19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[EagleKeeper]

The screen will have a hole in it and residue on it that proves that he shot through it.

So all this talk about the screen being popped is really irrelevant.

It will be very obvious that he shot through the closed screen door.

I think he should go back to his original claim of accidentally firing the shotgun, since the evidence seems to fit that a lot better.

A screen popped inward generates more legality that she was trying to get in. (Intent)

Morally, from all we know, she should not have been shot. However it is a legal situation, not a moral one.

There are some here that can not separate the two. Like the poster I previously quoted

 

[HumblePie]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jh...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-115

Michigan breaking and entry law.

The NON breaking part is a place open to the public that you are expressly forbidden to enter. For example a store kicks you out. During business hours the store is open to the public. If you enter that store that expressly kicked your ass out then you are guilty of entering without breaking for a public place. Breaking has NOTHING TO DO WITH FORCE when entering a building. Not even in the state of Michigan. This is the part that Rampant seems to be messing up on. Rampant you need to look up forcible entry. Opening a door, even an unlocked door, is legally considered FORCIBLE entry as the use of force of some level is required to open the door. Entering without breaking applies to an door left completely open and is normally open to the public. Entering without breaking or using forcible entry in that case is still a crime if you are been expressly told not to do so by the owner of the property.

Here is Michigan Castle Doctrine bill that was enacted.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0311.htm

One can use deadly force or force other than deadly if they have the presumption someone is trying to break and enter into a home.

It is quite clear in this case that if the homeowner thought she was attempting to break and enter into his home by Michigan law then he can use up to deadly force to stop her. If McBride open the storm door in an attempt to cross the threshold, which is the definition of breaking and entering in all 50 states, then he has the legal justification to shoot her dead.

While I do not condone that action in this instance, it is a legal thing he can do in that state. As in most states.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

As stated, the screen is replaced from the inside.

The shotgun blast would have ripped the screen outward; there should not be enough resistance to pull the screen frame out of the channel.

IF this goes to trial; the defense will be able to perform such a test.
IF the blast does not pop the screen; there is reasonable doubt created w/ regard to the girl pushing in on the screen

Agree.... Anyone out of their parents house who has touched any screen knows that there's no way for it to pop "outwards" from the frame. They always go inwards.

No way that any shotgun blast, period, would blow a screen outwards away from a house.


The reports states the screen popped out of the frame, it's fairly obvious that they mean it's simply out of the frame, NOT outwards of the house.


And morally.... I think this guy should sleep just fine at night. Yes, it was an accident, but certainly a justified one.

This is what happens when you go driving around at over 3x the DUI limit, wreck, wonder around for a few hours trying to evade the cops with hoodie in deep cover, then act like you're breaking into someone's home.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Guy you are not making sense here. It makes no reasonable sense to believe he went to bed with his front door open. Why are you and EK even putting forth this idea?

Of course it doesn't make any sense to you as you've already made up your mind that the homeowner is guilty.

When I was young and my parents didn't have a air conditioner they would leave the storm door open with the screen door locked and place a fan to pull the hot air out of the house. Having windows open throughout the house would allow cooler air to be pulled in.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Of course it doesn't make any sense to you as you've already made up your mind that the homeowner is guilty.

When I was young and my parents didn't have a air conditioner they would leave the storm door open with the screen door locked and place a fan to pull the hot air out of the house. Having windows open throughout the house would allow cooler air to be pulled in.

Well according to classy, bshole, and the rest of the crew you're essentially inviting in every thug burglar who walks by, and if they enter your home you are not allowed to defend yourself.

 

[waggy]

People do not leave a door open at 40 degrees. Maybe at 60.

we leave the screen door closed witht he main door open. though at 40? naaa.

for record i USED to leave windows open nearly all year. i used to love the bedroom as cold as i can.



Now i question was the door open by him? i haven't seen anything saying it was.

Of course it doesn't make any sense to you as you've already made up your mind that the homeowner is guilty.

When I was young and my parents didn't have a air conditioner they would leave the storm door open with the screen door locked and place a fan to pull the hot air out of the house. Having windows open throughout the house would allow cooler air to be pulled in.

