Black Woman Killed For Seeking Help

[Ginger Tea]

Why do I think that sooner or later someone will say "she was acting like one of them zombies and I thought it was the apocalypse."

[HYHYBT]

And a porch light affecting your ability to see was a wild stretch.

That the relative presence or absence of light affects vision really shouldn't be controversial.

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.

That would *at least* depend on which order things happened in. For example:

1) Hear unknown noise from porch

2) Grab shotgun in case you need it

3) Open door to see what is going on

4) See what you believe to be a threat

Which is a very different thing than deciding there is someone up to no good out there first and THEN opting to open the door.

[Gravekeeper]

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.

A) That's how a debate works.
B) Its not the conclusion I've chosen, its the most likely conclusion given the evidence.
C) Even I have not stated a definitive conclusion on exactly what went on in this guy's mind and how this turned out. I can only go by what he says happened. If something like racism was a factor, we may likely never know.

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

And you rely on anecdotal evidence of how a porch light different from my own works and ignore that everyone's eyes adjust at different rates and are differently affected by light levels. Which is the point I'm trying to make. There are far too many variables in your speculation. You say a flashlight would be superior, I completely disagree, as a flashlight just gives you a spotlight of illumination vs a porch light illumination the entire situation.

Its a stupid argument and I don't know why we're still having it.

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.

I'm suggesting its negligence because he himself stated it was an accidental discharge. An accidental discharge that results in legally culpable damage is called a negligent discharge by definition. An accidental discharge in this scenario would also be a result of ignoring two of the basic rules of gun safety. That is also negligent.

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.

But again, I didn't say that's what you were saying. For the umpteenth time. You brought up a possibility ( physical altercation ), I simply said it didn't seem that way because there was no evidence of it. I don't know why you're even arguing with me about this.

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).

I didn't argue that. I wasn't even referring to that.

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

and I can't help that you don't seem to be understanding any attempt I make to be reasonable about this. Nor that I have no god damn idea what conclusion it is you think I'm manufacturing. Even when I agree with you, you refuse to let me and accuse me of not understanding.

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.

Defending myself is not being pedantic.

You accused me of something that didn't happen. Now that I've called you on it, you're waving it off saying finding evidence of the accusation is too much of a bother.

I already conceded that same point several times now.

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.

His finger was on the trigger and he did not make sure of his target and what was beyond his target.

He failed to see or allowed to occur a scenario by which an avoidable danger harmed someone else. A danger which a reasonably prudent person who not have allowed. IE someone that owns a firearm and adhere's to firearm safety would not have allowed the danger in question to occur, and thus would not have ended up shooting someone.

You are not suppose to have your finger on the trigger even when confronting an intruder, specifically to avoid accidentally blowing them away before you know whats going on. For this to be an accidental discharge at this point, there must be a mechanic failure with the gun that caused the discharge.

If you follow gun safety rules and the firearm goes off unintentionally = Accidental discharge.

If you do not follow gun safety rules and it goes off unintentionally = Negligent discharge.

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.

Ironically enough, the police response time was 2 minutes here. According to the police scanner audio the first call was at 4:46am. First unit on scene a couple minutes later. I assume they were already in the area due to the accident maybe? But yes, its not unreasonable for him to believe he has to handle the situation. However, he should still have notified to the police prior. If it was an intruder and he had ended up incapacitated no help would have arrived. Not alerting the police would put you up shit creek.

Though that brings up one hell of a question. The first 911 call from the homeowner is an *hour* after the reported time of the shooting. >.>

Was he freaking out for an hour?

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.

That sucks immensely. =/

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.

As I mentioned above, yes, that would be an accidental discharge if that was the case. Though it seems unlikely. You would think that detail would come out pretty quick given how valuable it would be to his defense.

I guess we're unintentionally on the same page here if that's what you were thinking. Fair enough. Anything to hasten the end of this argument, as its not particularly enjoyable. -.-

You've either misinterpreted or distorted what I actually said.

Honestly, that seems to be going both ways and seems to be the major driver of this argument.

