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

[Zacha341]

Well stated!

Certainly, she didn't deserve to die. But substance abuse often does lead one towards death. She to die. But she was taking a good path to end up dead. [[None of this relieves the homeowner of his moral responsibility.)

[iheartthed]

No, we're talking about charging whoever served her the drinks as well as the homeowner. They served her the alcohol that set this whole thing in motion. That's a fact, not hypothetical

Had she not been served to the point of being overly intoxicated, this would not have happened. There is more than one person responsible here.

If she had been perfectly sober, gotten a flat tire, knocked on his door for help, she likely would still be dead. The alcohol has nothing to do with the perpetrator's motive for shooting her.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Awesome point to consider!

[oladub]

You're more concerned about a hypothetical situation that didn't occur than you are about why Renisha McBride was murdered for knocking on that man's door. I'm curious to know why.

Reread my post #137 again. The keyword is "BOTH". I'm amazed that anyone can't seem to fathom the concept of multiple causes or chooses to only consider one cause and ignore the other. One cause does not take away from the other cause. Both should be addressed. Otherwise some other 19 year old will be provided alcohol and we will be reading some variation of the same story next week. Some other 19 year old will crash a car, drown, walk into traffic, get into a violent situation, etc..

"If she had been perfectly sober, gotten a flat tire, knocked on his door for help, she likely would still be dead. The alcohol has nothing to do with the perpetrator's motive for shooting her."

Correct, the alcohol had nothing to do with the homeowners gun going off. However, the alcohol probably had a lot to do with why she got into a crash. There was a Japanese foreign exchange student who was shot through a door a few years ago in Louisiana. I think he just went up to the door to ask for directions. One doesn't have to be stupidly drunk or black to get shot on a front porch. However, being drunk does improve one's chances of getting into harm's way. That is why there is a branch of law known as Social Host Liability. It is an attempt to reduce the number of similar tragedies from happening.

[Vic01]

If she had been perfectly sober, gotten a flat tire, knocked on his door for help, she likely would still be dead. The alcohol has nothing to do with the perpetrator's motive for shooting her.

This is yet another of the "all or nothing" statements thrown around in the thread. When someone is thoroughly wasted, they often act an ass, becoming obnoxious, aggressive, or threatening, and act out in a manner they would never do if "perfectly sober". There is absolutely zero chance that this did not factor in to the end result.

As was pointed out in the article that I referenced in an earlier post... We don't know how it went down on that porch, We don't know what process he went through behind the door [[If you do know, please contact Kym Worthy she could use a witness), We don't know what "motive" may or may not have been in his head.

Or maybe we should suspend the whole legal process and just try the case here?

[corktownyuppie]

Reread my post #137 again. The keyword is "BOTH". I'm amazed that anyone can't seem to fathom the concept of multiple causes or chooses to only consider one cause and ignore the other. One cause does not take away from the other cause. Both should be addressed.

That's the most frustrating thing for me as well.

[[1) This shooting took place because of the combined stupidity of two people intersecting in a tragic ending.

[[2) People are failing to distinguish between legal blame and common sense blame. If I walk up to my neighborhood ATM machine and withdraw a bunch of cash at 2 am, and then 3 dudes in a van roll up, offer me a ride home, and I say yes, I'm probably going to end up dead, and all of my money will likely have "disappeared".

Sure, the 3 of them are the only ones guilty in the court of law. But I'm seriously guilty of some pretty stupid decision making.

So when I'm telling my kids this story, I'd say, "Kid, the 3 guys in the van made the wrong the decision in the eyes of the law. But the victim made plenty of wrong decisions that I'd prefer you not learn the hard way."

[Gannon]

[[1) This shooting took place because of the combined stupidity of two people intersecting in a tragic ending.

I'd wager to say that is the case MOST times there are shootings.


As for those who choose to ignore each individual's culpability, they contain a certain pathology as well...whichever side they choose. Overlooking all the stuff that lead up to the tragedy takes a whole bunch of effort. It is a powerful ignorance, though, and allows one to take some ridiculous stances.

