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

[jcole]

The victim in this situation crashed her car at approximately 12:57 am.

The victim is shot at approximately 4:40 am.

So about 3 hours and 40 minutes are between crash and her death.

The autopsy reflected that the victim has a BAC of approximately .22 at the time of her death.

I can't remember right now just how fast the body metabolizes alcohol but I do know that she had to have been more intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Question for the board [[especially those in law enforcement):

How much could her BAC have been at the time of the accident?


I've personally blown .22 in the street once and I know I was pretty shit-faced and I couldn't find my ass with both hands. I was lucky [[and very thankful) to be pulled off of the street by law enforcement all those many, many years ago.



So again, what about those folks who were with her while she was partying? Why did they let her leave in such condition? Why haven't we heard from them?

Seems pretty odd that everyone else in this town is bumping their gums about this situation; except those folks who were responsible for facilitating an environment for her to fail.

Who ever those folks are, they should be held accountable as well, right?

Unless she was drinking AFTER the crash. She could have had a bottle in her purse and that's what she was doing in that missing three hours.

[Scottathew]

I'm not on a jury, nor do I have all the facts, but based on what I've read so far...

This is murder. He had very little reason to shoot the girl.

However, Renisha played a large part in the events that lead to her tragic murder. She was drunk-driving, crashed, left the scene, and instead of flagging down folks for help, calling for help on a cell phone, she knocks on the door of a stranger at 3am while drunk and high.

Her poor choices contributed to her murder, but they do not excuse or absolve the man of the murder he committed. He's been charged, and he'll probably be convicted and serve major time.

It's a shame that the media hypes up this story because it was a white man murdering a young black woman. The barbershop shooting, which was even more senseless, drew much less attention.

At least this guy had a reason to be scared and wielding a weapon, but he had no reason to discharge it.

[iheartthed]

I do feel sorry for him. But I also feel sorry for the woman who died and her family.

I actually believe that they both made some really f-ing stupid decisions, and if either of them had not been so dumb, all of this could have been prevented. But they didn't. And even though they're both to blame, he's alive, and she's dead, and she didn't deserve that.

I still don't see how this is her fault. I do get that she was probably driving drunk and that probably caused her to crash into a parked car. If she had died as a result of the car accident then that would be her fault. However, she didn't die as a result of a car accident, she died because someone blew her head off with a shotgun. I don't see how you can blame her at all for that and her sobriety is really irrelevant. Was the shooter subjected to a sobriety test? I mean, he's the one who shot her so that would make sense, right?

I think this guy's going to jail.

He deserves to go to jail.

[corktownyuppie]

I still don't see how this is her fault.

Did I say that she was at fault? I don't think she's actually criminally at fault by any legal threshhold.

[Huggybear]

I do feel sorry for him. But I also feel sorry for the woman who died and her family.

I actually believe that they both made some really f-ing stupid decisions, and if either of them had not been so dumb, all of this could have been prevented. But they didn't. And even though they're both to blame, he's alive, and she's dead, and she didn't deserve that.

I think this guy's going to jail.

I think he is too.

Michigan uses the common-law definition of manslaughter, and it's going to be very hard for him to get out of at least involuntary manslaughter, which is still up to 15 years in the pokey. Look, he admitted that he shot her [[even if accidentally) and has made public statements that it was an "accident." You don't think a jury's going to hear that?

And if he wants to spin it now as self-defense, then he's saying he intentionally shot her and is really raising the stakes if he loses.

And even if he gets acquitted, he can still get hit with a civil wrongful death suit. This is a great reason why you should never aim a gun unless you intend to shoot.

HB

[Johnnny5]

A person knocking on your door at 3am may be disturbing, but by itself it's not a legally or morally acceptable reason to use deadly force. If this guy really did have a legitimate reason to fear for his safety IMO his lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those details public.

[corktownyuppie]

A person knocking on your door at 3am may be disturbing, but by itself it's not a legally or morally acceptable reason to use deadly force. If this guy really did have a legitimate reason to fear for his safety IMO his lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those details public.

I think that's the problem. Any reason that he may have to fear for his safety would be followed by, "Well, if you were worried, why didn't you call the police?"

I keep getting stuck at that question. I'm sure he was frightened. I sure as hell would be. Not because she was black. Because it's 2:30 in the f-ing morning and someone I don't know is banging on my door.

But again...the next corresponding action is to call the police. Not to open the door. ESPECIALLY IN DEARBORN HEIGHTS, where police response time is like 120 seconds. It's not like he can make the case that cops would take 40 minutes to show up, and that's why he didn't call them.

Honestly, here's my best bet on what happened.

[[1) Drunk woman loudly banging on door. Maybe even being belligerent.
[[2) Owner is startled and brings his gun to investigate.
[[3) He opens door once he realizes that he's probably not in imminent harm.
[[4) But he's really pissed [[of course) and wants her to know it. Arguably, because of racial dynamics, time of the night, plus the fact that she's belligerently hammered, his anger escalates.
[[5) I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident.
[[6) She's dead.