Opps i forgot the screen door/storm door (leave me alone. i have only had 1 cup of coffee). I was thinking just the main door only. lol fuck../facepalm

sure we have left teh screen door closed and had the main door open.

 

[classy]

Of course it doesn't make any sense to you as you've already made up your mind that the homeowner is guilty.

When I was young and my parents didn't have a air conditioner they would leave the storm door open with the screen door locked and place a fan to pull the hot air out of the house. Having windows open throughout the house would allow cooler air to be pulled in.

Your point is completely invalid....just move on

 

[classy]

Well according to classy, bshole, and the rest of the crew you're essentially inviting in every thug burglar who walks by, and if they enter your home you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Show me that post where I even come close to even suggesting such a thing?

 

[waggy]

Your point is completely invalid....just move on

no it's not. its completely valid. now is it right? that is debatable.

You make claims like this and then you get pissy when people dismiss you.

 

[classy]

It is quite clear in this case that if the homeowner thought she was attempting to break and enter into his home by Michigan law then he can use up to deadly force to stop her. If McBride open the storm door in an attempt to cross the threshold, which is the definition of breaking and entering in all 50 states, then he has the legal justification to shoot her dead.

While I do not condone that action in this instance, it is a legal thing he can do in that state. As in most states.

Nothing suggests that this was the case. First of all the police stated very clearly, THE SCREEN DOOR WAS LOCKED. Second even if she opened the screen door and knocked on the Interior door that does not constitute an attempt to break and enter. I posted several cases that many of you have ignored and as I stated before signs of breaking and entering are not difficult to determine.

 

[bshole]

If McBride open the storm door in an attempt to cross the threshold, which is the definition of breaking and entering in all 50 states, then he has the legal justification to shoot her dead.

Um, the storm door was locked! This is a known fact. Why are you even debating if you weren't aware of this well established FACT.

You guys have REAL issues. Is it even possible for you to debate within the parameters of the known facts?

If you are going to make shit up, why not go whole hog? Why don't you claim she had a shotgun or something? That would be even more convincing, how could we rebutt you?

Just about everybody agrees that it would be a clean shoot IF she was trying to force her way into the house. So you just turn around and say she was trying to force her way into the house DESPITE the complete absence of any known evidence to back up your claim. And you do it for page after page, get called out on it, ignore the call out and carry on with your delusions. Really really reallly fucking weird.

 

[classy]

no it's not. its completely valid. now is it right? that is debatable.

You make claims like this and then you get pissy when people dismiss you.

Bleep you, the idea someone goes to sleep in 40 degree weather with the front door wide open is so stupid. And to reach this far for a straw to somehow build some mythical scenario just reinforces the reality, anything to show the dark person deserved it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Um, the storm door was locked! This is a known fact. Why are you even debating if you weren't aware of this well established FACT.

You guys have REAL issues. Is it even possible for you to debate within the parameters of the known facts?

If you are going to make up shit up, why not go whole hog? Why don't you claim she had a shotgun or something.

Just about everybody agrees that it would be a clean shoot IF she was trying to force her way into the house. So you just turn around and say she was trying to force her way into the house DESPITE the complete absence of any known evidence to back up your claim. And you do it for page after page, get called out on it, ignore the call out and carry on with your delusions. Really really reallly fucking weird.

So where do you draw the line? Do you need to get a waiver for a thug to sign that they were only selling girl scout cookies at 3am when they ripped your screen apart?

The bottom line is the majority of self defense laws revolve around reasonable perception. And it's certainly reasonable to think that a drunk and high person ripping apart your door has some bad intent towards your well-being.

 

[HumblePie]

Nothing suggests that this was the case. First of all the police stated very clearly, THE SCREEN DOOR WAS LOCKED. Second even if she opened the screen door and knocked on the Interior door that does not constitute an attempt to break and enter. I posted several cases that many of you have ignored and as I stated before signs of breaking and entering are not difficult to determine.

I didn't state in my last few posts as to any specifics of the case. I was pointing out the law of what it is to those that still seemed confused about what constitutes breaking and entering, forcible entry, and Michigan law in this case in regards to what is legal to use lethal force against.