Most of what I've have been reading and seeing about this have been those so polarized...as if the media WANTS a riot. You hear few from the moderate center, I guess those are easy to overlook if one is polarized, too.

Ugh.

There are no good outcomes to this...as long as everyone keeps the heat up.

[iheartthed]

That's the most frustrating thing for me as well.

[[1) This shooting took place because of the combined stupidity of two people intersecting in a tragic ending.

[[2) People are failing to distinguish between legal blame and common sense blame. If I walk up to my neighborhood ATM machine and withdraw a bunch of cash at 2 am, and then 3 dudes in a van roll up, offer me a ride home, and I say yes, I'm probably going to end up dead, and all of my money will likely have "disappeared".

Sure, the 3 of them are the only ones guilty in the court of law. But I'm seriously guilty of some pretty stupid decision making.

So when I'm telling my kids this story, I'd say, "Kid, the 3 guys in the van made the wrong the decision in the eyes of the law. But the victim made plenty of wrong decisions that I'd prefer you not learn the hard way."

I've been trying hard to avoid saying this but you guys are on some serious blame the victim shit.

Legally, morally, common sense wise, however you want to look at it, the only person responsible for her being dead is the person who shot her. The only person responsible for raping a woman wearing provocative clothing is the person who raped her. The only person responsible for robbing you in the middle of the night is the person who put the gun in your face.

We live in civilization folks. Get outta here with all of that rationalization crap. The most basic moral responsibility is that all human life is valuable.

ETA: Further, some of you are running dangerously close to saying that it's not safe for black people to be in white neighborhoods after dark. I don't think this is what any of you want to say so let's just stop with this shit right now.

[brizee]

I've been trying hard to avoid saying this but you guys are on some serious blame the victim shit.

Legally, morally, common sense wise, however you want to look at it, the only person responsible for her being dead is the person who shot her. The only person responsible for raping a woman wearing provocative clothing is the person who raped her. The only person responsible for robbing you in the middle of the night is the person who put the gun in your face.

We live in civilization folks. Get outta here with all of that rationalization crap. The most basic moral responsibility is that all human life is valuable.

ETA: Further, some of you are running dangerously close to saying that it's not safe for black people to be in white neighborhoods after dark. I don't think this is what any of you want to say so let's just stop with this shit right now.

It's an amazing phenomena that happens on this board and others.

Black victims killed by white hands are often on trial for their own killing.

It's as reliable as it is curious.

White on white killing? Nothing but sympathy for the victim, and some scorn for the killer.

Black on black? The hardline tough on crime throw the killer under the jail.

But when a white [[or sufficiently nonblack) person kills a black victim all the hemming and hawing and justification and putting yourself in their shoes comes out.

It's pretty interesting to watch unfold.

[Wesley Mouch]

I've been trying hard to avoid saying this but you guys are on some serious blame the victim shit.

Legally, morally, common sense wise, however you want to look at it, the only person responsible for her being dead is the person who shot her. The only person responsible for raping a woman wearing provocative clothing is the person who raped her. The only person responsible for robbing you in the middle of the night is the person who put the gun in your face.

We live in civilization folks. Get outta here with all of that rationalization crap. The most basic moral responsibility is that all human life is valuable.

ETA: Further, some of you are running dangerously close to saying that it's not safe for black people to be in white neighborhoods after dark. I don't think this is what any of you want to say so let's just stop with this shit right now.

IHD, I don't think anyone disagrees that the most basic moral responsibility is that all human life is valuable.

In your rush to defend the young lady, you've done some rationalization about the shooter, IMO.

The shooter is 100% responsible for his actions. The victim is 100% responsible for her actions too.

Please hold everyone responsible for respecting the absolute value of human life.

[iheartthed]

IHD, I don't think anyone disagrees that the most basic moral responsibility is that all human life is valuable.

In your rush to defend the young lady, you've done some rationalization about the shooter, IMO.

The shooter is 100% responsible for his actions. The victim is 100% responsible for her actions too.

Please hold everyone responsible for respecting the absolute value of human life.

So you agree with me. He is 100% responsible for his actions and it was his actions that caused her death. Remove him shooting her from the equation and she would not have died that night.