That's not self-defense. That's involuntary manslaughter. Dude's going to jail.

[iheartthed]

Did I say that she was at fault? I don't think she's actually criminally at fault by any legal threshhold.

Yes, you did imply that she shared fault.

[Meddle]

The barbershop shooting, which was even more senseless, drew much less attention.

And the other multiple killing that weekend got almost no coverage at all.

[Meddle]

Yes, you did imply that she shared fault.

When you get drunk, you do bear some responsibility for whatever happens to you.

We still really don't know much about what happened. Even the meekest of people can become threatening and potentially dangerous when drunk.

[iheartthed]

When you get drunk, you do bear some responsibility for whatever happens to you.

The only person responsible for that girl's death is the man who pulled that trigger.

[Wesley Mouch]

A person knocking on your door at 3am may be disturbing, but by itself it's not a legally or morally acceptable reason to use deadly force. If this guy really did have a legitimate reason to fear for his safety IMO his lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those details public.

Why do we think she knocked on the door? We don't know what she did. And we don't know what he did. We only know that she's dead -- and that he doesn't dispute the gun going off. Beyond that, we just have rumors and his statement that it was an 'accident'.

Of course knocking on a door doesn't warrant shot fired. But we don't know what happened.

As to his lawyer, he doesn't care so much what you and I think today. He cares about what is going to happen to him when he's in front of a judge.

[Baselinepunk]

Unless she was drinking AFTER the crash. She could have had a bottle in her purse and that's what she was doing in that missing three hours.

Very good point . . .

[Johnnny5]

Why do we think she knocked on the door? We don't know what she did. And we don't know what he did. We only know that she's dead -- and that he doesn't dispute the gun going off. Beyond that, we just have rumors and his statement that it was an 'accident'.

Of course knocking on a door doesn't warrant shot fired. But we don't know what happened.

As to his lawyer, he doesn't care so much what you and I think today. He cares about what is going to happen to him when he's in front of a judge.

I don't know for sure, and I did not mean to imply that she did.

[iheartthed]

Why do we think she knocked on the door? We don't know what she did. And we don't know what he did. We only know that she's dead -- and that he doesn't dispute the gun going off. Beyond that, we just have rumors and his statement that it was an 'accident'.

Of course knocking on a door doesn't warrant shot fired. But we don't know what happened.

As to his lawyer, he doesn't care so much what you and I think today. He cares about what is going to happen to him when he's in front of a judge.

We do know that the police found no evidence of forced entry at his house. We do know that he opened the door of his own will. We do know that he shot the gun. We do know that she was unarmed.

[cjd]

If this guy really did have a legitimate reason to fear for his safety IMO his lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those details public.

I respectfully disagree that the lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those [[if any) details public. He/she has no obligation to the public, he has an obligation to only the client and the court. He doesn't have to tell any of us anything to satiate our appetite to solve this crime an allocate blame right now. He does, however, have to do what is best for his client and at this point he is choosing not to say much. It might be because he doesn't have much to say, it might be because he wants to see what any witnesses are going to say first. Who knows? Only the lawyer and the shooter.

When any of us are in the shooter's shoes, God forbid, we can tell our lawyer to blab our entire life story to the media on our arraignment day so everyone on Detroityes can make more informed speculation before the trial. Heck, hire David Greim- he likes to tell everyone everything-- remember how that worked out for he and Bashara?

[oladub]

The only person responsible for that girl's death is the man who pulled that trigger.

The man who pulled the trigger is responsible for doing so. However, bars can be sued for knowingly selling drinks to a drunk if that drunk goes out and hurts someone. Ms. McBride hurt no one but whomever was getting her loaded contributed toward her car accident and setting up this chain of events. I looked it up. The term is Social Host Liability.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...g-alcohol.html

[Johnnny5]

I respectfully disagree that the lawyer is making a big mistake by not making those [[if any) details public. He/she has no obligation to the public, he has an obligation to only the client and the court. He doesn't have to tell any of us anything to satiate our appetite to solve this crime an allocate blame right now. He does, however, have to do what is best for his client and at this point he is choosing not to say much. It might be because he doesn't have much to say, it might be because he wants to see what any witnesses are going to say first. Who knows? Only the lawyer and the shooter.

If he's actually guilty of what he's being accused then I totally agree he should be keeping his mouth shut until the trial. That's why I specified "if he had a legitimate reason". The whole George Zimmerman debacle proved that public opinion can make a huge difference in how a case like this is handled. If the shooting was indeed justified getting ahead of the assumptions and rumors could do nothing but help him.