However, as to specifics about the case, it is quite clear we don't have enough information yet to make an informed opinion beyond pure speculation. Be it you saying that the homeowner shooting was not justified or spidey saying it most certainly was justified; those are BOTH horrible forms of speculation at this point.

The law is quite clear on what can be used as lethal force in this case. The evidence so far given to the public does not show enough to sustain an objective enough of an opinion as to whether the homicide was justified or not legally speaking. Hindsight being 20/20 it was certainly not morally a good thing the homeowner did in shooting that young lady. Whether he gets off free and clear or not legally does not matter in one sense as he will forever have it on his conscious he shot someone he didn't need to shoot. That is going to be a heavy burden for most people.

 

[bshole]

So where do you draw the line? Do you need to get a waiver for a thug to sign that they were only selling girl scout cookies at 3am when they ripped your screen apart?

What the heck does that have to do with this case? If somebody is trying to force their way into your house, you can shoot them... end of story. The reason the man was charged in this case was because there was no evidence (according to the police) that the victim breaking into the house.

So I assume you believe the police are lying and tampering with evidence. If that is true, there must be a conspiracy underfoot. Why would all these policemen conspire against a man they don't know for shooting a woman they don't know? You know that 99% of all conspiracy theorists have been proven to be mentally ill, are you one of the sane 1%?

 

[Aegeon]

So where do you draw the line? Do you need to get a waiver for a thug to sign that they were only selling girl scout cookies at 3am when they ripped your screen apart?

The bottom line is the majority of self defense laws revolve around reasonable perception. And it's certainly reasonable to think that a drunk and high person ripping apart your door has some bad intent towards your well-being.

The fact of the matter is right now all the evidence in the case contradicts this claim of yours.

Unless evidence supporting the claim comes out, the reality is right now it appears to be a situation where she came nowhere close to actually getting through the door, (in fact we essentially lack evidence she even tried to enter rather than merely bang on the door) and the man could have shut and locked the door and called 911 if he was alarmed by the situation. (If she truly started breaking through the door and disregarding his warning at that point he would be justified in shooting at that point.)

You and Spidey seem to be arguing for a situation where the home self defense laws are so permissive they effectively allow someone to murder someone in cold blood and get away with it if they can lure someone to come their front door late at night and later claim they shot the person in self defense when that person tried to force his/her way in. (Assuming no witnesses can actually contradict this.) At most this would require slightly denting the front screen door from the outside in advance of making a call to the intended victim to make things look more convincing, although you seem to be potentially arguing that even this is not needed.

Even purely from a public safety standpoint there are reasons the laws are going to require a certain standard for lethal force to be justified.

 

[fleshconsumed]

God you and eaglekeeper above are really clutching at straws.

Why are you so eager to defend a killer? Do you think someone pushing a screen door to the point that its dislodged deserves to be shot in the face? Keeping your door open when it's 40* outside? LOL.

WTF is wrong with you people? Don't you have empathy or compassion? Why not wait for the facts to be revealed instead of clutching at straws to defend this gun nut?

Fucking psychopaths. Go get yourself checked by a psychologist proto.

In the grand picture, you're just the other side of the coin. The point of the trial is to determine what actually happened and dish out punishment if appropriate. Some people formed an opinion that the shooter acted in self defense before the trial. You formed an opinion that he is a murderer before the actual trial and all the fact discovery. Right now, your opinion is no more valid than theirs, yet you act as if they're psychos, and you're not? Like I said, you're just the other side of the coin, except you also add self righteous note to it.

 

[bshole]

In the grand picture, you're just the other side of the coin. The point of the trial is to determine what actually happened and dish out punishment if appropriate. Some people formed an opinion that the shooter acted in self defense before the trial. You formed an opinion that he is a murderer before the actual trial and all the fact discovery. Right now, your opinion is no more valid than theirs, yet you act as if they're psychos, and you're not? Like I said, you're just the other side of the coin, except you also add self righteous note to it.

