Renisha McBride shot in Dearborn Hgts. while seeking help - 2nd Degree Murder charged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48307

1. Not too many people are defending this woman and her poor choices.

2. I don't understand why folks want to defend the poor choices of the man that killed a person for no reason, without cause.

---

1. That's bull and you know it. This woman was running from police after committing felonies and all of you apologists are eager to claim this "innocent woman" was "scared" and "confused" and "looking for help" [the same help she ran away from twice]. I guess those boys who carjacked the Seaholm janitor were "scared and confused" too when they ran from police off 7 Mile.

2. I'm not defending the guy. It's possible he is guilty of something, but I'm not going to convict him off conjecture. I'm also not going to convict him off his "accident" comment after realizing he shot a 19-year-old girl. How many of you have shot someone before? I haven't, but I imagine you might be feeling regret after learning the person is dead. And I also empathize with his fear that night, something all of you are completely dismissing.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread and story. Bunch of terminals losers and people that depend of terminal losers for a paycheck hyping up this story as fuel for their fact-free fight race relations. Nobody cares about the dozen plus dead bodies since this girl got shot, but you all attach your wagon to this because an [EVIL] THE WHITE MAN was involved. You are all helpless as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greekt0wn

"May have committed crimes"? No, she did commit crimes and then ran from the police.

With the benefit of retrospect, the only thing we know about that porch incident is that a drunk woman who was fleeing from the police expected a stranger to let her into his home at 4:00a. It's good to see this forum is full of humanitarians that would have opened their home to a felonious damsel in distress. Oh, I forgot all he had to do was call 9-1-1 for her and leave her on the porch and sit patiently for the police to arrive. You know, because thugs never kick down doors in Detroit, shoot you, steal your things and leave in your car. The police arrive to find your corpse.

---

you just proved everyone point. How do you know she was a thug. the Toronto mayor gets high drunk and drives around. no one is calling him thug [[he evens threatens to murder people)

I would the shooter even know she was from detroiter since detroiters are thugs that rob steal and kick in doors.

he committed the crime, her crimes had nothing to do with her being shot.

and if he had a gun he could have easily said im calling the cops and sat by the door.

your thought process on this one is illogical both people acted irresponsibly. one has blood on his hands. worst thing about it is. he was sober!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greekt0wn

1. That's bull and you know it. This woman was running from police after committing felonies and all of you apologists are eager to claim this "innocent woman" was "scared" and "confused".

2. I'm not defending the guy. It's possible he is guilty of something. But I also empathize with his fear that night, something all of you are dismissing.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread and story. Bunch of terminals losers and people that depend of terminal losers for a paycheck hyping up this story as fuel for their fact-free fight. Nobody cares about the dozen plus bodies since this girl got shot, but you all attach your wagon to this because an [EVIL] THE WHITE MAN was involved. You are all helpless as far as I'm concerned.

---

I don't know who "you all" refers to, but I will say that I don't think the white man was evil. I just think he was stupid. My opinion is that he did it out of fear, and that his fear was justified. But just because the fear was justified doesn't mean that his actions were justified.

CTY

Oh, also I care about the 12 plus bodies as well. The difference is that when the killers are caught they aren't trying to incredulously claim self-defense.

I would tend to agree with that, but you cant prove it so you cant use it as a point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Bear in mind that the shooters early exclamations of 'accident' or 'self defense' are mostly 'noise'. Presumably, part of the argument is going to be that the shooter was confused, disoriented, and frightened for his life. Thus, his statement that it was an 'accident' tosses nothing out the door. I think he can still claim whatever he wants -- and let a jury decide if he's innocent or guilty.

---

That's true and it'll be interesting to see how his defense changes.

That said, I don't know that I'd claim anything was an accident when I made a choice in which I thought I was correct. But that may just be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greekt0wn

You are all helpless as far as I'm concerned.

---

Good thing you're a "terminal loser" and your opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greekt0wn

1. That's bull and you know it. This woman was running from police after committing felonies and all of you apologists are eager to claim this "innocent woman" was "scared" and "confused" and "looking for help" [the same help she ran away from twice]. I guess those boys who carjacked the Seaholm janitor were "scared and confused" too when they ran from police off 7 Mile.

---

I don't see the connection between the Seaholm incident and the one being discussed here.

Many of us have already stated, just as I have, that this woman was comitting crimes.

However, given the available information of the screen door being locked, and her being unarmed, and the homeowner claiming "accidental discharge", I think he most certainly is responsible.

