:rolleyes:
I guess I have to spell it out for you? Read this slowly and out loud if you have to: her bac was over .2 when she was shot, yet witnesses that saw her more than two hours earlier make no mention that I’ve seen of her being ‘sloppy drunk’, even though that’s the guideline description for a bac of *under *.20.
It’s possible. He could have had the gun in his hand because he thought she was an intruder and then pulled the trigger accidentally. Nothing inherently inconsistent in that story.
It’s not going to necessarily help him legally either. As I posted above, an accidental shooting removes any possibility of a justification defense. He’s now got to face charges of reckless endangerment and possibly negligent manslaughter and he can’t raise McBride’s actions in his defense - you can’t accidentally shoot somebody in self-defense.
Can we blame them both?
People witnessed the accident directly? Why did nobody stop her when she ran/walked/staggered away from the scene?
The truth is preposterous? She was 11 times the legal limit for someone her age, in that state. He qualified his statement with the relevant facts. What are the relevant facts to support your claim of preposterousness?
Let’s not quibble about “normal limit” or “actual limit”. She had a BAC over .2, so she was pretty damned drunk.
But, regarding the original hypothesis:
“I have a sneaking suspicion that shooter in Detroit may have saved lives”
To support that, to have more than a sneaking suspicion, one would simply do the math to see how many people who are cited for drunk driving with very high BAC levels are later the cause of a lethal accident. My sneaking suspicion is that the probability would be well under 50%. Probably under 10%.
One might make the claim that the loss of a recklessly negligent teenager is less serious than the loss of someone who’s completely innocent (the victim of some possible future fatal accident.) I’d probably agree, but it’s pretty speculative.
So, the OP thinks that it was good that the homeowner accidentally killed the woman on his front porch, because had she lived, she might have addidentally killed someone?
I wonder what it was about the woman who was killed that made the OP see her life as less valuable?
So Slacker, you are saying that it is OK to shoot a person in the face because there is the possibility that that person at a later date might get drunk, and then drive, and then cause a collision in which someone else is killed.
1st, there is the possibility that you at a later date might get drunk, and then drive, and then cause a collision in which someone else is killed. Does it follow that you should be shot in the face today? Of course not. Let’s have a little perspective here.
2nd, the legal system is in the business of dealing with drunk drivers, with a view to preventing further collisions. Is the system perfect? Of course not. It is a trade off between reducing drunk driving caused collisions as far as possible without unreasonably impinging on people lives (or shooting potential drunk rivers in the face). See #1 above.
The appropriate action of the homeowner would be to call the police, who would then enter the drunk into the judicial system, which in turn would decide the best course of action to prevent that person from driving drunk again.
If you have a beef, take it up with the legal system. Don’t go promoting the shooting of people in the face.
I would guess the fact that she was driving around drunk. But you could be right, it could be the Irish last name. Damn Irish.
I don’t know anything about the law on this subject, but I would assume that issue of recklessness would have to go more broadly than the issue of discharge. That is, one argument for recklessness might be if it were reckless to have been armed in that situation.
That’s not what he says. Perhaps it’s what you imply from that, but it’s your implication, not his.
See above.
All the OP says is that lives may have been saved. He doesn’t say saving lives justifies killing someone before the fact. Does he think that? I don’t know; I can’t read his mind.
I don’t even buy the argument that it’s likely that lives were saved, and anyone making that claim needs stats to support it. He didn’t make the claim, though, he just raised a suspicion.
Thanks, Jeff. But I’m surprised by one thing you say:
Really? Even though she was driving at high speed basically blind drunk? Is this because you think she would hit prison or AA or just kill herself by driving into a tree before she happened to mow anyone down?
No, not saying that. Let’s review what I actually said upthread:
I actually said the best outcome might have been if they could have somehow killed each other because they are clearly both menaces. And contra your oh-so-subtle insinuation, I would feel just as disgusted by her if she were instead a white girl–or a 54-year-old white man for that matter. In fact, I noted upthread that I hate drunk drivers, especially really wasted ones; my image of such people is either young white dudes (like the one who nearly killed me, not to mention my best friend, my cousin, and a tow truck driver) or older white guys.
Let’s again review what I actually said:
Many people drive many miles, totally blitzed, for *years *and never cause an accident resulting in the loss of human life (my family is my cite). Most drunk drivers do not even get caught most of the time they drive drunk. There’s no way to back up your assertion, and you’re a bad person for trying to justify that a murder victim was to blame for her own death.
