Attempted to get help after car crash, shot in back of head with shotgun.

11/7/2013 12:05:16 PM

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131105/METRO01/311050098/1409/METRO/Family-slain-Detroit-woman-seeks-answers-about-incident

While I'm sure there's more to it than this, I don't understand how someone knocking on your door at night leads to you shooting her. In Stand Your Ground cases, do you have to announce your intent to shoot or anything like that? My understanding was that it's supposed to be clear and present danger, not someone on your property

11/7/2013 12:09:05 PM

^bc Dearborn is a sundown town, and she wasn't white

11/7/2013 12:33:20 PM

and now that she's dead, he can make up any story he wants

11/7/2013 12:35:18 PM

There is no duty to announce.

There is also no right to shoot someone knocking on your door.

Reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury.

Where people fail to read into the law is "reasonable fear". It's not just that someone says, "I thought that person was going to kill me". It's more complex than that.

11/7/2013 12:46:15 PM

Holy crap

11/7/2013 12:58:46 PM

Quote :

" In Stand Your Ground cases, do you have to announce your intent to shoot or anything like that?"

I don't know the details of any Michigan laws, but the usual wording of SYG laws, where they exist, say something like the shooter has to be under the imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm as judged by a reasonable person. You don't have to say anything. Drawing a weapon usually states your intentions very clearly.

Since this presumably occurred on the shooters front porch, Castle Doctrine laws may come into play. In the case of NC, you can automatically assuming an intruder is a deadly threat if they're IN your house when they're not supposed to be (your car and place of business also). I don't know if MI has such a law and it would probably be a legal magic trick to make it apply to someone who's just knocking at your door. I know in the case of NC, they have to be in your home or, I think, in the process of unlawfully entering.

Whatever the relevant law, there isn't enough detail given in the news article linked above to make any determination as to whether this shooting was justified or not. She could have been raging on PCP and kicking the person's door down or the shooter could have played a game of murder the black girl.

11/7/2013 12:59:13 PM

Quote :

"Black Woman murdered on porch"

Possibly. The homeowner is saying the gun went off accidentally which might mean a manslaughter charge or something else may be more relevant. Link:
http://www.freep.com/article/20131107/NEWS05/311070119/Renisha-McBride-shot-in-face-not-back-of-head-Dearborn-Heights

Quote :

"Attempted to get help after car crash, shot in back of head with shotgun."

Quote :

"“This girl was not shot in the back of the head while leaving the porch,” Serwatowski said “I don’t know where the family is getting this. She was shot in the front of the face, near the mouth.”"

Looks like you're probably incorrect about her being shot in the back of the head. All the more reason to let the investigators do their job before jumping to conclusions about what happened based on misinformation.


More from the link I posted:

Quote :

"“I know the family is anxious to see this man (the alleged shooter) charged but the prosecutor’s office is telling us they want a lot more information before they make a decision,” Serwatowski said."

Quote :

"The homeowner’s .12-gauge was seized by police and the Michigan State Police crime lab is analyzing it, Serwatowski said. Activists are planning to rally at 6 p.m. today outside the Dearborn Heights Police station over McBride’s death."

Jumping to conclusions and demanding action before a proper investigation has taken place. Great.

Quote :

"“Black life is not valued in America, not worthy, not respected,” said Detroit activist Yusef Shaker, who is helping lead the rally. “Here was a woman who was seeking help from potential danger and her life was taken...It's a Trayvon Martin case all over again.”"

It's nothing like the Trayvon Martin case at this point. Maybe in a month it will be, but no reasonable person would jump to that conclusion this early. The homeowner is not claiming stand your ground, the police have not ended their investigation without filing charges, this isn't the case of a minor being killed by an adult, etc.

[Edited on November 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM. Reason : l]

11/7/2013 4:46:22 PM

Today, he was convicted of second degree murder, and was sentenced to 15-30 years in prison.

