means it becomes a negligent discharge

Even if he manages to get off scott free he'll still be culpable for a wrongful death suit.

You can say "I'd venture" all you like, but your intent is crystal clear. I, OTOH, have said quite clearly "I have no opinion one way or the other." I've simply said what some of the evidence might mean, and what conditions could have affected an outcome. I haven't said he's negligent, or that she was threatening.

You made two definitive statements about the conditions and one assumption about her motives. I never said you said she was threatening. All I said, yet again, was that it didn't appear that a physical altercation took place. Which it did not.

We still don't have a complete statement from the homeowner. What I've said about threatening behaviors was never directed specifically to the circumstances of THIS case. What I've done is explain why a self defense claim could work in this case, or a similar one.

Under Michigan law when deadly force is used he must prove that he was in imminent threat of death or bodily harm and that lethal force was the only way to prevent it. He must also prove reasonable belief, not sincere belief. IE in order to prove self defense he has to prove that a reasonable person would look at the same scenario and conclude an imminent threat of death or bodily harm.

Not that he alone sincerely believed there was an imminent threat of death or bodily harm.

So I don't think his chances are overly good here seeing as she never came in physical contact with him, didn't set foot in his house and there were no signs of forced entry.

Concussions CAN cause violence and aggression; they can change normal behavior patterns. I have seen head injured people behave in erratic and violent manners. And, as we now know, she was highly intoxicated that night and alcohol intoxication absolutely can cause violent behavior in people not normally violent.

They can in the long term, yes. In the short term there's some serious brain fog going on. Couple that with alcohol and I'm impressed she could even walk, never mind anything else.

Though this line of debate is becoming a bit irrelevant seeing as she neither touched him nor set foot in the house.

You simply do not know what you are talking about on this.

Violence and aggression are not short term concussion symptoms. Irritability, agitation, behavioral changes and emotional episodes are long term symptoms that can develop afterwards, yes. Especially with repeated concussions. But immediate symptoms are mainly cognitive and coordination related. Confusion, balance, amnesia, lack of focus and concentration, etc.

Do you really think the lawyer wants to enrage the local community by bashing the victim before he has all the facts?

Has that EVER stopped an American defense attorney before? >.>

Especially when race was a an issue.

[Titi]

UPDATE

Prosecution is going for Murder 2 and Manslaughter.

I guess you BOTH MISSED THIS POST! The homeowner has been charged with MURDER in the 2nd degree and Manslaughter. It was found that she was NOT IN CLOSE RANGE when she was shot in the face. It was also found (As I said in an earlier post, when people wondered what she was doing for those hours) that she was drunk 0.22 when she was killed.

He shot through the locked screen door.

McBride was unarmed and there was no evidence of a break-in, so Wafer -- who authorities say shot McBride from behind a closed, locked screen door -- cannot lawfully claim he needed to shoot her to stop an imminent threat, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy told reporters Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/justic...-shot-charges/

[Gravekeeper]

I guess you BOTH MISSED THIS POST! The homeowner has been charged with MURDER in the 2nd degree and Manslaughter. It was found that she was NOT IN CLOSE RANGE when she was shot in the face. It was also found (As I said in an earlier post, when people wondered what she was doing for those hours) that she was drunk 0.22 when she was killed.

Er, no. If you actually read our posts you'd see we both acknowledged it. I saw it on the news earlier this afternoon as a matter of fact.

[Panacea]

And a porch light affecting your ability to see was a wild stretch. Which is why we're having this disjointed argument. You accuse me of making assumptions even when I'm speculating while at the same time putting forward alternative scenarios that are far more unlikely.

It's not really a stretch. Plus, I'm not presenting anything I've said as fact, whereas everything you've said goes to support the conclusion you've chosen.

You made a definitive statement that a porch light would blind you. I countered. So you made a definitive statement that the sudden light would blind you for several seconds. Which is, again, something that depends on far more factors and varies from person to person. Yet I'm the one making unreasonable assumptions.

Yes, because you rely on anecdotal evidence of your own porch light instead of how the human eye actually works.

So now the goal post is moved all the way back to his trial date? We cannot discuss a crime until the trial?

No, and I never said any such thing. I said we likely won't get a statement from the homeowner on his side of things until the trial. The physical evidence alone is not enough to support any conclusion other than "McBride was shot in the face through a screen door." We can discuss it (note, we still are), but we're unlikely to get anywhere because there isn't enough information to make any kind of judgement. You really want to chalk it all up to negligence, but there is no evidence to support it.

You brought up the topic of physical altercation, all I said was there didn't seem to be any evidence of a physical altercation and I was correct.

I brought it up only to show why a self defense claim might be used or work. I never said McBride was actually aggressive. I said that it was possible for her to be aggressive given her altered mental status, and that could support a defense claim later on. I anticipate it will come up eventually. That one has not yet been made does not preclude that one will not be made, and that will be hard for the prosecutor to deal with given the laws in Michigan, in spite of the declaration they made yesterday.

I also said there didn't need to be an actual physical altercation in order for the homeowner to feel threatened and be covered under Michigan law. There wouldn't be any physical evidence if she did something threatening, but she never touched him (which given what we do know, she couldn't have).

But I'm not arguing against that. Seriously, I feel like this conversation is going through Babel Fish from English to Russian and back again before it gets to us.

I can't help it that you don't want to let go of a manufactured conclusion you can't support.

I corrected myself on page 3. If you are going to claim I made several, you're going to have to cite more than one to prove your statement. Prior to that I mentioned that detail in 3 posts including the OP. I was "emphatic" about it in one post. Though that detail could be removed from that post without changing it.

