GUILTY MI - Renisha McBride, 19, shot while trying to get help, Detroit, Nov 2013

[liljim]

well its gonna be the shooters word that he got scared and feared for his life against an argument that he should not have felt so.

personally i dont see how the state convinces 11 reasonable people that IT knows how the guy felt.

this is where it gets tricky - they dont have to prove that he didnt feel that way, they can actually admit that they dont contest he felt that way (they never would of course, just saying). they just have to prove, and get the jurors to agree, according to their common sense, that it was not reasonable for him to feel threatened.

i wish i could remember the exact language, iirc it is used in the press conference this morning so if you watch that you will hear it.

 

[Karmady]

I looked up his address, and it doesn't look like he was on the border with Detroit. In fact, it looks like he would have to drive through Dearborn to get to Detroit. It looks to be about a 20-minute drive to get into Detroit. So it doesn't seem like he was living that close to some high-crime inner city.

I'm going by the reports that the accident happened in Detroit and the shooting happened at his home (the HuffPo link I posted a while ago). I doubt she would have been able to walk a 20 minute drive even in 3 hours, especially barefoot and highly intoxicated. Plus, the news reports have said the house was a matter of blocks from the accident up to a mile. I think a mile is the farthest I've seen.

jmo

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I'm sorry if anyone is taking my disdain for Detroit personally. It's not a personal bias I have against Detroit. It's just that it's ranked in the top five cities for crime, if not the top one or two, on a consistent basis. There's no denying it's a very dangerous place and more dangerous than a lot of other cities.

Sometimes comments about Detroit seem to suggest that no one would want to venture into the city because of the inherent dangers. That's simply not true. Most people who frequent upscale restaurants, sports venues, and/or entertainment venues in Detroit live in the suburbs.

There are also a lot of suburbanites who work in Detroit like my husband did until a few years ago. Would we want to live in Detroit? Of course not. But we couldn't imagine not availing ourselves of the amenities in Detroit (dance, opera, symphony, theatre, sports).

 

[Zuri]

I have some questions: Does a homeowner who shoots someone who is banging on their door have to prove they were threatened? Or is an implied threat acceptable for self defense?
Why would this man open his front door and shoot if he could talk to the person through the screen door? Or did he just open the door and shoot?
Did he turn on his front porch light so he could see?
Was there a 911 call placed before the one stating he had shot someone on his porch?
Is his residence remote enough so he could not expect prompt police response?
Is it against the law in Michigan to use a gun to defend yourself/home? Or is it only under certain circumstances?
TIA. I have not followed this case and just saw the home owner was charged.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I don't really understand how the proximity to Detroit is relevant. I also don't understand this idea that if knocking on your door at 3:30 AM, then OMG, it must be someone from Detroit trying to break-in. Could it be a home invasion? Possibly, but why does it have to be someone from Detroit? The suburbs around Detroit have low crime rates, showing that people committing crimes in Detroit are staying within their neighborhood and not venturing out. Plus, this website is filled with cases of murderers who live in suburbs and small towns.

eileenh, hugs, don't take it personally. I dont think posters mean to insult you or Detroit.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I have some questions: Does a homeowner who shoots someone who is banging on their door have to prove they were threatened? Or is an implied threat acceptable for self defense?
Why would this man open his front door and shoot if he could talk to the person through the screen door? Or did he just open the door and shoot?
Did he turn on his front porch light so he could see?
Was there a 911 call placed before the one stating he had shot someone on his porch?
Is his residence remote enough so he could not expect prompt police response?
Is it against the law in Michigan to use a gun to defend yourself/home? Or is it only under certain circumstances?
TIA. I have not followed this case and just saw the home owner was charged.

Did some googling, and I believe I found the relevant statute for Michigan:

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3m...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

And here are the presumptions/definitions:

<snip>
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.
<snip>

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sq...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951

Basically, the person using deadly force in self defense must have an honest and reasonable belief of imminent deadly/great bodily/sexual harm.

