Black Woman Killed For Seeking Help

[Aethian]

Titi, no one is saying what happened is right so I don't know why your saying you should have gotten shot. The reason the guy said what he said is most likely due to tv or movies. Where a big ol' posse sends out someone looking helpless and then a huge gang of people descends upon the good citizen. Hell I know NCIS used that as a opening twice.

I'm not saying that certain low life's don't use that very tactic but I'm thankfully not in a area where helping someone that might happen. Sometimes however...it's best to just stay where you are specially when you don't know what's around you.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, here's the house.

So if she didn't manage to damage that flimsy ass screen door she couldn't have been banging too hard. Self defense is going to be a tough sell for his lawyer.

[Titi]

Titi, no one is saying what happened is right so I don't know why your saying you should have gotten shot. The reason the guy said what he said is most likely due to tv or movies. Where a big ol' posse sends out someone looking helpless and then a huge gang of people descends upon the good citizen. Hell I know NCIS used that as a opening twice.

I'm not saying that certain low life's don't use that very tactic but I'm thankfully not in a area where helping someone that might happen. Sometimes however...it's best to just stay where you are specially when you don't know what's around you.

This happened in late 2002 when it was just a stupid urban legend. For the amount of people this guy thought I would have had to rent a moving truck and also I'm still wondering where he thought they were hiding. I left to get help after my husband almost got hit by a Semi going down the 2 lane highway while he was just checking the tire. He got out of the way just in time. He didn't want help. I went because I wasn't going to watch my husband (or anyone) change a tire without any light (just the hazards) because the "shoulder" wasn't wide enough for him to do it safely.

But it has affected me in not good ways. Normally when I would move I would introduce myself to the other neighbors with treats and whatnot. Now I wait for the neighbors to approach me. I might be myself at work (outgoing and funloving) but at home I am scared to knock on doors, even the doors of people I know, even on halloween. My son asked if he could take his sister trick or treating this year and since we have recently moved, I said yes because I knew that I could NOT knock on doors due to the fact what if I knocked on the wrong door. I don't know these people, I don't know their customs of halloween. BTW They met up with a friend my daughter has at school and her mother and had a great time.

[Titi]

On another note. This family heard the guy break in and then asking for help. They helped him.

http://www.kmvt.com/news/regional/232397101.html

[Aethian]

Well, here's the house.

I think I was a block or two off from when I took my drive. Which being that it was late and going by general area is possible. The neighborhood still had a lot of vacants and not too many porch lights on.

[Gravekeeper]

I think I was a block or two off from when I took my drive. Which being that it was late and going by general area is possible. The neighborhood still had a lot of vacants and not too many porch lights on.

My Google maps link from before was surprisingly close. Here's the house.

Pretty open street, but not super destitute or anything. There's at least some street lights and what not around.

[Aethian]

My Google maps link from before was surprisingly close. Here's the house. Pretty open street, but not super destitute or anything. There's at least some street lights and what not around.

You need to realize GK I was driving around there around midnight. So sorry I was off but I stand to my point that it's dark, down the street I was there were next to no lights, and there were a lot of dark houses. Also I linked your first link in my quote why are you showing me the house again?

Just because something doesn't look destitute during the day light doesn't mean it's a completely different view at midnight. I admitted that I may have been off by a couple blocks, again it was midnight.

[HYHYBT]

Wait, hold on a minute... you're using the flimsiness of screen doors as a reason shooting someone through one would NOT be self defense?

[protege]

Wait, hold on a minute... you're using the flimsiness of screen doors as a reason shooting someone through one would NOT be self defense?

That's not what I was saying. What I meant, is that the woman could have easily (and inadvertently) pulled the door open. Homeowner either sees this--or she does it in front of him--thinks he's about to get robbed, and defends himself. Some of those doors are incredibly cheap, and could have easily prevented the scenario I described. Doesn't mean that the woman should have been killed. But, like others have said, we don't know if the home has been broken into before. That could have been why he shot first and asked questions later. I'm not defending the guy by *any* means, but there are too many unanswered questions here.

[Gravekeeper]

You need to realize GK I was driving around there around midnight. So sorry I was off but I stand to my point that it's dark, down the street I was there were next to no lights, and there were a lot of dark houses. Also I linked your first link in my quote why are you showing me the house again?

That's not the same link. That's Google maps, in case anyone wanted to peek around the house on street view to get an idea of the area. I'm not trying to harp on you for anything.