Now you're just being pedantic. Since I don't want to go through every post, I'll concede you were incorrect one point: that she was shot in the back of the head.

He disobeyed two of the cardinal rules of gun safety resulting in an accidental discharge with the worst possible result.

And what rule of gun safety is that, pray tell? He hasn't made a statement to tell us how he was handling the weapon to know what rule, if any he broke. Again: accidental discharge =/= negligence. You have to describe the act that was negligent and you can't do that.

That's negligence. In fact its called a negligent discharge the moment an accidental discharge has a culpability too it. IE you shot someone dead on your porch.

No, it's not, for the reason I just explained above.

Is that not an assumption? She was exhibiting concussion symptoms as well. Witnesses said she was bloody and disoriented when she wandered off. All she was saying was "I want to go home" over and over. One of the tell tale signs of a concussion is also short term amnesia of the events prior to the concussion.

Its likely she didn't even remember being in a car accident.

I don't know if she remembered being in a car accident or not. No one's reported any amnesia. She might have had some, she might not.

My saying she probably didn't want to be arrested for DUI is indeed an assumption.

If he believed, as he stated, that someone was trying to break in. Not calling the police and opening the door do not seem reasonable, no. You've not notified anyone to come to your aid and you're granting the intruder access to your home.

I guess it depends on what police response times are in Vancouver. In Detroit, they're pretty bad. In the actual neighborhood in question, they're pretty bad. If police response times are known to be bad, it is not unreasonable for a citizen to believe he might have to handle a situation himself. I wouldn't be surprised if that point is raised by the defense at some point.

I remember calling the police once when someone tried to break into my house. They didn't come. The whole time I can hear the guy trying to get in through the window. My room mate (who was not home) was a police cadet; I went looking for her fire arm (I didn't find it, she had it with her). I found her baton; it was the closest thing to a weapon I could find. I'm glad now I didn't find the gun. I was terrified. I think I would have shot someone had I found it. Fortunately, he did not get into the house.

He was negligent in handling his firearm. His finger was obviously on the trigger before he verified his target and surroundings. Thats two golden rules broken. He has become culpable for an accidental discharge. That means it becomes a negligent discharge

You can't prove his finger was on the trigger. If the weapon was not well maintained, it could accidentally fire. If he dropped it, it could accidentally fire.

Even if he manages to get off scott free he'll still be culpable for a wrongful death suit.

Anyone can be sued. However, the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial. That won't happen until the criminal case is resolved.

You made two definitive statements about the conditions and one assumption about her motives. I never said you said she was threatening. All I said, yet again, was that it didn't appear that a physical altercation took place. Which it did not.

You've either misinterpreted or distorted what I actually said. What I have been saying is the shooting and shootings like this are defensible under Michigan law, and I've said why. I haven't applied any of that to THIS shooting; I've simply explored what the law says, and how human physiology works.

Under Michigan law when deadly force is used he must prove that he was in imminent threat of death or bodily harm and that lethal force was the only way to prevent it. He must also prove reasonable belief, not sincere belief. IE in order to prove self defense he has to prove that a reasonable person would look at the same scenario and conclude an imminent threat of death or bodily harm.

Actually, in a criminal case he doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecutor has to prove that his stated fear was not reasonable, not the other way around.

They can in the long term, yes. In the short term there's some serious brain fog going on. Couple that with alcohol and I'm impressed she could even walk, never mind anything else.

They can in the short term, as well. You're not going to win that point GK, you are simply flat out wrong.

And you would not believe what I've seen drunks with head injuries do. Fight like hell, that's what.

Though this line of debate is becoming a bit irrelevant seeing as she neither touched him nor set foot in the house.

Not necessarily. Even though she couldn't have touched him or entered the house, we don't know what her behavior or demeanor was on the porch.

Violence and aggression are not short term concussion symptoms. Irritability, agitation, behavioral changes and emotional episodes are long term symptoms that can develop afterwards, yes. Especially with repeated concussions. But immediate symptoms are mainly cognitive and coordination related. Confusion, balance, amnesia, lack of focus and concentration, etc.

GK, you don't know what you are talking about. People with closed head injuries can and do become violently combative at times in the short term immediately after injury. It's usually short lived; once the person is re-oriented they do better. But it can happen.

Has that EVER stopped an American defense attorney before? >.>

Especially when race was a an issue.

It usually is counter productive. Zimmerman's lawyer was much more circumspect than the Martin family lawyer. Guess who got off?

I guess you BOTH MISSED THIS POST! The homeowner has been charged with MURDER in the 2nd degree and Manslaughter.

Neither of us missed it; we discussed it. I think you need to go back and reread the article; it's the one I read myself. The article quite clearly says Manslaughter and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony are the charges.

For a 2nd degree murder charge, you have to prove intent to kill the person, and that just isn't present here.

It was found that she was NOT IN CLOSE RANGE when she was shot in the face.

Close range is a slippery term. The autopsy report (which I referenced and linked to) noted no gunpowder residue or tattooing which is required for the forensic definition of close range.

However, I did say in that same post that wadding from the shotgun shell was found in her brain. That doesn't fly very far from the end of the shotgun; a few feet usually. That's why GK and I have been working on a distance of about 3 feet; it fits the facts.

It was also found (As I said in an earlier post, when people wondered what she was doing for those hours) that she was drunk 0.22 when she was killed.

When I linked to the autopsy report, I noted that the toxicology report was not back yet. That's why I didn't speculate on whether or not she might be intoxicated.

[s_stabeler]

um, self defense is an affirmative defense, that is, you do in fact have to prove that you acted in self defense. ( you are saying "yeah, I killed her, but I was scared for my life!")