 

[tlcya]

The home is located on Outer Park Drive in Dearborn Heights

The accident was at the intersection of Bramell St & Majestic Ave, Detroit, MI 48239

according to google it is approximately .8 miles from one to the other.

ETA that I was mistaken, it is point 8 miles or 16 minute walk.

a map to show the proximity

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid...ll=42.348776,-83.259072&spn=0.015161,0.030341

the map can be clicked on the blue location bubbles which then feature a popup to provide the source info.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

...Basically, the person using deadly force in self defense must have an honest and reasonable belief of imminent deadly/great bodily/sexual harm.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy included this statement during the press conference this morning.

 

[Karmady]

Sometimes comments about Detroit seem to suggest that no one would want to venture into the city because of the inherent dangers. That's simply not true. Most people who frequent upscale restaurants, sports venues, and/or entertainment venues in Detroit live in the suburbs.

There are also a lot of suburbanites who work in Detroit like my husband did until a few years ago. Would we want to live in Detroit? Of course not. But we couldn't imagine not availing ourselves of the amenities in Detroit (dance, opera, symphony, theatre, sports).

I do know what it's like to live in or near a major city since I grew up and lived much of my adult life just outside NYC and just outside Los Angeles. I imagine Detroit is not much different in terms of going in for dinner, theater or whatever. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm sure there are some areas within the city that are safer than others, too. I would go into Manhatten daily, but never to the Bronx except for a Yankees game just for example.

jmo

 

[liljim]

good work anateresa, that is the language i was thinking of "honest and reasonable".

so they can believe that he honestly felt threatened and still find that it was not reasonable for him to feel that way.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I do know what it's like to live in or near a major city since I grew up and lived much of my adult life just outside NYC and just outside Los Angeles. I imagine Detroit is not much different in terms of going in for dinner, theater or whatever. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm sure there are some areas within the city that are safer than others, too. I would go into Manhatten daily, but never to the Bronx except for a Yankees game just for example.

jmo

DH and I used to make frequent trips to Chicago and Toronto for art exhibits, ballet, theatre, etc. that are reasonable driving distances from north-suburban Detroit. On more recent visits, we didn't feel as comfortable walking about - even during the day - and would never have considered even a short walk from our hotel to a restaurant or entertainment venue in the evening. The world is simply not the same safe place that it used to be. Sad.

 

[AnaTeresa]

good work anateresa, that is the language i was thinking of "honest and reasonable".

so they can believe that he honestly felt threatened and still find that it was not reasonable for him to feel that way.

Yes, exactly. A person can honestly believe things that are not rational or reasonable. For instance, a person who is experiencing some sort of psychosis or delusions can honestly believe he is being attacked, but that belief is not reasonable based on the surrounding circumstances.

With regard to this case, there must be some evidence for police and prosecutors to conclude that, though the homeowner may have honestly felt threatened, that belief was not reasonable. What that evidence is at this point, we have no idea.

 

[KindraLore]

Good news report/video about the case. Some things I was not aware of before.

[video=youtube;J86dOWQTEU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86dOWQTEU4[/video]

 

[liljim]

thanx for that video kindra, it must be a sign im following this case too closely because there were no new facts in it for me :X still good info tho, thanx!

susan candiotti claimed in it that prosecutors eliminated the idea that race played a role, i dont believe that is true, at least i didnt hear kym worthy say that - she said that race did not play a role in charging these crimes and anything related to race will come out at trial.

does anyone think i am mistaken there? i may have missed something.

i think both danny and sunny both got it a little bit wrong there, danny is wrong that castle doctrine will protect this guy based on just the facts we know now, and sunny is wrong to suggest that his downfall will be that he got the shotgun and opened the door with it at the ready.

my understanding of the law is that he is allowed to arm himself, to investigate any noise on his property to whatever extent he chooses, to confront people, to brandish his weapon at them etc...

but that he is not allowed to just shoot, the standard for him being able to justifiably shoot is that "honestly and reasonably" clause where he must feel he is threatened, and that whether he is honest about it, or reasonable in his belief, can be considered by a prosecutor, and later a jury, and either accepted or rejected.

there is one more thing worthy of addressing in there but im not allowed to :X oooooo this is so hard... stop looking at me mods, i didnt do nothin!