I'm not a jury, and this discussion board isn't legally binding. It's just folks discussing a news topic based on the information we have. I don't expect the man to be convicted solely off this facts. He gets his day in court, as he should. Legally, he's innocent until proven guilty.

However, the court of public opinion and the court of my mind don't have to consider you innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48307

I don't see the connection between the Seaholm incident and the one being discussed here.

Many of us have already stated, just as I have, that this woman was comitting crimes.

---

In thinking about this, I've posed the question to myself, "What if the victim was a male serial rapist instead of an underage women guilty of DUIs and reckless driving?"

I still come to the same conclusion.

So if there's any "putting the victim on trial" it can only be in an effort to somehow substantiate a threat [[if that can even be done), and not to somehow make him a more sympathetic defendant.

There's a lot of angles to this, but you gotta hand it to Kim Worthy. A man on the east side had his house broken into 3x by the same man. On the third time, the homeowner chased him out of the house, and even though the perpretator was no longer a threat in that moment, the homeowner fired his weapon, and the burglar was wounded and/or killed. [[Can't remember).

If there ever was a story of a sympathetic defendant [[the homeowner), this is it.

Guy is robbed multiple times.
By the same guy.
Police response time is 30 min. plus.
If he got away this time, he'd likely be back.

But Kim Worthy would have none of it. She had him charged and, I believe he was ultimately guilty. Even though I honestly can't blame him for what he did.

So going back to this case, I do sympathize with the defendant and his fear. But I also believe he acted in the wrong. Far more so than the fellow on the east side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greekt0wn

1. That's bull and you know it. This woman was running from police after committing felonies and all of you apologists are eager to claim this "innocent woman" was "scared" and "confused" and "looking for help" [the same help she ran away from twice]. I guess those boys who carjacked the Seaholm janitor were "scared and confused" too when they ran from police off 7 Mile.

2. I'm not defending the guy. It's possible he is guilty of something, but I'm not going to convict him off conjecture. I'm also not going to convict him off his "accident" comment after realizing he shot a 19-year-old girl. How many of you have shot someone before? I haven't, but I imagine you might be feeling regret after learning the person is dead. And I also empathize with his fear that night, something all of you are completely dismissing.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread and story. Bunch of terminals losers and people that depend of terminal losers for a paycheck hyping up this story as fuel for their fact-free fight race relations. Nobody cares about the dozen plus dead bodies since this girl got shot, but you all attach your wagon to this because an [EVIL] THE WHITE MAN was involved. You are all helpless as far as I'm concerned.

---

Keep speaking truth to power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Keep speaking truth to power.

---

And toss in some politically motivated rhetoric, race-baiting hyperbole, and victim-blaming for good measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noise

And toss in some politically motivated rhetoric, race-baiting hyperbole, and victim-blaming for good measure.

---

I think it healthy to discuss race. I don't think that makes it 'race-baiting'. If you wish to educate and inform those with different opinions, its helpful not to accuse them of bad intentions.

Why is it unfair to discuss the victim's actions, even if the shooter is fully to blame?

Isn't it appropriate to discuss people's prejudices?

And what is the 'political motivation' here? I don't see politics on either side in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I think it healthy to discuss race. I don't think that makes it 'race-baiting'. If you wish to educate and inform those with different opinions, its helpful not to accuse them of bad intentions.

Why is it unfair to discuss the victim's actions, even if the shooter is fully to blame?

Isn't it appropriate to discuss people's prejudices?

And what is the 'political motivation' here? I don't see politics on either side in this debate.

---

I think it's healthy to discuss race in a healthy manner. I don't think greekt0wn is interested in that. As such, I have absolutely no interest in educating and informing trolls.

The victim's earlier actions are not on trial. They're not the story. The story is a young woman "accidentally" shot on a porch. The woman is not on trial for substance abuse and DUI. That's not the story here. Blaming her for being killed, or even implying it...which is EXACTLY what's happened in this thread...is victim-blaming.

If you don't see politics involved in this story or in these threads, I suspect you're not paying enough attention.

^ Her actions that night led her to trespass and cause a disturbance on someone's porch at 4am. Her actions and behavior leading up to being shot will absolutely be relevant at trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I think it healthy to discuss race. I don't think that makes it 'race-baiting'.

---

If someone says that people are "attaching their wagon to this because an 'EVIL WHITE MAN' was involved", you say they are simply speaking truth to power and not race-baiting. Out of curiosity, do you draw the same conclusion when others say that this girl was killed because "a white person in Dearborn assumes that a young black person is a thug seeking to do them harm"?

