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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
As long as he does not walk cherry, I do not mind. I don't think he intended to shoot anyone that morning. But he knows better, to just shoot like that, without being attacked. Being scarred is a different feeling behind a Damn door, then having someone smash down your door, in your house.

He is not going to walk away from this, not with a Detroit jury. Even if he gets a very light sentence his life is ruined, he will be sued by the McBride family.

I think he was a very inexperienced firearms owner, his choice of a Mossberg 500 implies that (not the best firearm for home defense in tight quarters, I bought one 20 years ago and it would be my LAST go to gun in a crisis). Plus it appears he didn't "have a plan". When the adrenaline hits our brains slow down to a crawl and logic/strategy goes out the window (unless you have experience in combat situations).

The best plan in a home invasion is ALWAYS to sit tight and let the threat come to you, once it begins to enter the house shoot through doors/walls etc...to eliminate the threat. Course if there are loved ones in the house that changes the plan considerably if you can't gather them all up.

He didn't realize that he wouldn't be able to rationalize clearly in a crisis of that nature.
 
i saw several people say his story changed but didn't see specific examples olf this - could someone please post how his story changed (ie quotes from him in MSM please)

i dont remember this from the threads when hte story first broke and the weeks after, thanx.
 
Years ago in CA the castle doctrine law was very clear! It's fairly simple even now: if a person crosses over your threshold or enters your home even one foot you can shoot. I don't believe for a second she tried to gain entry. And I don't believe he acted I. Self defense, nor should the castle doctrine apply. This is voluntary manslaughter IMO. Poss 2nd degree.

that house looks remarkably like her house, i have not seen the evidence that has developed since the threads were closed here - is there anyone else set to testify she knocked at their door?

given her condition, the lost time, the car accident, and the simlarity of the houses - i dont find it hard to believe that she may have been trying to get in. and that has nothing to do with whether or not i think his actions were justified, or morally defensible, or anything else.
 
I am on the fence still. But a couple things are making me lean towards the old man's defense a little. :fence:

One, there were a few people at the accident scene offering HELP to Renisha. So I don't believe she was knocking on his door for help.

Two, the rumors that she thought it was HER home, make me wonder if she wasn't demanding to be let in. If she were making a ruckus, pushing or kicking at the door, yelling LET ME IN....I might shoot too.
 
"In 2006, Michigan adopted the "Castle Doctrine" which loosely means a "man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it". The law is found in MCL 780.951. The Law states..."

http://www.metrodetroitcriminallawy...it-criminal-lawyer-michigans-castle-doctrine/

"So what does this mean? It means you no longer have to retreat from your own home and you no longer have to worry about the person breaking into your home suing you if you use deadly force. The law creates a presumption that you can use deadly force if you have an honest a reasonable belief that you are in danger of,

1) Imminent death;

2) Great bodily harm; and/or

3) Sexual assault to yourself or another person.

If another person is breaking into your home or business, or unlawfully trying to remove you from your home, you can use deadly force. However there are some constraints and the presumption will not apply in these circumstances:

1) Someone who has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business and there is no a PPO or other protective order against that person

2) 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.

3) You are in the commission of a crime yourself.

4) Law enforcement who enter your premises in the performance of his or her official duties.

5) Your spouse, former spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, former girlfriend/boyfriend, baby momma/baby daddy, resident or former resident, and the person using deadly force has a history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

If none of the 5 above constraints apply, then you will have the benefit of the doubt in a court of law . That means the prosecutor will have to show evidence that you were not in fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault. Remember, you must actually believe any of these three threats exist and it must be reasonable under the circumstances. That means a jury could decide, after hearing all the facts, what a reasonable person would have done in your situation. This is why it is important to present the facts carefully to a jury.

If you acted in self-defense in your home or business, and are still charged, it is extremely important to hire an attorney that practices in criminal law to prepare your defense and prepare for trial. "
 
that house looks remarkably like her house, i have not seen the evidence that has developed since the threads were closed here - is there anyone else set to testify she knocked at their door?

given her condition, the lost time, the car accident, and the simlarity of the houses - i dont find it hard to believe that she may have been trying to get in. and that has nothing to do with whether or not i think his actions were justified, or morally defensible, or anything else.

That's an interesting observation. I haven't seen the homes yet. Can you please post photos or links? TIA :thinking:
 
I am on the fence still. But a couple things are making me lean towards the old man's defense a little. :fence:

One, there were a few people at the accident scene offering HELP to Renisha. So I don't believe she was knocking on his door for help.