I guess it is a little confusing to me how he claimed it was both and accident and self defense. Oh well.

9/3/2014 10:43:56 AM

I would guess he is basically claiming the reason he had the gun at the door was self defense, but it was an accident that the gun actually went off.

9/3/2014 10:53:09 AM

Yeah, I understand that. It is just that typically when I think of self defense as a legal defense, it is in reference to the act of shooting....not pulling a gun out.

9/3/2014 10:58:39 AM

sounds like justice was served. or was this a make-up call for the trayvon martin case???

9/3/2014 11:04:36 AM

Definitely justice.

With great power comes great responsibility...

Random gun question, but do shotguns just accidentally "go off" like that? I can see myself getting a shotgun when I move into my new house, but that seems pretty concerning...

9/3/2014 11:29:18 AM

To me, the most compelling piece of evidence is that it is the back of the head.
It makes no sense, and it speaks for itself. If she was departing his porch, let her depart, and freakin' close and lock your door and move on in life. Human life is valuable, and as the jury has spoken, it was a murder.

9/3/2014 11:30:53 AM

Quote :

"Random gun question, but do shotguns just accidentally "go off" like that?"

i mean any gun can randomly "go off" if you pull the trigger.

from the old link Skack posted:

Quote :

"The rally is about “recognizing the value of a woman and the value of a black person,” Shaker said."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

9/3/2014 11:40:31 AM

I had never heard of this case and googled a few articles. Interestingly, I read several before coming across this bit of info about the case:

Quote :

"It was about 4:40 a.m. in the morning. McBride, whom the medical examiner said had a .21 blood-alcohol level and marijuana in her system, struck a parked car and fled the scene blocks away nearly four hours earlier. Wafer said McBride pounded violently on his front and side doors, he feared it was multiple home invaders outside attempting to enter and potentially kill him. "

I'm not condoning him having a shotgun, or him using his shotgun, but I think we're all really quick to judge another person's actions when in a flight or fight scenario. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I woke up to that. Probably lock myself in my bathroom and hope I brought my cell phone with me. But then again, I'm not a man, who owns and "knows how" to use a gun, who has also experienced rising crime in my neighborhood.

I have these same thoughts whenever I hear 911 calls played in murder trials. Until you're in that scenario, is it preposterous to make judgements (and God forbid, use that as "evidence" and a basis for a conclusion if you're on a jury) about what you would or would not do/say/sound like if that scenario were to happen to you. We are all wired differently, shaped differently by our experiences, and our instincts and visceral reactions can manifest in unpredictable and often "irrational" ways.

All that said, for all I know this guy could've been a flaming racist who just wanted to feel what it felt like to take someone else's life.

9/3/2014 12:12:48 PM

yeah, this is a tough situation especially these days.

everyone's worst fear is hearing a loud noise in the middle of the night, so your body goes into full alert/defensive mode. all i know is that it would suck to lay there dying, and in your last moments having wished you'd fired first instead of worrying about whether you'd be prosecuted or not, especially if you opened up the door and saw this:

9/3/2014 12:26:45 PM

It doesn't really matter what you would or wouldn't do; what matters is the law says you can't kill people that aren't a direct threat to you. While it's understandable that he might have panicked, it doesn't excuse his shooting and killing someone he never had contact with.

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 12:30 PM. Reason : v exactly]

9/3/2014 12:27:44 PM

^^i'm pretty sure you wouldn't be prosecuted if you shot that guy in the pic on your porch.

And in most situations where someone is banging on your door in 4 in the morning, it's probably best to not open the door and just call the cops.

9/3/2014 12:29:30 PM

Quote :

"that aren't a direct threat to you"

so a (possibly belligerent) dark figure (presuming he couldn't see her, and/or didn't have the time to make her acquaintance) banging on your side and front door at 4:30 in the morning, needs to be the first one to pull out their weapon or lunge at you before you're allowed to feel threatened?