Either both are race-baiting or neither is race-baiting; both are just a healthy discussion on race and prejudice or neither is a healthy discussion on race and prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark.vandorn

^ Her actions that night led her to trespass and cause a disturbance on someone's porch at 4am. Her actions and behavior leading up to being shot will absolutely be relevant at trial.

---

Trespass [[which isn't really present here as she was at the front door) and/or causing a disturbance is not cause for use of deadly force.

btw, is it really necessary to sockpuppet here... are you that bored?

^ What law school did you go to? Sounds like you forgot what castle doctrine is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark.vandorn

^ What law school did you go to? Sounds like you forgot what castle doctrine is.

---

lol. you clearly are willfully ignorant of the laws. If you are a lawyer I fear for your clients.

the castle doctrine does not allow one shoot another simply because they are present on the front porch.

moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

lol. you clearly are willfully ignorant of the laws. If you are a lawyer I fear for your clients.

the castle doctrine does not allow one shoot another simply because they are present on the front porch.

moron.

---

Yes, it does:

Quote:

---

PA 313 is subtle: “Sec. 21c. [[1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.”

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/01/mich...#ixzz2lClmngXu
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

Yes, it does:

---

oh.. ok then. I'm going to shoot the girl scout neighbor kid in the face, in front of her parents, in broad daylight next time she is on my porch when she doesn't leave fast enough for my liking. because ...castle doctrine. Right?

...we're forgetting a really important piece of the law aren't we? Why don't you read it again and see if you can figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark.vandorn

^ Her actions that night led her to trespass and cause a disturbance on someone's porch at 4am. Her actions and behavior leading up to being shot will absolutely be relevant at trial.

---

With what we know so far, nothing you've said [[which is incorrect) and none of her actions warranted being killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

Yes, it does:

---

No, it does not state that you are allowed to shoot somebody simply because they are on your front porch. You either know better than that or should never be allowed to own a firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

oh.. ok then. I'm going to shoot the girl scout neighbor kid in the face, in front of her parents, in broad daylight next time she is on my porch when she doesn't leave fast enough for my liking. because ...castle doctrine. Right?

...we're forgetting a really important piece of the law aren't we? Why don't you read it again and see if you can figure it out.

---

Well, if he is aware of the grand conspiracy to befuddle most Americans when they are filing their annual tax return...he will be afraid of their little, innocent-looking representative when she arrives to push those super-sugary treats.

I think THAT'S why the national leaders of the girl scouts discouraged door-to-door sales many years ago. So your argument stumbles.

Lock-n-load, Jcole!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noise

With what we know so far, nothing you've said [[which is incorrect) and none of her actions warranted being killed.

---

Noise, don't be noise. You don't know what her actions were. Therefore you don't know if her actions warranted her being killed.

Suppose she had her finger under her overcoat and pointed at him and said 'open the door, or I'll shoot you dead right now'?

Did he say that? I have no reason to think so. Did she say that? I have no reason to think so. What she did is unknown. What he did we only see through his eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Noise, don't be noise. You don't know what her actions were. Therefore you don't know if her actions warranted her being killed.

Suppose she had her finger under her overcoat and pointed at him and said 'open the door, or I'll shoot you dead right now'?

Did he say that? I have no reason to think so. Did she say that? I have no reason to think so. What she did is unknown. What he did we only see through his eyes.

---

Yeah, great, I get the constant use of "noise." Cute, but misdirected. As I said, very clearly, with what we know so far...

What we see was through his eyes. And through his eyes and his words, he made a mistake. Thanks for agreeing with me, even though you didn't mean to do so.

Look guys, this was one of those super tragic events where two people who probably never laid eyes on each other before were brought together by a strange confluence of events that ended in tragedy.

I think it would be fair to say because it was a middle age white male and a young black female public interest is a lot higher than if it had been a young black male [[this too is sad in its own way). I have a feeling this man feels horrible, as he should, and he would probably give anything to give that poor girl her life back.

Cases like these that feed the public imagination with all of societys attendant baggage attached get a lot of media attention, so if nothing else you can bet that it will all come out in court: the good, bad, and the ugly. At this point I would say it would be best to let the justice system do its job. If nothing else it will not receive the brief, cursory investigation that many equally horrific and tragic crimes frequently get. Let us hope the court gets it right.