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

[Karmady]

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?

Sorry, I guess I have a way of sounding like I don't get it. lol Was just sayin' it wasn't THAT far for someone missing for hours. I agree with you. I have my thoughts about where she was and why during that time frame. But unless there are other eyewitnesses, we'll probably never know.

 

[Karmady]

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.

Oh, me too! I didn't realize that was in the thread title. Even the msm is reporting that her family are the ones saying she was trying to get help. Which, of course, they have no way of knowing since they weren't there and her phone was dead. Ridiculous, imo.

 

[Zuri]

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?

IMO these are really good questions. The only thing I can speculate to is the reason why she was wet. I am thinking she may have been incontinent given her BAC. Having seen my fair share of intoxicated patients with an elevated BAC, which was probably higher when she had her MVC, almost if not all were incontinent. JMO

 

[KindraLore]

IMO these are really good questions. The only thing I can speculate to is the reason why she was wet. I am thinking she may have been incontinent given her BAC. Having seen my fair share of intoxicated patients with an elevated BAC, which was probably higher when she had her MVC, almost if not all were incontinent. JMO

If Im not mistaken, the autopsy report said all her clothes were wet though.

 

[KindraLore]

I think when people expire, the body expels the bladder and such. Its a normal process and would not even be mentioned in the autopsy report. I recollect that all her clothes were wet and obviously they thought that may of significance so they noted it.

 

[Karmady]

IMO these are really good questions. The only thing I can speculate to is the reason why she was wet. I am thinking she may have been incontinent given her BAC. Having seen my fair share of intoxicated patients with an elevated BAC, which was probably higher when she had her MVC, almost if not all were incontinent. JMO

Hi Zuri :seeya: The shooting was about three hours after the accident iirc. Doesn't bac peak about 2 hours after ingestion. In that case, her bac at the time of the accident or shortly after (depending on when she left where she'd been drinking) would have been a good bit higher probably within an hour of the accident? Assuming she'd recently left where she'd been drinking when she hit the parked car. In that case, very high during the time period she's unaccounted for.

jmo

 

[KindraLore]

Oh, me too! I didn't realize that was in the thread title. Even the msm is reporting that her family are the ones saying she was trying to get help. Which, of course, they have no way of knowing since they weren't there and her phone was dead. Ridiculous, imo.

Speaking of her phone, I read it was missing. I wonder if it was found. I also wonder if maybe the family said her phone died because she called them right after it happened and then it died. I think her cell phone records may end up telling that story, or if she called anyone else...

Three plus hours is a long time. Someone may have even picked her up and then dropped her off again for whatever reason. Again, so many questions, hard to say until we know more info.

 

[Sherp]

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.

I agree he was way overcharged with M2. That will come back and bite this Prosecutor too. How does anyone know if this woman was seeking help? She had already refused help twice at the scene of the accident and encouraged by bystanders to wait for the ambulance. With a .22 BA lever, 3 hours after the car crash, what was it at the time of the incident? No one knows her purpose for choosing that house and that door let alone her intentions. She was over 2X the legal limit. Did his gun discharge while he was muddled from awaking? Maybe!!!
I think the phone records will be illuminating.

 

[liljim]

i think the argument is going to be, as discussed up thread, that the only thing you need to consider is what happened after he opened the door.

if he knows his outer door is locked, if she isnt actively trying to come thru the screen or known to be holding some sort of weapon, then a person can conclude, based on evidence that we have not seen much of yet, that he had no reason to fear for his life/great bodily harm/her imminent entry into his home.

i believe there will be something in his statement that will support this, at least i would hope so or maybe he has been overcharged...

i hear noises that sound like a break-in in the middle of the night,
instead of calling 911 i decide to arm myself and investigate immediately = ok by law.

choose to open my door to see what is going on on my property, instead of staying inside = ok by law.

choose to aim my weapon at someone i find on my property and interrogate them as to what they are doing = ok by law.

firing my weapon at the person either purposefully or accidentally = not necessarily ok by law unless i have an honest and reasonable fear that they are about to kill or serious injure me, or that they are in the process of trying to gain entry to my house in which case i am automatically given the benefit of the doubt that it is reasonable to assume grave danger will follow.

so if i do end up firing my weapon and injuring/killing the person it is up to a prosecutor to look at all the evidence and interrogate me to decide if i am being honest and reasonably feared these things.

 

[liljim]

but i will add this, i remember a case where someone was dressed up in a halloween costume and went to the wrong house for what he thought was a party, a man shot him claiming basically just that he looked weird and was moving in a strange manner, and he was found not guilty.

he admitted that the guy was not trying to get in the house or attack him, or so close to him as to be an imminent threat, just that he looked really weird and scary.

i dont know what state that was in tho so the particular laws there would obviously have a huge impact on the verdict. (hopefully i have not butchered the details of this case, i think that is pretty close)

 

[SwampMama]

but i will add this, i remember a case where someone was dressed up in a halloween costume and went to the wrong house for what he thought was a party, a man shot him claiming basically just that he looked weird and was moving in a strange manner, and he was found not guilty.

he admitted that the guy was not trying to get in the house or attack him, or so close to him as to be an imminent threat, just that he looked really weird and scary.

i dont know what state that was in tho so the particular laws there would obviously have a huge impact on the verdict. (hopefully i have not butchered the details of this case, i think that is pretty close)

Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yoshihiro Hattori (服部 剛丈 Hattori Yoshihiro?, November 22, 1975 – October 17, 1992) was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention."

