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

**jcole** · November-20-13, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

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!

It's actually not a case of "lock and load" for me; I don't even like guns and won't have one in my house. I missed the word "simply" in Noise's post and was simply pointing out that the Castle Doctrine does allow the defense of one's property inside the house and the curtilage of the house. Curtilage means property surrounding the domicile and that usually includes the porch. I'm also tired of everyone assuming that the girl was just standing on the guy's porch at 4am and that he should have answered the door with a polite "Hello" and asked her what it was she wanted. People are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence yet.

**Locke09** · November-20-13, 09:35 PM

Castle Doctrine does not cover you in a house behind a closed/locked door and the person is on the outside. If you are also outside, then Castle doctrine does not require you to retreat into your house if you are threatened. You can defend yourself where you stand on your property.

If she was forcing her way into his house, or armed and threatening to shoot him, then yes, Castle Doctrine covers him.

Oh, and Castle doctrine doesn't allow defense of "property". And the guy shouldn't have answered the door at all. Certainly shouldn't have opened it if he was afraid.

**bailey** · November-21-13, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by jcole

It's actually not a case of "lock and load" for me; I don't even like guns and won't have one in my house. I missed the word "simply" in Noise's post and was simply pointing out that the Castle Doctrine does allow the defense of one's property inside the house and the curtilage of the house. Curtilage means property surrounding the domicile and that usually includes the porch. I'm also tired of everyone assuming that the girl was just standing on the guy's porch at 4am and that he should have answered the door with a polite "Hello" and asked her what it was she wanted. People are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence yet.

I'm tired of people claiming her being on the porch and allegedly loudly banging on the door equals justifiable shooting. She could be on the porch playing bag pipes while dancing a jig. That is not a reason to kill her. The shooter has to have an "honest and reasonable" belief he [[as it was just him there) was in imminent danger/threat of death or great bodily harm. So, not only does he have to honestly believe it, but the jury has to decide if that belief was objectively reasonable.

If you were trying to get the attention of a home owner at 4am to ask for assistance [[regardless of your state of inebriation) would you knock lightly once and whisper or would you expect to need to knock loudly, several times, and perhaps even bang on the door to raise some one from sleep?

The reasonable response to someone banging on your door is to investigate, if you don't want to engage, you call 911 and grab your gun. OR grab your gun [[if you feel inclined to do so) and THEN go investigate. Unless or until the person at your front door makes some sort of attempt to gain unlawful entry or brandishes their own weapon, you have no justification to shoot them dead. You have justification to press trespass charges when the police arrive in 2 minutes [[as they did when he finally got around to calling)

People are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence yet

Yes they are, especially when it comes to the dead girl's actions.

What is a fact is that there is no evidence of forced or attempted forced entry. What is also fact is that after opening a locked interior door, he shot her through a closed screen door.

**Gannon** · November-21-13, 10:20 AM

I dunno...BAGPIPES?!...those are an old call-to-war, and rile me at the DNA level. Fewer sounds raise the fight-or-flight response in me.

And yes, I was totally f'in' kidding about locking and loading. I was hoping someone would catch the foolishness about the Girl Scout/IRS Theory.

sorry for the levity, but the world really needs more of it right now.

**iheartthed** · November-21-13, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

I'm tired of people claiming her being on the porch and allegedly loudly banging on the door equals justifiable shooting. She could be on the porch playing bag pipes while dancing a jig. That is not a reason to kill her. The shooter has to have an "honest and reasonable" belief he [[as it was just him there) was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. So, not only does he have to honestly believe it, but the jury has to decided if that belief was objectively reasonable.

If you were trying to get the attention of a home owner at 4am to ask for assistance [[regardless of your state of inebriation) would you knock lightly once and whisper or would you expect to need to knock loudly, several times, and perhaps even bang on the door to raise some one from sleep?