[bailey]

I don't care how drunk, high or nuts she was behaving.... until he offers some proof that she was either holding a weapon, or had begun to gain entry into his home, he's 100% at fault. The door was locked and closed. The storm door was locked and closed. He opened the door. He did not call 911. He pulled the trigger [[or tripped and the gun went off...whatever) and shot her through the screen door. there is zero culpability on her at this point.... no matter what ruckus she was allegedly making.

[noise]

Some would disagree with that.

Had she not been drunk, she likely would have driven home safely and none of this would have happened.

Was she merely knocking on the door? Or was she pounding/banging loudly and yelling?

And some believe rape victims are to blame for the clothes they wore during the attack. That doesn't make them right. Victim blaming is gross.

[oladub]

Legally, morally, common sense wise, however you want to look at it, the only person responsible for her being dead is the person who shot her. [[from post #158)

He is 100% responsible for his actions and it was his actions that caused her death. Remove him shooting her from the equation and she would not have died that night.

The homeowner was "100% responsible for his actions" and his shotgun killed her. Agreed. However, others were also contributed to her death or more precisely contributed to increasing Ms. McBride's chances of having problems. Removing the homeowner from the equation would not have insured that she wouldn't have died that night. She was lucky not to have killed herself in her car accident. The homeowner had nothing to do with that. Whether or not Ms. McBride was inebriated, high, guilty of underage drinking, abandoned the scene of an accident, or otherwise was outside the law is not material to how this homeowner managed his gun. Courts will deal with that.

The almost unspoken elephant in the room is who provided Ms. McBride with illegal substances. They are responsible for sending Ms. McBride on her drunken odyssey. The homeowner is responsible for his gun going off under the law. The provider contributed to her vehicle accident and public jeopardy. This is a separate issue. Civilizations, which you also mentioned, are not advanced by only addressing symptoms [[e.g. homeowner discharging shotgun) while protecting enablers [[e.g. alcohol and drug providers).

[corktownyuppie]

I've been trying hard to avoid saying this but you guys are on some serious blame the victim shit.

Legally, morally, common sense wise, however you want to look at it, the only person responsible for her being dead is the person who shot her. The only person responsible for raping a woman wearing provocative clothing is the person who raped her. The only person responsible for robbing you in the middle of the night is the person who put the gun in your face.

I agree with everything you're saying from a legal standpoint. The only person who committed a crime is the shooter. The only person who committed the crime is the rapist. The only person who committed the crime is the burglar.

Yes.

Where we disagree is about the victim taking responsibility for his/her actions...even if that's not criminal responsibility. If a parent is shopping at Meijer with their 4 year old and they knowingly let the kid go off and play with a puppy belonging to some nice man they just met out in the parking lot unsupervised...

...Who is responsible for the subsequent kidnapping? The kidnapper.

Who is responsible so when he/she gets home and the spouse asks what happened, are you really saying that the parent is guilt-free in this situation? If it was your son and your spouse, are you not going to be angry at the decision they made?

None of that means that the kid deserved to be kidnapped.
None of that means that parent is an accomplice to the kidnapping. [[Though, depending on the details, it might speak to reckless endangerment)

The kid not deserve to be kidnapped. Renisha should not have been shot. I would want the perpetrators in both those crimes to be punished accordingly.

That said, you're on pretty shaky ground to say that both the parent and Renisha exercised good judgment and made good choices.

Should those bad choices have led to her death? Of course not. I, too, demand justice for Renisha McBride.

[rex]

some drunk bloody person shows up on my door at whatever time in the morning regardless of their race im probably not opening my door. Not to shoot em, not to help em. Maybe im a bad person. The best i have for them is a phone call to 911.

[cramerro]

She was on the porch, outside. He was inside. He answered the door in the middle of the night with gun drawn and shot her outside. If he was that uneasy about her noise, time of day, her color, how she smelled... whatever, keep the damn door closed. Call the cops, and if you must, sit in the hallway with gun pointed at the door. What if she was a burglar who did have a gun drawn when he opened up? He would have probably been dead too. Her color, condition, and chemical composition is irrelevant. He decided to take things into his own hands [[against ALL common sense) and now he's going to spend most of his middle years behind bars.