Quote :

"someone he never had contact with."

wut

Quote :

"And in most situations where someone is banging on your door in 4 in the morning, it's probably best to not open the door and just call the cops."

I don't disagree.

but just to play devils advocate...lets say he had accidentally left one of his doors unlocked. as he was on the phone with police, she, in her drunken stupor, decided to enter the home. at that point would he be justified in shooting her? or does he still have to wait for her to draw her weapon?

9/3/2014 12:33:37 PM

Quote :

"so a (possibly belligerent) dark figure (presuming he couldn't see her, and/or didn't have the time to make her acquaintance) banging on your side and front door at 4:30 in the morning, needs to be the first one to pull out their weapon or lunge at you before you're allowed to feel threatened?"

Yes or make an actual threatening gesture and not "I heard loud noises that could have been someone trying to get in."

To my knowledge, the guy never met Renisha McBride face to face; he shot through the door. The "contact" he had with her was by proxy. By bullet.

^when she attacked or gestured in a threatening matter. You know...like cops are supposed to do.

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2014 12:39:35 PM

The law seems to be designed, rightly, to discourage people from being panicky, paranoid, and impulsive.

Just because this man's instinct was abject fear, and wanting to kill someone doesn't mean he should legally be allowed to act on this impulse. We all have different proclivities to certain behavior, but this doesn't mean as a society we should accept peoples' impulses, especially when they may lead to an innocent person being skilled.

9/3/2014 12:54:19 PM

Agree completely

9/3/2014 12:57:26 PM

Quote :

"so a (possibly belligerent) dark figure (presuming he couldn't see her, and/or didn't have the time to make her acquaintance) banging on your side and front door at 4:30 in the morning, needs to be the first one to pull out their weapon or lunge at you before you're allowed to feel threatened"

Lethal force laws vary by state, but in general: lethal force is justifiably used if a reasonable person believes that they are in imminent danger of death, serious injury, or sexual assault. There is no requirement for the perpetrator to be armed with any type of object. Shooting through a closed door can, and is often, deemed justified, provided that the perpetrator is in the act of entering illegally. Simply banging on a door and screaming does not meet these standards. Any threat is deemed subsided if the perpetrator attempts to flee.

Quote :

"but just to play devils advocate...lets say he had accidentally left one of his doors unlocked. as he was on the phone with police, she, in her drunken stupor, decided to enter the home. at that point would he be justified in shooting her? or does he still have to wait for her to draw her weapon?"

In many states, yes, he would be justified in using lethal force during the illegal entry or during the trespassing, if he believes he is at imminent danger of death, serious injury, or sexual assault. Again, use of lethal force in self defense has nothing to do with an armed perpetrator.

As shown in this case, for this state, simply banging on a door and yelling at 4:30 in the morning does not grant the use of lethal force, as a reasonable person would not assume that they are in imminent danger of death, serious injury, or sexual assault.

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM. Reason : /]

9/3/2014 1:02:47 PM

If she was driving with a .21 BAC running in to parked cars she could have just as easily killed a totally innocent person (or more than one really), and would have gotten less time for it!

I am not saying she deserved what happened to her, but no one knows what the guy was thinking when his house was being pounded on at 4am.

9/3/2014 1:12:29 PM

^BUt that's the point... it's irrelevant what he was thinking. Nothing he could have thought puts his behavior within the bounds of the law, considering the alleged actions of the woman.

9/3/2014 1:19:08 PM

Quote :

"Again, use of lethal force in self defense has nothing to do with an armed perpetrator. "

come again?

9/3/2014 1:27:43 PM

I'm not sure what the confusion is. Is this a new concept to you? A person doesn't have to be armed in order to use lethal force against them if they are threatening death, serious injury, or sexual assault.

9/3/2014 1:29:01 PM

I feel like it was just worded very weird.


maybe this would have been clearer:

Quote :

"Again, use of lethal force in self defense has nothing to do with a perpetrator being armed."