[Baselinepunk]

The man who pulled the trigger is responsible for doing so. However, bars can be sued for knowingly selling drinks to a drunk if that drunk goes out and hurts someone. Ms. McBride hurt no one but whomever was getting her loaded contributed toward her car accident and setting up this chain of events. I looked it up. The term is Social Host Liability.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...g-alcohol.html

Thank you, oladub - -

Again, where are those folks who put this victim in such a state that she could not negotiate the road in a motor vehicle, had an accident and then wound up fatally shot on the porch of someone who was not asking for this in the first place.


Think about it, people.

[iheartthed]

The man who pulled the trigger is responsible for doing so. However, bars can be sued for knowingly selling drinks to a drunk if that drunk goes out and hurts someone. Ms. McBride hurt no one but whomever was getting her loaded contributed toward her car accident and setting up this chain of events. I looked it up. The term is Social Host Liability.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...g-alcohol.html

You're not applying this principle correctly.

What you're saying is that if someone gets hammered and goes out and maims/kills another person then the bar [[enabler) has liability to the victim [[person who was hit/killed), not the perpetrator [[the drunk driver). This is irrelevant in Renisha McBride's case because she is the victim. Her being hammered is not the reason that she is dead. She is dead because Theodore Wafer shot and killed her. So the enabler in this case isn't the people who got her drunk but it's whomever gave Theodore Wafer a gun.

[poobert]

"I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail," Walter Simmons, father of 19-year-old Renisha McBride, said, referring to the man charged as the "monster that killed my daughter."

This is what bothers me. Who is the monster? Where were her parents and - Ron fucking Scott of all people - when she was getting super drunk and wheeling around town?

I can tell you that at 19 I came home once, drunk, after a buddy had driven me home, and my father about lost it until I told him I got a ride. Then again my parents cared about me while I was alive. At our house we didn't generally blame other people for our dysfunctionality.

Your actions have consequences, indirectly or directly. If you go around getting superdrunk as a teenager and behind the wheel you are very likely to meet an untimely demise, whether killed or killing someone else.

I'm not justifying his actions but if it weren't for her wildly poor life choices she would be alive today, too. She wasn't the saint she seems to be made out to be in death.

[corktownyuppie]

"I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail," Walter Simmons, father of 19-year-old Renisha McBride, said, referring to the man charged as the "monster that killed my daughter."

This is what bothers me. Who is the monster? Where were her parents and - Ron fucking Scott of all people - when she was getting super drunk and wheeling around town?

I can tell you that at 19 I came home once, drunk, after a buddy had driven me home, and my father about lost it until I told him I got a ride. Then again my parents cared about me while I was alive. At our house we didn't generally blame other people for our dysfunctionality.

Your actions have consequences, indirectly or directly. If you go around getting superdrunk as a teenager and behind the wheel you are very likely to meet an untimely demise, whether killed or killing someone else.

I'm not justifying his actions but if it weren't for her wildly poor life choices she would be alive today, too. She wasn't the saint she seems to be made out to be in death.

Neither of these people are saints. Both of them made stupid choices. And I also think that people who drink underage to 2-3x the legal limit, then drive and get into car accidents are generally burdens on society.

I also think that I am more likely to be the person woken up at 3 am rather than being the drunk ass knocking on someone's door.

All of that is interesting, it is a fascinating insight into whose stories and experiences are more likely to resonate with our own psyches, and it would be a curious exercise to put a diverse group of people into a room and have them talk about which of the two characters in this story they would feel more comfortable around. Do you resonate with the anger of the deceased family? Or do you feel more anger and frustration of being fed up from dealing with the troublemakers who get wasted and cause a ruckus at 3 am?

But all of that is irrelevant to the legal question on the table.

This is why I can simultaneously hold the opinion that the homeowner has violated the law and must be held responsible for the crime...while I can also hold the opinion that the victim has also made a lot of stupid decisions that partially led to this situation.

The law is not to draw a line between good decisions and bad decisions. There are plenty of really really stupid things you can do while still being "legal". I am totally within my rights to sell my house and use the proceeds to buy lottery tickets. And when I end up homeless, whose fault is it?

In my opinion, both the victim and the homeowner made a combination of stupid, irresponsible decisions. But at least to our knowledge right now, only one of them is criminally responsible for someone's death.

[downtownguy]

[[5) I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident.

Was it also an accident that he held the gun up and pointed it at her face with his hand on the trigger?

[corktownyuppie]

Was it also an accident that he held the gun up and pointed it at her face with his hand on the trigger?

Nope. That was his choice and it was a decision that I think will lead to a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Murder 2 is a stretch, but I'll be interested to hear the argument.

[Bham1982]

I curious as to what she was doing between 12:57 [[crash) and 4:40 [[shooting). That's a damn long time to be wandering about in the cold and dark, totally shit-faced drunk.

Probably not relevant to the shooting, but that's just a huge gap.