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

Someone with a minor concussion maybe. But someone with a serious, real concussion that's showing confusion, lack of awareness of surroundings, repeating sentences and wandering aimless for hours? I don't buy it. Its contrary to all medical information on the subject as well as every serious concussion I've ever seen. Its pretty impressive for someone with a serious concussion to even get up and walk straight.

Never mind someone that's showing confusion, lack of awareness of surroundings, repeating sentences and wandering aimless for hours. A serious concussion fucks you up bad.

The most violence I've ever seen a concussed person pull off is if they were already in a fight and pull off that "Don't realize what just happened" last feeble swing before falling on their ass.

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.

You don't get reoriented with a serious concussion. Thats kind of the problem. Also, if this is a debate between you, Mayo Clinic, WebMD, Health Canada, Wikipedia, Red Cross and my own St John's Ambulance first aid training. I'm going with them, sorry.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. Or just start hissing incoherently at each other.

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

What? Did you miss the earlier discussion as to the level of shit Zimmerman's defense team pulled? His lawyer even had to issue a public apology. >.>

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.

No, its second degree murder. I saw the same thing on the news. Unless CNN and NBC are screwing the pooch here he was arraigned on both second degree murder and manslaughter. Its not a matter of anyone missing something in an article. Whether or not it makes sense is another matter.

Give it a quick Google, its on most news sites now.

Eh, well I guess I can see where they're going. Looks like under Michigan law second degree murder is pretty broad and is basically any homicide that's not first degree. While manslaughter is a killing without malice. If they can prove malice in the heat of the moment, they could get him on second degree it looks.

Though that's still a high bar. I guess they want to go for 2nd degree and have manslaughter as a back up or something. Though they could fuck up the trial if they over reach for 2nd degree.

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.

Yeah, I think what's getting people here is that close range in Forensic terms is different than what you would think of as close range when you think of the term.

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.

Thats most likely the cause of her accident then seeing as she hit a parked car. Though I haven't seen anything on whether a toxicology report was done on the homeowner as well? His ex-wife is saying he's heavy drinker with a quick temper, though she defends him saying he's not a racist and likely didn't kill her intentionally.

Unless a search warrant turns up a clan hood it'll be hard to prove racism had much if anything to do with it. Thus far it just looks like an all around lack of good judgement.

Can we stop arguing now? Its tiring. -.-

[siead_lietrathua]

one thing that bugs me about this case... even if the gun did go off accidentally, for him to hit her square in the face, he had to be holding the gun aiming at her head (or even accounting for kick, her torso).
i don't own guns, i've only fired one once, and even i know you never ever aim a gun directly at a (living) target until you are ready to fire. the gun should be pointed to the ground, or off-side. even if it's someone you mean to threaten, you should aim towards their legs, off side. that way if the gun somehow fires itself, at best you hit the ground and at worse they get a leg injury, not their damn head blown off.

edit: what i basically mean is, by aiming at fatal areas (torso or head) he was already being negligent. if it ends up he had his finger on the trigger and not the gun misfiring itself, he should be considered for some sort of manslaughter charge.

[Aethian]

one thing that bugs me about this case... even if the gun did go off accidentally, for him to hit her square in the face, he had to be holding the gun aiming at her head (or even accounting for kick, her torso)

Depends in height difference too

[s_stabeler]

edit: what i basically mean is, by aiming at fatal areas (torso or head) he was already being negligent. if it ends up he had his finger on the trigger and not the gun misfiring itself, he should be considered for some sort of manslaughter charge.

depends on WHY the gun fired itself, actually. If it is due to bad maintenance, it does right back around to negligence, ( and in some cases where it is a design fault- the SKS, for example, is prone to true accidental discharge due to having a free-floating bolt, but it's not difficult to get one converted to a normal bolt ( in most guns, there is a spring in there to keep the bolt back from the primer until you are ready to fire) so it could be considered negiligent to use an SKS not converted to a normal bolt.

[Kheldarson]

Just read an article in my local paper that said he shot her through the screen door. I think it adds more what the hell to the story.

[Gravekeeper]

Looks like we have some new witness statements. Sounds like she had a serious concussion going:

One neighbor, who lived just opposite the accident said he could not tell if she was under the influence, but revealed she seemed incredibly confused and walked to and from her car, getting in and out three times, before eventually leaving the scene with her hood pulled over her head.