[Wesley Mouch]

If all this young lady wanted was help, why did she not retreat when she saw a man with a shotgun behind the screen door?

Many here wonder why the homeowner didn't retreat and call the cops.

If the young lady had simply moved onto the next house, business, or police station -- this wouldn't have happened.

Why did she not leave?

I've never seen a man raise a shotgun towards me. But within a half second he'd only see my back.

[cramerro]

If all this young lady wanted was help, why did she not retreat when she saw a man with a shotgun behind the screen door?

Many here wonder why the homeowner didn't retreat and call the cops.

If the young lady had simply moved onto the next house, business, or police station -- this wouldn't have happened.

Why did she not leave?

I've never seen a man raise a shotgun towards me. But within a half second he'd only see my back.

One distinction... I'm not contending the homeowner retreat. If he was that prepared for or assured of trouble [[reasonable given the time of day), he should have kept his door shut and locked, and called the cops. If she needed help, that probably would have included calling 911. It's not like there was a blizzard or hurricane, yell through the door that you're calling 911 for help and she should hang tight. He would be retreating if he opened the door and she pointed a gun. You can't "stand your ground" when you're moving forward [[out of) from the house to confront the other person.

[bailey]

If all this young lady wanted was help, why did she not retreat when she saw a man with a shotgun behind the screen door?

Many here wonder why the homeowner didn't retreat and call the cops.

If the young lady had simply moved onto the next house, business, or police station -- this wouldn't have happened.

Why did she not leave?

I've never seen a man raise a shotgun towards me. But within a half second he'd only see my back.

Did he even give her the chance to flee? or was he so enraged after being awoken by a drunken idiot on his front porch that he simply open the door and blasted?

OR..and I think the most likely scenario...did he open the door brandishing the gun to scare off the drunken idiot and accidentally discharge the gun?

[corktownyuppie]

OR..and I think the most likely scenario...did he open the door brandishing the gun to scare off the drunken idiot and accidentally discharge the gun?

Until I hear more facts, that's my best. Which means...

Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

[Wesley Mouch]

Did he even give her the chance to flee? or was he so enraged after being awoken by a drunken idiot on his front porch that he simply open the door and blasted?

If so, he's guilty as hell. The law requires a threat to your safety/life. You can't just 'feel' unsafe.

OR..and I think the most likely scenario...did he open the door brandishing the gun to scare off the drunken idiot and accidentally discharge the gun?

If so, he's still guilty of manslaughter, as CTY says. I don't care how tired you are, when you hold up that rifle you better be careful. When you shoot, you better be threatened with death or risk of serious injury. [[And yes, a teenager can serious injury or kill you. Been done many times before.)

Being an advocate for the underdog, though, I have to say that we have no evidence that he wasn't seriously threatened, if he so says. Worthy has decided there's sufficient evidence that he may be guilty -- so the courts will decide this for us. I trust them to do so fairly.

[greekt0wn]

Never in my life have I seen so many people come together to defend a "super" drunk UNDERAGE driver [[which puts her at about 11x the 0.02 legal limit). I also didn't know "I was confused and disoriented" is a valid excuse for running from the police after you commit a couple of felonies.

As for the shooting, I wasn't there so I won't begin to casually speculate like all of you are so eager to do.

[Vic01]

WOW! 9 hours without a post in this thread!

I guess it became clear that the blame tossed around [[by both "sides") wasn't gonna stick, or change anyone's mind...?

Maybe now we can get back to "We" don't know what happened and allow the legal system to sort it out, instead of seeking "conviction" on this board.

[bailey]

Being an advocate for the underdog, though, I have to say that we have no evidence that he wasn't seriously threatened, if he so says. Worthy has decided there's sufficient evidence that he may be guilty -- so the courts will decide this for us. I trust them to do so fairly.

if you were truly an advocate for the underdog, you'd be on the side of the UNARMED person...a person the shooter had about 100lbs and a foot of height on... oh yeah, and a person that was a 19 yr old drunk girl..... just sayin.