I remember this case because it was local and thought of it also.

 

[Salem]

The Homeowner was charged with murder. Following LE's lead, we are NOT going to play "bash/blame the victim" here. Yes, it is true she probably made a few mistakes, but LE says it is a murder charge for now. We will see how that plays out.

Salem

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yoshihiro Hattori (服部 剛丈 Hattori Yoshihiro?, November 22, 1975 – October 17, 1992) was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention."

I remember this case because it was local and thought of it also.

I am not surprised at all that a jury in a state like Louisiana (It's likely all jury members owned guns or members of the NRA) would acquit a guy who killed a student from another country (non-American). I'm sure many could have predicted the outcome as soon as it went to trial.

Mr. Peairs had a history of fights and violent confrontations. He had once shot and killed a dog that had wandered into his yard and had threatened his wife’s ex-husband with a gun. Not too long before his truck had been stolen off the property and had never been found.

How nice..

ETA: No offense to Louisiana...There are many areas of the country where this is no way someone who is charged with this crime is going to be convicted "by his/her peers".

WOW....

"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."

 

[SwampMama]

"Gerald Thurswell, the attorney representing McBride's family, said that the fact McBride was intoxicated when she was shot "probably makes her less of a physical threat to anybody."

This is simply not true. As a first responder, I can absolutely state that when dealing with someone , alcohol makes them much more unpredictable, more aggressive, harder to deal with and more a threat to the person trying to assist them. Not bashing the victim here, simply stating the facts as a first responder and the wife of a first responder who has dealt with hundreds of inebriated subjects.

 

[Karmady]

"Gerald Thurswell, the attorney representing McBride's family, said that the fact McBride was intoxicated when she was shot "probably makes her less of a physical threat to anybody."

This is simply not true. As a first responder, I can absolutely state that when dealing with someone , alcohol makes them much more unpredictable, more aggressive, harder to deal with and more a threat to the person trying to assist them. Not bashing the victim here, simply stating the facts as a first responder and the wife of a first responder who has dealt with hundreds of inebriated subjects.

It tells me that the prosecutors' office and the family's attorney are in close contact. How counterintuitive is it that the pros waits to charge for the tox report and when it comes back with a ridiculous BAC they charge the homeowner with murder two and the family's lawyer AND the prosecutor say that the tox is irrelevant to the charge. If so, than why wait for the tox?

jmo

 

[Rumpole]

i think the argument is going to be, as discussed up thread, that the only thing you need to consider is what happened after he opened the door.

if he knows his outer door is locked, if she isnt actively trying to come thru the screen or known to be holding some sort of weapon, then a person can conclude, based on evidence that we have not seen much of yet, that he had no reason to fear for his life/great bodily harm/her imminent entry into his home.

i believe there will be something in his statement that will support this, at least i would hope so or maybe he has been overcharged...

i hear noises that sound like a break-in in the middle of the night,
instead of calling 911 i decide to arm myself and investigate immediately = ok by law.

choose to open my door to see what is going on on my property, instead of staying inside = ok by law.

choose to aim my weapon at someone i find on my property and interrogate them as to what they are doing = ok by law.

firing my weapon at the person either purposefully or accidentally = not necessarily ok by law unless i have an honest and reasonable fear that they are about to kill or serious injure me, or that they are in the process of trying to gain entry to my house in which case i am automatically given the benefit of the doubt that it is reasonable to assume grave danger will follow.

so if i do end up firing my weapon and injuring/killing the person it is up to a prosecutor to look at all the evidence and interrogate me to decide if i am being honest and reasonably feared these things.

Thanks I like the your analysis... and I agree.
(Hope you don't mind my quoting you)

 

[Rumpole]

Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yoshihiro Hattori (服部 剛丈 Hattori Yoshihiro?, November 22, 1975 – October 17, 1992) was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention."

I remember this case because it was local and thought of it also.

Thanks for the case reference... it's new to me... but interesting comparison to this case.

 

[redheadedgal]

Those of us on the board who know Detroit, can attest to the fact that there are many, many good things about the city.

tiger's games, wing's games (before they axed downey lol), greektown, mexicantown, sommerset mall, outdoor concerts at the COPA and DTE, the science center/IMAX, theaters galore, target fireworks...

i can't wait to get back home :loveyou:

 

[jjenny]

"Gerald Thurswell, the attorney representing McBride's family, said that the fact McBride was intoxicated when she was shot "probably makes her less of a physical threat to anybody."

This is simply not true. As a first responder, I can absolutely state that when dealing with someone , alcohol makes them much more unpredictable, more aggressive, harder to deal with and more a threat to the person trying to assist them. Not bashing the victim here, simply stating the facts as a first responder and the wife of a first responder who has dealt with hundreds of inebriated subjects.

That statement by the lawyer made me roll my eyes. Up until now, I didn't realize that intoxicated persons are much more harmless than sober ones.

 

[jjenny]

Thanks for the case reference... it's new to me... but interesting comparison to this case.

Whether conviction can be achieved or not likely depends on the state it happened in. In some southern states there might be little chance of conviction no matter how outrageous the conduct of a homeowner killing someone was.