 

[KindraLore]

thanx for that video kindra, it must be a sign im following this case too closely because there were no new facts in it for me :X still good info tho, thanx!

susan candiotti claimed in it that prosecutors eliminated the idea that race played a role, i dont believe that is true, at least i didnt hear kym worthy say that - she said that race did not play a role in charging these crimes and anything related to race will come out at trial.

does anyone think i am mistaken there? i may have missed something.

i think both danny and sunny both got it a little bit wrong there, danny is wrong that castle doctrine will protect this guy based on just the facts we know now, and sunny is wrong to suggest that his downfall will be that he got the shotgun and opened the door with it at the ready.

my understanding of the law is that he is allowed to arm himself, to investigate any noise on his property to whatever extent he chooses, to confront people, to brandish his weapon at them etc...

but that he is not allowed to just shoot, the standard for him being able to justifiably shoot is that "honestly and reasonably" clause where he must feel he is threatened, and that whether he is honest about it, or reasonable in his belief, can be considered by a prosecutor, and later a jury, and either accepted or rejected.

there is one more thing worthy of addressing in there but im not allowed to :X oooooo this is so hard... stop looking at me mods, i didnt do nothin!

I did not know he was taking care of his mother and brother. I wasn't aware of his job, etc..

I think both Sunny and Danny had interesting and compelling points. This case is no slam dunk on either side. In my personal opinion, I think he was overcharged with M2. I was expecting manslaughter but not M2. In my opinion they will have a very hard time proving that one. It is normally reserved for armed robbery gone bad or someone dying in arson, etc..

The castle doctrine is pretty iffy in this case. And we also have to keep in mind that he claimed it was an accident, so I'm not sure how all that will come into play. We will have to wait until all the facts come out.

 

[KindraLore]

Also to add, their map showed truly how far it was from the accident to his home. It was not a short trip. One wonders what happened in those hours in between. What she was doing. How she ended up wet. Why that house, so far away..

 

[Karmady]

Also to add, their map showed truly how far it was from the accident to his home. It was not a short trip. One wonders what happened in those hours in between. What she was doing. How she ended up wet. Why that house, so far away..

According to the video it was "several blocks." According to tlc's googling of the addy's it was 8/10's of a mile.

 

[KindraLore]

According to the video it was "several blocks." According to tlc's googling of the addy's it was 8/10's of a mile.

Let me rephrase what my thought process was. If you are looking for help, AT LEAST 40 houses away if not more is a long ways away. Did she knock on other doors between where the accident was and where she was shot? If not, why? Why walk that far? Where did she go initially when she left and why did she return and then leave again...

If you are talking about a three hour time span of both incidents occurring, then it is not far at all. It would have taken maybe 30 minutes at most if you were walking slow. What was she doing all of that time? Why was she wet?

 

[Elainera]

I think the title of this thread should be changed. We don't know, nobody does, whether she was trying to get help, or thought this was her house and tried to get in, or what exactly went on in her mind.

 

[KindraLore]

I think the title of this thread should be changed. We don't know, nobody does, whether she was trying to get help, or thought this was her house and tried to get in, or what exactly went on in her mind.

I completely agree at this point. Those were early reports coming from her family. None of that has been proven, nor do I think it can be with all the details we know now. No one will probably ever know exactly what was going on and why she ended up there. I dont think it was to get help though. They told her to stay at the accident scene, that they had called for help and she left, came back and left again. I think she feared being in trouble for the accident and drinking and in an inebriated state, decided she was not going to stick around for that. What transpired afterwards and her line of thinking will probably never be known.