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM. Reason : k]

9/3/2014 3:43:35 PM

but it also doesn't matter if the perp has arms or not.

9/3/2014 3:45:27 PM

Something I've been wondering about the whole lethal force and fleeing thing. If someone breaks into your house, sexually assaults or murders your family member (significant other, child, whatever) and flees, but you don't catch them until they are fleeing, would you be charged with murder if you shot them? And how much of a difference would it make whether they are on vs. off your property?

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2014 7:07:27 PM

Yes, you could be charged with murder. The use of lethal force is to stop the imminent threat. Once the threat has subsided, there is no justification for the use of lethal force. Of course, this is always up to the DA to charge you and up to a jury of your peers to find you guilty.

On your property or not generally doesn't matter for this particular situation.

9/3/2014 7:15:35 PM

fleeing makes me think you would be shooting them in the back, which is almost never allowed

only if they were on top of a family member assaulting them i imagine

9/3/2014 7:30:14 PM

I don't know of any (enforced) "shooting in the back" law. It's all about the imminent threat or lack there of. Often time, a shot in the back is potential evidence of fleeing, but not always.*

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 7:40 PM. Reason : *I say (enforced) because some state may have an old law related to being a gentleman in a duel.]

9/3/2014 7:39:17 PM

Quote :

"Random gun question, but do shotguns just accidentally "go off" like that?"

[NO]

I mean, it is possible for certain gun designs to fire if dropped, but it's rare and almost exclusively very old designs. There are also "slam fires", which are also pretty rare, and often due to adjusting trigger pulls to be overly light to the point that it disengages accidentally (some rifles like my Savage target rifle are designed such that even this is impossible; if you set the trigger too light and it disengages, it does so without releasing the firing pin). There are some other really oddball ways for things like this to happen, such as putting pointy rifle ammunition in a rifle with a tubular magazine.

All of those things are exceedingly rare, and often the realm of antique and/or odd/not "pedestrian" firearms.

If you get a regular shotgun and keep your fucking finger off the trigger, it won't fire. If you keep it pointed in a safe direction, it won't be a catastrophe even if it does.

I actually have come around to believing that an AR-15 makes a better home-defense weapon than a shotgun does, for several reasons. One of the big ones is that overpenetration is less of an issue-you're less likely to hurt or kill someone halfway across the house (or in a neighbor's house) with an AR. It also recoils much less and holds many, many more shots, allowing numerous follow-up shots if the first shot doesn't work or there are multiple intruders.

___________________________________________________________________

Stand-your-ground and castle doctrine laws specify that there is no duty to retreat (or when and where there is). In other words, without duty to retreat, you can use deadly force if you reasonably feel that your life or significant bodily harm is threatened, and you don't have to make every effort to flee the situation before responding with that force. That doesn't mean you have to wait until you're beaten half to death; that doesn't mean the assailant needs to be armed, or bigger than you, or whatever.

However, it absolutely doesn't mean that it's reasonable to shoot people just because they knock on your door in the middle of the night.

I mean, I guess it's possible that if she was ripshit drunk and acting belligerent, a scenario could develop where it would be reasonable to shoot her, but it can't just be "Knock knock." "Shit, it's 4 am? Smoke that bitch."

9/3/2014 7:56:59 PM

there was a thread a while back about a girl who had escaped some kind of attacker/rapist/whatever and was naked and beating on somebody's door hysterically. i don't recall the outcome, but i remember i said i would not open the door and folks called me a heartless asshole.

9/3/2014 8:01:58 PM

Yep, I remember that.

You know, I don't know what I'd do. I guess I'd make that call at the time. I'd definitely go to the door with my AR.

Now, that's interesting that the collective opinion then was that you're wrong if you don't answer the door, and now it's "you're a dumbass if you do." Is that due to race consciously or not? Is that due to the first one being a true victim, and the second one being mostly a dumbass who caused her own trouble? Is it colored by the fact that the second one ended poorly?

