I live in DC, if someone was banging on my door at night, I would call 911 and say there was someone on my porch banging on my door. I wouldn’t open the door and I certainly wouldn’t open it and shoot whoever was on my stoop in the face. I guess I’m just brave that way.
To be fair, it’s possible that the homeowner wasn’t reacting to the woman’s skin color as much as he was reacting to the circumstances. After all, he chose to live in a predominantly Black city and probably had interactions with Black people every day.
Could he have been aware that Detroit’s violent crime rate is 48% higher than the national average and that it is still listed by Forbes as the most deadly city in the US? Could that have made his unusual circumstances more alarming than ordinary?
Being confronted by a drunk stranger, particularly young, on my front porch at that hour would give me pause because of crime statistics.
This happened in Dearborn Heights. It’s in the Detroit metro area, but it’s not Detroit. I don’t think the crime rate is overwhelmingly high, and the city is 86% white.
Absolutely. I think too many people are hung up on the skin color. I doubt this would have made news beyond Detroit if both people had been the same race.
Yes, it probably would. That’s reasonable. Maybe call 911 in case it’s a criminal or someone needing help. But one assumes that during your pause, your thoughts might run along the lines of, ‘gee, maybe I won’t open this door’, instead of, ‘gee, maybe I’ll open this door and then shoot the person’.
Livin’ on the edge, you are…
Once again I ask you have you ever been attacked? Because a locked screen door is no barrier to the delusional or the distorted (by drug use), and attacks can happen fast. I’ve known plenty of people injured because they could not move fast enough to re-close a door and lock it again. And if the man thought she had some sort of weapon such as a handgun, a reasonable assumption as after all he had one, that heavy door would not be sufficient barrier to avoid being shot. All of this could have been avoided by not being a drunken idiot banging on a total stranger’s door in the middle of night when it could be assumed most people would be asleep.
The front door was an even better barrier. The police might’ve been useful, too.
Well, at least now your neighbors know that if your house is on fire, they’d better not bang on your door to wake you up to let you know your house is on fire. They’d just get shot in the face instead.
That’s an old article. It was before the charges were filed or the investigation was complete. Its just the usual reflex statement by a lawyer. I see no way this passes the reasonable person threshold for self defense.
“Mr Smith, why did you shoot that person when they knocked at your door?”
“Listen, I had good reason to be scared. Did you know this neighbourhood has the highest murder rate in the entire city? Eleven people have been killed here just this year. I couldn’t take any chances.”
“Mr. Smith, you shot all those people.”
Luckily for most of the public people are not allowed to kill you just because there is potential for danger. Danger which in this case was easy to avoid by just keeping the door shut and locked.
There are lots of things that could have happened to make the outcome avoidable. But that is not the standard used to justify use of deadly force.
You can find the same thing over and over in newer ones. The most recent statement is that he feared for his life. He told police right after the shooting that it was an accident, but his lawyer says something else.
Neither do I, but that’s not the point.
Interesting. (Although, it looks to me like the charges were filed after that story was written). The claim that the gun went off accidentally is not going to help his credibility there.
Do you have some sort of factual basis for that? It seems me (and it’s distressingly common is these racially tainted cases) that we’re just arbitrarily throwing out legal conclusions (and factual claims) with no basis other than a supposed affinity for (or aversion to) the race of the deceased or defendant.
I mean, as far as I know, the facts that we have are:
- McBride crashes her car.
- She leaves the scene.
- Hours pass (?)
- She goes up on this fellow’s porch with a very high blood alcohol level.
- ???
- She is shot by him through the screen door.
- There is no evidence of damage to the screen door.
- He calls the police.
- She’s BLACK!!!
I’m not saying it’s not murder. I just don’t know how we come to any conclusions with such glaring gaps in the narrative. Am I missing something?
I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. That is basically the information we have. He says he feared for his life but gives no reason why. The police say there are no signs that she tried to get in the house. She was not armed. She was shot in the face through a locked door. In Michigan you do not have a duty to retreat but you have to be in reasonable fear for your life.
What I’m saying is that there is an awful lot of uncertainty in step 5 that would lead me to refrain from taking a strong position on the subject.
(I’m also not sure that you need to have a reasonable fear for you life to use deadly force while in your home against a burglar, under Michigan law, but I haven’t researched it).
As long as the key facts are unknown (i.e., what took place between her arrival on the porch and the gunshot), I’m not sure how anyone can seriously develop an opinion that isn’t largely emotional.
It’s already been stated here pretty clearly, but in case you still have doubt: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(frtbiibc3v3n1h2dadyhqvj5))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972
Of course you do. I think in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property but I believe there is no other state that allows it.
So we’re assuming that that trumps Section 780.951, I guess?
I suppose the tension (which I didn’t express well) is that if there is a presumption that you had the fear, then you don’t need to demonstrate that you did; the state needs to prove that you didn’t.
You still are not expressing yourself well since I have no idea what you are talking about.
Section 780.951 does not apply. Unless the police are lying there is no evidence that she was attempting a home invasion. If there was evidence that she was trying to break in we would be having an entirely different conversation.
ETA: If I interpret 780.951 correctly it is a presumption that if someone breaks into your house it is a rebuttable presumption that fear for your life is reasonable. All that is is the castle doctrine in Michigan form. It does not apply to someone on your porch knocking on your door. Even if they are doing it loudly or at night. That is not reasonable.
What is reasonable to Loach or Dragon Ash is entirely irrelavant unless they know MI law & president on these facts. (for reasonable people ) Posts on a message board do not define this. If they ( on the record ) are sure of that they should so state.
I do not grade others joy, pain, fear, sadness, loss by my standards.
I do not get to mete out justice according to my beliefs because society here & now says I can’t. Society tells me in much convoluted word and past interpretations of what I can do & what they will do with the collective opinions of those who’s job it is.
I do not like it, I feel it does not in anyway serve REAL justice IMO of what justice is or should be.
In this case, with not knowing any facts, the decision that a screen door or WAITING for police are enough for anyone at any time anywhere. There is no way a average person could / should EVER think differently. Never will there be a reason to fear a female on your porch no matter what she is or is not doing. Wow !!! talk about living under a rock.
What is the shooter like? What do we know about him? Do we need or even want to know? Can it make a difference? Apparently not to some here.
There is very little ‘I think’ and lots of ‘you must agree with me or you are stupid’ in this thread.
I think speculation, asking for more information from others more able to get it, seeing if someone cam come up with the relevant laws, LEO’s anecdotes, others experiences lawyers experiences ( boy, never thought I’d say that ) is great.
Most of what I am seeing here makes me hope that you are never around me or anyone I care about as part of the investigation team or serving on a jury.
YMMV obviously.