Two, the rumors that she thought it was HER home, make me wonder if she wasn't demanding to be let in. If she were making a ruckus, pushing or kicking at the door, yelling LET ME IN....I might shoot too.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/renisha-mcbride-shooting-trial_n_5607098.html

It's not clear what happened to McBride from that time until she arrived at Wafer's home around 4:30 a.m. They didn't know each other, and Carpenter said no words were exchanged before the shooting. Prosecutors said she likely saw the glow from Wafer's television, which was still on, and probably decided to seek help.
 

They do look similar, then again it appears all of the houses in that area look very similar (all brick with white trim).

Every year there is a story about a drunk that tries to enter the wrong house/apartment when their key won't work and they get shot to death, usually they try to enter quietly as to not wake up the neighborhood, and get shot coming in through a window. In this case she was demanding to be let in, I wonder what she was saying exactly?
 
They do look similar, then again it appears all of the houses in that area look very similar (all brick with white trim).

Every year there is a story about a drunk that tries to enter the wrong house/apartment when their key won't work and they get shot to death, usually they try to enter quietly as to not wake up the neighborhood, and get shot coming in through a window. In this case she was demanding to be let in, I wonder what she was saying exactly?

according to the defense opening statement NO WORDS were spoken
 
They do look similar, then again it appears all of the houses in that area look very similar (all brick with white trim).

Every year there is a story about a drunk that tries to enter the wrong house/apartment when their key won't work and they get shot to death, usually they try to enter quietly as to not wake up the neighborhood, and get shot coming in through a window. In this case she was demanding to be let in, I wonder what she was saying exactly?

Thanks, I was just looking at the homes on google earth and they are both corner properties with the same design. It' possible, having nearly three times the legal limit BAC, that she mistook it for her own.

It wasn't far yet it took her 3 hours to go .5 miles...

http://mapq.st/1Apj9xA
 
100_3243.jpg
Accident scene Bramell St.
(The car was captured parked out front by google earth.)
 
I watched a man testify that RM was supposed to visit him that day and that he lived nearby the crash scene. Anyone get that location? Perhaps that's where she was headed. Also, where was her phone located? Someone had to have seen her walking on Warren that night. That's a main road, no? Time to take a 'google walk' down warren... I bet there's cameras.

Video:
1st witness, says he worked with her at the Temp job. They met up a few times, only drank together once.
Friday Night 6-7pm he called her for a ride home after work. (he had texted her earlier from work)
She said she was on the 'east side'.
"I stay on W. Warren. Between Southfield freeway and Evergreen.
She was supposed to come over to his house around 9-10pm.
Talked to her around 9pm she was intoxicated. He told her to 'be careful' (on the east side). He thought someone slipped something in her drink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuO_PxD9xhE
 
I watched a man testify that RM was supposed to visit him that day and that he lived nearby the crash scene. Anyone get that location? Perhaps that's where she was headed. Also, where was her phone located? Someone had to have seen her walking on Warren that night. That's a main road, no? Time to take a 'google walk' down warren... I bet there's cameras.

An officer testified that Renisha's cellphone phone was found in the front seat area of her car and that it was plugged in
 
Walking down Warren, she would have passed two bars that would have been open.

100_3281.jpg

100_3278.jpg

There are also 2 liquor stores and a deli, don't know the hours. Multiple auto service shops, with barbed wire that may also have cameras.

Although she finished drinking with her friend at 9pm, her BAC at 4am was .218% so she must have continued drinking into the evening. Was anyone interviewed to see if she was in any of these nearby locations between 1 and 4 am?
 
I watched a man testify that RM was supposed to visit him that day and that he lived nearby the crash scene. Anyone get that location? Perhaps that's where she was headed. Also, where was her phone located? Someone had to have seen her walking on Warren that night. That's a main road, no? Time to take a 'google walk' down warren... I bet there's cameras.

I believe the man you are talking about is on the stand right now

tweets from courtroom read from bottom up


  • At that time last year, he was living on West Warren between Southfield and Evergreen.
    by Gina Damron 9:52 AM
    ↑
    0

  • e3b05046-ac9b-40ff-ab42-c4f83cb28053.jpg
    Bynes testified that McBride did not pick him up from work. He had plans to see her at Nov. 1. He said he was having a small gathering at his house.
    by Gina Damron 9:51 AM
    ↑
    0

 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,279
Total visitors
1,390

Forum statistics

Threads
600,050
Messages
18,103,101
Members
230,976
Latest member
jessiw1234
Back
Top