Not quite, he's basing his arguments on published FACTS. The other side is basing their arguments on CRAP they make up in their own imaginations. He provides links and quotes to back up his arguments, the others side just speculates.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

What the heck does that have to do with this case? If somebody is trying to force their way into your house, you can shoot them... end of story. The reason the man was charged in this case was because there was no evidence (according to the police) that the victim breaking into the house.

So I assume you believe the police are lying and tampering with evidence. If that is true, there must be a conspiracy underfoot. Why would all these policemen conspire against a man they don't know for shooting a woman they don't know? You know that 99% of all conspiracy theorists have been proven to be mentally ill, are you one of the sane 1%?

Based on the fact that the screen was popped out of its frame, it seems pretty obvious that she appeared to look like she was breaking into his home.


=good shoot.


Maybe more evidence will come out which could change my mind.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

the man could have shut and locked the door and called 911 if he was alarmed by the situation.

I agree, adults are really just big children who have no right to make big decisions.

What he should have done was call the police, and spent the ensuing 15-20 minutes hoping someone else would do something to protect him and his.

 

[Aegeon]

I agree, adults are really just big children who have no right to make big decisions.

What he should have done was call the police, and spent the ensuing 15-20 minutes hoping someone else would do something to protect him and his.

You appear to support lawless vigilantism for petty reasons.

If someone alarms you in any way, rather than shutting the door again and shooting if they truly persist in breaking in before cops arrive as I indisputably noted was the option before the selective partial quoting of my previous post, you can just go ahead and blow them away before finding out if they are simply urgently asking for help, (and may have very good reasons for doing so) or at least will promptly stop once they realize they are at the wrong house or the like.

The fact of the matter is cops have training the average citizen does not, and can and often do take steps such as wrestling a suspect to the ground (especially with backup) or tazering them and then arresting them rather than shooting them. For that matter, merely seeing the police uniforms may be sufficient for a heavily drunk or drugged up individual to realize they are at the wrong house and have screwed up. The idea that the risk of having your door slightly scratched or having to possibly wait 20 minutes justifies you killing someone when all you had to do was close the door again is absurd. (I certainly did not take away the option of the homeowner using the weapon if actually necessary with the proposed option.)

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Your point is completely invalid....just move on

How is it invalid? Because it goes against what you believe?

How many times have you forgotten to lock your door before you went to bed?

How many times have you or seen someone forget to close the garage door?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not quite, he's basing his arguments on published FACTS. The other side is basing their arguments on CRAP they make up in their own imaginations. He provides links and quotes to back up his arguments, the others side just speculates.

So the screen being torn and popped out of the track is not facts even though it's in the published police report?

 

[bshole]

What he should have done was call the police, and spent the ensuing 15-20 minutes hoping someone else would do something to protect him and his....

.....from a 5'2" drunk teenage girl. ROFLMAO. HHH.....EEEE......RRRRR......OOOO!!!! Too funny.

This guy obviously has no business owning a firearm if he can't manage to open a door without "accidentally" discharging it.

Since he is the only witness, he has a good chance of skating on this. It will come down to whether he gets a white or black jury. This is a totally race based case which will be determined during jury selection. Look for his lawyer to kick every black juror off and the prosecution to kick every white juror off.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

.....from a 5'2" drunk teenage girl. ROFLMAO. HHH.....EEEE......RRRRR......OOOO!!!! Too funny.

This guy obviously has no business owning a firearm if he can't manage to open a door without "accidentally" discharging it.

Since he is the only witness, he has a good chance of skating on this. It will come down to whether he gets a white or black jury. This is a totally race based case which will be determined during jury selection. Look for his lawyer to kick every black juror off and the prosecution to kick every white juror off.

How much blame do you put on her, over 3x DUI limit, high, 6 blocks away after illegally leaving the scene of an accident?

And her height weight has nothing to do with this. You don't get into a physical altercation with someone who is ripping down your door - period.

She could have had a knife, gun, or even worse a couple of homies around the corner waiting for you to open up so they can tie up your family members and take turns raping them while robbing your home.

Bottom line is, from what we know as fact, that homeowner followed both moral and social law to the letter.