Wait, hold on a minute... you're using the flimsiness of screen doors as a reason shooting someone through one would NOT be self defense?

His defense was s[ecifically that he thought she was breaking in. If there was no damage to that screen door aside from the shotgun hole, then she likely wasn't doing anymore more than knocking loudly.

Under Michigan law, the standard of self defense where lethal force has been used is that a reasonable person must be able to look at the scenario and conclude that there was an *imminent* threat of death or serious injury that could only be avoided through the use of lethal force.

It doesn't matter what the homeowner believed subjectively about the scenario. Though considering he did not call 911 and willingly opened the door to confront her it doesn't look like he was operating under an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Then there seems to be an hour gap before he calls 911 to report ( The first call the police receive is at 4:46am or so, but the shooting occurred at 3:40am ). He tells them he thinks he shot someone, but hangs up on the operator. The operator has to call him back to find out what's going on. Then the police arrive a few minutes later.

That could have been why he shot first and asked questions later. I'm not defending the guy by *any* means, but there are too many unanswered questions here.

But he didn't shoot first, he shot by accident according to him. But again, the standard for lethal self defense in Michigan is based upon the "reasonable person" angle. Meaning it depends whether or not we the people, so to speak, believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm that could only be stopped with lethal force.

Do you believe that?

[Hyena Dandy]

Meaning it depends whether or not we the people, so to speak, believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm that could only be stopped with lethal force.

You're making that up. That is not what the reasonable person thing means.

It means whether we believe that, in the context of the situation, his believing he was in danger was not irrational. It is not based on whether we, with all the facts in hand, believe afterwards that he was in danger. It's not even based on whether we would have believed ourselves in danger at that point. It's essentially saying "Is it something that someone COULD reasonably believe, at that time."

Not what we find most likely, or MOST rational. Just the standard of it not being irrational. This is a case where a double-negative actually DOES change the meaning of the sentence from a positive.

[Gravekeeper]

You're making that up. That is not what the reasonable person thing means.

You are correct, I worded that rather badly and neglected the "in his shoes" aspect. I did not, however, "make it up". You can correct me without flinging an accusation, you know.

However, the specific definition under Michigan law is whether a reasonable person would have acted the same way in the same scenario. Reasonable person being a construct. So yes, it will be based on whether we would have believed ourselves in danger at that point. Because that's just how the human brain works. The jury will be putting themselves in his shoes with the facts available to him at the time.

The problem he has is that there was no physical altercation and she did not set foot in his house nor even cause any damage to it.

So the question is:

Would a reasonable person in fear of an imminent threat on his life not call 911, grab a gun and willing open the door to confront the threat in question. Followed by would a reasonable person consider a young unarmed woman banging on his screen door an imminent threat to his life.

Under Michigan law there must be an "honest and reasonable belief" when lethal force is used. It cannot be used if someone is simply robbing your house or stealing your property. There must be an imminent and reasonable threat of death or injury.

So it will be a pretty high bar. As the defense has to argue that it's reasonable to feel your life is threatened by an unarmed young woman banging on your screen door. Especially given that you did not call 911 and choose to open the door to confront the threat.

[Andara Bledin]

You are correct, I worded that rather badly and neglected the "in his shoes" aspect.

Even so, as you've mentioned already, he's said that he fired accidentally, not on purpose, so the whole self defense angle isn't even an option.

Also, as regards the hour-long gap and hanging up on 911, there's a very good chance the guy was in shock. After all, he just killed a woman who he knew wasn't a threat (thus the accidental firing not self defense statements) and anyone who's not a sociopath will be at least slightly irrational after such a thing.

[Gravekeeper]

Even so, as you've mentioned already, he's said that he fired accidentally, not on purpose, so the whole self defense angle isn't even an option.

Its his lawyer going for it, not me. Her angle is yes it was an accident, but he was justified anyway.

Also, as regards the hour-long gap and hanging up on 911, there's a very good chance the guy was in shock.

Yes, I suggested that a few posts earlier that he might have been freaking out. Still, if its a full hour it may not reflect well to a potential jury.

[HYHYBT]

...and willingly opened the door to confront her...

And there it is again: the presumption that he knew (or thought he knew) what was going on BEFORE opening the door, as opposed to opening the door to *find out*. What, if anything, is that presumption based on, and why is the alternative not even, so far as I can see, even considered?