But witness LeDell Hammond, who was one of the last people to see Ms McBride alive, says he could not tell if she was drunk. He also told how guilty he felt that he didn’t do more to stop her when she walked off into the night from the crash scene.

Speaking to MailOnline, the father-of-one said: ‘I got back from work a couple of moments after the crash and the girl had walked off. But then she came back and got in her car, before getting back out and walking off again. She did that another two times and it was clear she was very confused and didn’t really know what was going on.

Also, sounds like he may have had his finger on the trigger after all:

Immediately after Ms McBride’s death Wafer apparently claimed he pulled the trigger by accident, but in recent days his lawyer has said he was in fear for his life - despite his size.

I wish the Smoking Gun would hurry up and get the police reports. -.-

[s_stabeler]

this is confusing, but I'm going to go ahead and say that at this point, it's looking unlikely that a self-defense argument will be able to hold up. If he shot the woman through a screen door, then it is inherently not self-defense. If his finger was on the trigger? that is negiligent homicide or some degree of murder ( it's not manslaughter, because manslaughter requires it not to be the intention to kill. shooting someone in the face is definitely intent to kill.)

[Gravekeeper]

this is confusing, but I'm going to go ahead and say that at this point, it's looking unlikely that a self-defense argument will be able to hold up. If he shot the woman through a screen door, then it is inherently not self-defense. If his finger was on the trigger? that is negiligent homicide or some degree of murder ( it's not manslaughter, because manslaughter requires it not to be the intention to kill. shooting someone in the face is definitely intent to kill.)

It would be difficult to prove intent with a negligent discharge. Under Michigan law, if they can prove malice, however, they might get 2nd degree. If not, its manslaughter.

I don't think self defense will hold up barring any surprise twists at this point. If she had gotten a foot in the door or something, sure. But on the porch through a screen door with no signs of damage or forced entry? I doubt that will hold up.

[siead_lietrathua]

Depends in height difference too

if he's aiming to the ground, where he's supposed to be, a height difference wouldn't matter. no amount of kick will jump from ground to head height with the bullet not leaving the barrel before it ever gets to their head.

[Aethian]

if he's aiming to the ground, where he's supposed to be, a height difference wouldn't matter.

I have a feeling he wasn't aiming towards the ground since he did a lot he wasn't supposed to do.

[HYHYBT]

If he shot the woman through a screen door, then it is inherently not self-defense.

Why not? Many are just that: a frame holding a big piece of window screen. That's not going to stop anybody.

[protege]

Why not? Many are just that: a frame holding a big piece of window screen.

Many screen doors, especially those on older homes, are flimsy aluminum doors. They might keep the bugs out, but not intruders. For example, the one my mother had, didn't even latch correctly. Pulling on it would snap the lock.

[Titi]

I guess I should have been killed for knocking on doors when I lived in Texas. My husband and I were out for a night without the kids (my friend was babysitting), and on the road back from Austin to Killeen we hit tacks that teens had put on the road. We didn't even have a flashlight and it was pitch black, my husband decided to change the tire anyways (did I mention that this was a driver's side tire?) and with no lights I was afraid that he would be run over. I knocked on one door, they weren't there, so I saw lights in another home and ran and knocked on that door. I was greeted with a gun. I told the guy the situation and was told, "Yeah, you just want me to come outside so that all of your gang can jump me." I showed my Military Dependent ID and was told that it was probably a fake. Luckily a friend of his CB'd his cell phone talking about the fool in the middle of the street trying to change a tire. He completely changed after that, I was invited in while he got his tools and went to help my husband.

After that situation I have ALWAYS stayed with the car. My husband has no trouble getting help, has NEVER had a gun put in his face. So I start to wonder why. Why am I seen as someone who doesn't need help but someone who is trying to hurt you? I have never been in trouble with the law.All I can look at is the color of my skin. (I'm mixed black/hispanic, my husband is white.)

This is why I am so passionate about cases like this. I have a constant fear that my family will get into a car accident and I am the only one able to get help but I can't. Why? Because I am constantly worrying that I could possibly be killed when I am asking for help.