9/3/2014 8:10:18 PM

either way, i'm calling the law and keeping the door shut

9/3/2014 8:20:36 PM

If someone were knocking on my door at 4:30 in the morning, I'd get a gun ready, call the cops, and wait inside. I really don't want my daughter growing up with her father in the state pen. And this guy? 15 to 30 years doesn't seem like justice to me, because once he ticks over to 15, he's out. He'll probably get out early for good behavior.

And when I say inside, I mean somewhere other than around the door.

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 8:33 PM. Reason : asdfas]

9/3/2014 8:26:10 PM

lucky for me, I live on the third floor of my house and can't hear SHIT up here, so if someone (drunkard OR rapist) needs my attention, they're just going to have to break in and make their way to my room

9/3/2014 8:49:55 PM

Quote :

"I actually have come around to believing that an AR-15 makes a better home-defense weapon than a shotgun does, for several reasons. One of the big ones is that overpenetration is less of an issue-you're less likely to hurt or kill someone halfway across the house (or in a neighbor's house) with an AR."

are you saying a bullet from an ar-15 is not as violent as shot from a shotgun? i don't know much about guns, but this blows my mind.

^ (totally serious question) once they're in your room you're definitely allowed to shoot them right?

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ^]

9/3/2014 8:59:14 PM

^read this: http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/index.html

9/3/2014 9:03:27 PM

supposedly #4 buck is the best home defense shotgun load

each pellet is about .22

there are typically 27 - 34 of them

over-penetration is minimized but still retains knockdown power

the FBI did some study years ago and it was their preferred load

[Edited on September 3, 2014 at 9:18 PM. Reason : -]

9/3/2014 9:16:33 PM

Quote :

"^ (totally serious question) once they're in your room you're definitely allowed to shoot them right?"

according to these folks I have to wait til they're actually raping me to shoot

It's probably for the best, I'm nearly blind without my contacts and it's dark as fuck in my room so I'd probably miss anyway

But my roommates know not to come upstairs without calling me first for these reasons (I would probably tase them)

9/3/2014 9:22:08 PM

look, if youre about to get raped, shoot them

9/3/2014 9:26:06 PM

Damn, slappy1 is nearly blind without her contacts?

I'm hatching a plot to go swimming with her, make sure her contact gets washed out under water, and then....

Hit on that ho with a

Mask on.

9/3/2014 9:38:05 PM

Quote :

"according to these folks I have to wait til they're actually raping me to shoot"

According to what folks? Certainly not me, because this is not at all what I have said. Imminent threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault. Implies that said death, serious injury, or sexual assault has yet to occur, but could be assumed to occur at any moment in the very near future, according to the thoughts and fears of a reasonable person. That threat is all that is needed for use of lethal force.

9/4/2014 8:56:20 AM

so they just have to cross the threshold of the door, or in this case, my 3rd floor bedroom stairs.

what if I can't see their face to know if it's a rape-face or a lets-get-tacos face? do I still shoot? what if I *feel* like they're going to rape me, and they're coming at me, but they have in their backpack a bunch of tacos and had legitimately planned to surprise me with a fourth meal in bed? obviously, that was an error in judgement on their part because who breaks into a stranger's house at 4am to deliver them tacos...but still. uugh. hard call

9/4/2014 3:16:05 PM

I feel as though you are just trolling.

And this is getting into the details of state law. In some states, such an intruder in such a situation can be assumed to be posing said threat. In other states, this assumption can't be made. In those states, a simple case of trespassing does not warrant said threat and thus there is no justification for lethal force.

9/4/2014 3:19:28 PM

Quote :

"lucky for me, I live on the third floor of my house and can't hear SHIT up here, so if someone (drunkard OR rapist) needs my attention, they're just going to have to break in and make their way to my room"

I want to make my way to your room in the middle of the night and get your attention. I don't wanna break in, though.

What's your preferred load in this situation? Are you concerned about overpenetration?

9/4/2014 3:38:29 PM