Drinking and driving is an awful thing to do, but regardless of your personal experience, SlackerInc, you are asserting things you can’t know. You don’t know that she was a maniac, and you don’t know that she ever would have harmed anybody. This is in abysmal taste.
I think that the penalties for drunk driving should be high. I don’t think it should be a death sentence.
As an average alcohol is broken down at a rate of about .015% BAC per hour. So lets not exaggerate how drunk she was. During the time between the accident and her death it probably went down a little. Still drunk as a skunk but no need to make it seem worse. There is no evidence that she did anything to even warrant having a gun pointed in her direction let alone being shot. Hence the charges.
Do we have a legal decision that it was murder already?
Do I go unarmed to a knock at the door after dark? Not in many years.
Do I know basic gun safety? Yes
D I know how much pressure it takes to fire each weapon? Yes
Do I know better than to have my finger on the trigger at such times? Yes
Does not knowing these things remove my right to protecting myself in my home? No
Was / is it illegal to not know these things In MI? Not in your opinion, but in fact? I do not know MI law. I could ask my brother I suppose. But I will not go ask him in the middle of the night either.
So, we know at this time that he is charged with murder?
That it could not be accidental?
He had no right to be even armed?
That none of you would ever carry a weapon to a knock at the door in the middle of the night?
We know that you could never be scared enough or crazy enough or in any way to accidentally discharge a firearm?
That if you did do what this guy did you would ask the police to lock you up and for the DA to prosecute you for manslaughter because you deserve it? Right?
If it just happens and you end up in a trial, you want the made up minds in this thread to be your jury pool, right? Especially the anti-gun ones?
::: shakes head & wanders away :::
Charged with 2nd degree murder. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/justice/michigan-woman-shot-charges/
I suspect that most folks driving blind drunk don’t kill people. It would be impossible to assess that, though, so the closest proxy we could have would be:
Of the people who are caught driving with high BAC (say, over .2%), what percentage are subsequently involved in fatal alcohol-related accidents?
My guess is that a large majority are not involved in fatal accidents. I remember knowing quite a lot of guys who drove “blind drunk” and didn’t even get in accidents, and only a few of them killed themselves or anyone else. I don’t know their BAC levels, though. I just made notes of who never to get in a car with.
That’s my point. Lucky for me, my info is based on acquaintances, not family!
The right to defend oneself is not the right to kill anyone who knocks on your door. Even scary people who knock on your door in the middle of the night. Obviously, you take responsibility for what your weapons do.
This guy is going to have to take responsibility for what he did with his weapon. It’s as simple as that. It may turn out to be accidental, but I think the facts demand that we consider the possibility that he was criminally negligent.
Whenever someone shoots someone else, it warrants very close attention. “Oh gee, oops” isn’t sufficient. Whether it warrants charges and a trial and a conviction, well, that really depends on the details, and probably a lot more details than we can possibly know from what’s in the news.
In this case, the officials responsible felt it was appropriate to file charges. IMHO, the guy is very likely of negligent homicide. Seems to me that’s 3rd degree, not 2nd, so I clearly don’t understand enough to know the reasons for the specific charges.
Fortunately, filing charges is just the first step. It’ll be quite a while before we have a verdict, and of course, we may never know the “Truth”.
Does Michigan have a 3rd degree murder or negligent homicide statute? Does it apply to these situations? I always thought that negligent homicide was (ironicly?) reserved for drunk (and other reckless) drivers that kill people.
Learjeff, I agree with what you say & thanks to Loach for the info on the charges …
As a former drunk, 23 years sober so far, & knowing what I did & how easy I got off, it may seem surprising how little compassion I have for active drunks that have this little control;. But that is just me.
Having been on three juries, I some idea of what locked minds can do in those situations. Justice is usually not one of those things.
I know I have less than most, of a regard for the sanctity human life. And I am a born & bred Catholic, Bawahahaha.
IMO, the charge it too heavy but I have no sense of what kind of person the shooter is or what his mental state is / was.
I just can not get on board with the ‘He is guilty & should be jailed to the max’; that is prevalent in this thread.
YMMV 
drunk or sober 
Being drunk is more apt to lead to a situation in which you kill someone or get killed.
This week in my small city we’ve had two shootings and a stabbing in broad daylight. All three incidents involved people who were under the influence.
There’s no way I’m going to even open my door for a drunk stranger at that hour of the morning. I would, however, call for help for her. Let someone who is trained to deal with potentially dangerous situations do it.