The reasonable response to someone banging on your door is to investigate, if you don't want to engage, you call 911 and grab your gun. OR grab your gun [[if you feel to inclined to do so) and THEN go investigate. Unless or until the person at your front door makes some sort of attempt to gain unlawful entry or brandishes their own weapon, you have no justification to shoot them dead. You have justification to press trespass charges when the police arrive in 2 minutes [[as they did when he finally got around to calling)

Yes they are, especially when it comes to the dead girl's actions.

What is a fact is that there is no evidence of forced or attempted forced entry. What is also fact is that after opening a locked interior door, he shot her through a closed screen door.

This post should really end all discussion on this thread.

**ct_alum** · November-21-13, 11:00 AM

Thank you! 100% spot on. BTW, the screen door was also locked.

BTW, something similar happened to my wife. She called me around 1:00 a.m. and said that there was a shirtless man sitting on our front porch crying, what should she do? I told her do not open the door and call 911. After about 5 minutes of wailing, they guy threw up on our sidewalk and left. This was in EEV - She should have blown him off the porch eh, Jcole?

**jcole** · November-21-13, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by ct_alum

Thank you! 100% spot on. BTW, the screen door was also locked.

BTW, something similar happened to my wife. She called me around 1:00 a.m. and said that there was a shirtless man sitting on our front porch crying, what should she do? I told her do not open the door and call 911. After about 5 minutes of wailing, they guy threw up on our sidewalk and left. This was in EEV - She should have blown him off the porch eh, Jcole?

Read my second post; I said I don't like guns and wouldn't have one, so I don't think I would have blown him off the porch.
My real opinion on that matter is that if the homeowner had not HAD a gun, he never would have answered the door and both of them would be alive and/or free today. Without the "courage" of having the shotgun to stand behind, he would have been too frightened to go to the door in the first place, and, if he did go to the door, chances are that it may have ended in a shouting match, a shove or just a "get the hell out of here". But, she never should have been on the porch in the first place. The accident happened blocks away, police had been called and she should have stayed with her vehicle. She didn't need to wander 6 blocks to ask for help; help was already where she was in the people who came out when they heard the accident. Also, if she was that drunk when they drew her blood after she was dead, and the accident was 3 hrs earlier, she was more than likely drinking as she wandered around or sat somewhere.
She shouldn't be dead, he shouldn't have shot her but there is more here than we know and acting as if this guy was some racist who looked out the window and saw a young black woman on his porch and made a conscious decision to blow her away because she was black is really a reach.

**Scottathew** · November-21-13, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This post should really end all discussion on this thread.

I also totally agree!

**Wesley Mouch** · November-21-13, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by 48307

I also totally agree!

If the discussion were about likely guilt of the shooter, then there's not much more to say.

I think the discussion about why some people are willing to sacrifice prudent justice for a feel-good takedown of this man. I don't understand it. And I wish I did. I'm not ignorant to racial history or the tensions between Detroiters and the suburbs [[esp. when the word Dearborn is involved) -- but I truly want to know what can be done to allow justice to be served -- not mob justice. That's what I see. A mob that has decided there's no possible way the this gentleman is innocent. The rush to judge is exactly what many African American's have experienced in their past. Turning the tables may feel good -- that doesn't make it right.

That's more the discussion I'd like to see. Is he guilty? Not very interesting.

**noise** · November-22-13, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

If the discussion were about likely guilt of the shooter, then there's not much more to say.

I think the discussion about why some people are willing to sacrifice prudent justice for a feel-good takedown of this man. I don't understand it. And I wish I did. I'm not ignorant to racial history or the tensions between Detroiters and the suburbs [[esp. when the word Dearborn is involved) -- but I truly want to know what can be done to allow justice to be served -- not mob justice. That's what I see. A mob that has decided there's no possible way the this gentleman is innocent. The rush to judge is exactly what many African American's have experienced in their past. Turning the tables may feel good -- that doesn't make it right.

That's more the discussion I'd like to see. Is he guilty? Not very interesting.

I'd like to think that if more evidence came to light that favored his innocence, that people would start accepting that possibility. Unfortunately, I don't believe that would happen. Minds were made the second this story hit the news.