and “the killer was a heavy drinker with a bad temper”
OP, do you have a sneaking suspicion that shot girl in Detroit may have saved lives.
However, they did mention that the screen on the door was popped and had a tear in it. Are the police certain that this was the case before that evening?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know. To me, “no sign of forced entry” suggests she didn’t do that, but they haven’t come out and said so.
Doesn’t “no sign of forced entry” tend to follow an actual entry? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it used following a non-entry. It would be underwhelming if all that meant was that there was no evidence that she had entered the house by force.
We already know she was never inside the house. In context I believe they’re saying they found no evidence she tried to force her way into the house.
I know we know that. But they would still document it. Also, the fact that she wasn’t in the house is clearly probative (such that it would be mentioned), because a self-defense case would be strong if she had been.
Also, I have trouble believing that shooting a shotgun through a screen door would not create damage to the screen door that would also be consistent with a person trying to break through the door. Or apparently, any real damage at all.
I’m referring here to a statement the prosecutor made when she announced the charges. She wasn’t documenting anything. She was explaining why she did not believe the shooting could be justified as an act of self defense.
Or maybe the screen was popped out and holed from the shotgun blast.
My speculation would be that “no signs of forced entry” means there is no evidence that McBride tried to break in either the front door (not the screen door, the front door) nor the side door. All she did was knock/pound on it/try the door knob. IOW she didn’t try to kick it in or bust it down.
So AFAICT the scenario is McBride tries the front door, knocking, ringing the doorbell and trying to get in, but gets no response. So she goes to the side door and tries it again. Wafer the homeowner doesn’t want to be disturbed at 3:30 in the damn morning, so he ignores it when she rings his front doorbell. Then when she persists in trying to get in the side door, and then again at the front door, he gets ticked off/scared enough to get his shotgun. Wafer then opens the front door, sees this incoherently ranting drunk asshole pulling at the screen doorknob, or maybe tearing the screen loose. So, as mentioned, BLAM!
Obviously the smart thing, **IF **that’s how it went down, would have been to slam the door in her face, lock it, and dial 911.
I don’t know the law in Detroit, but second-degree murder? Possibly what I believe happened in the Zimmerman case - charge them with something scary and look for a plea bargain. OTOH the defendant is playing this the smart way - say nothing except thru his attorney.
Oh goody - we need a few hundred more 500 page threads on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
I figured you understood that shooting through a door would cause damage unless there was magic used. I believe its evident that the tear came from the shot. If not he was very deliberate with his aim.
With a shotgun (buckshot not slug) its pretty easy to tell if it was at close range due to the spread. If it was a slug they would probably have to rely on powder burns. I don’t believe it was a slug.
I’m not 100% but I bet it will prove to be caused by the shot.
I’m confused. If there were witnesses to the accident, why weren’t police and EMTs called right away? Why would people sit back and watch a confused and disoriented person leave the scene of a serious car accident without calling for help?
Right.
Pointing out for clarity that that’s more or less a worst-case hypothetical, as we don’t know that she was ranting and pulling at the doorknob.
The smart thing would have been dialing 911 before even opening the door.
Or maybe because it fits the elements of the crime. In Michigan law second degree murder is pretty open. The elements for 1st degree are spelled out. 2nd degree is defined as any other type of murder. Prosecutors also have the ability to charge with open murder and let the jury decide if it was 1st or 2nd. They did not do so in this case.
OK, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Pointing out for clarity that that’s more or less a worst-case hypothetical, as we don’t know that she was ranting and pulling at the doorknob.
[/QUOTE]
Correct, of course. I wasn’t suggesting it as the scenario, just a scenario. OTOH it is not that far-fetched to suggest that she was incoherent, and if she really did knock at the front door, and the side door, and the front door again, she does seem a bit excessive in her desire to get Wafer’s attention. That doesn’t mean she deserves to get shot, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
“excessive”? Do you mean “determined”? Because her actions were clearly not “excessive”, they were what was necessary to get the attention of the resident. It would be excessive if she already had his attention and yet continued knocking on the door, I agree.
As mentioned above, “manslaughter”. The term escaped me at the time, but that’s what I meant.
I had a high-school roommate who at age 15 was a very experienced functional alcoholic. He could be blitzed and the best clue was him saying “wow, I’m really blitzed”. That said, I doubt I never saw him at a BAC of over .20; he was far too good at being a habitual alcoholic to get that drunk.
But my problem is that she’d already crashed the car, so how drunk she was this time is only one data point. To make any kind of prediction about her possibility of killing someone, we’d have to know what the rates are for people who are found (i.e., caught) to have that level of BAC. We have (at this point) no idea how often she got this drunk and drove.
As I said, it would take more information to elevate your suspicion into any kind of claim. It’s a valid question, but that doesn’t presume the answer. If you feel you have an answer, you’re going off half-cocked.
My suspicion is that the odds that someone in her situation eventually kills someone is well under 50%. But, like you, I’m just guessing. There’s little point in us arguing over our guesswork.
Anyone know the temperature that night in Detroit?
Once again, quoting myself from upthread:
Weather. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Your comment speculated that she had passed out somewhere for a couple hours between the accident and her approaching the man’s house. I don’t know how she was dressed, but I find it hard to imagine that she could sleep outside in Michigan in December without developing severe hypothermia, especially as drunk as she was.
Given that it was in the low 40s, I think it was more likely she was moving the whole time, but was growing increasingly desperate to get inside somewhere warm. And given her extremely inebriated state, it is easy to imagine she was desperately trying to pull open a door or a window with a very simple thought of getting inside for warmth, heedless of potential consequences beyond that base level of Maslow’s hierarchy.
No, I mean “excessive”. McBride had no right to the attention of the resident. If Wafer chooses to ignore some one banging at his front door (and side door, and then again at his front door, if that is how it happened), then McBride was being excessive in demanding that attention. It was not an emergency, since her accident was hours beforehand, and there was nothing so urgent that she could not go bother someone else, or simply remain at the scene of the accident he caused and talk to the police and/or emergency services then.
That, in and of itself, does not justify shooting her, but her actions were stupid and irresponsible. Unsurprisingly, since she was pig-ass drunk, and drunks tend to act in stupid and irresponsible ways. Like getting into hit-and-run accidents and then wandering the neighborhood for hours banging on people’s doors.
If McBride had a lick of common sense, she would have either [ol][li]not gotten drunk and then got behind the wheel in the first place, or [*]stayed where she was after the accident and waited for the police like she should have. Sure, she would probably have gone to jail. That’s better than getting your face blown off.[/ol]Again, no one is saying that she deserved to be shot, at least, not as far as can be determined to date, which isn’t too far. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Since we don’t know how she was dressed, this seems useless. It was cold out, but she was outside for maybe two hours. And I didn’t say she was unconscious for literally the entire period. She moved around six blocks somehow. I was saying she could have been passed out for most of the time between the crash and the shooting.
We can imagine lots of things. There’s still no evidence for it. If that evidence turns up, we can discuss it then- until then this is kind of an exercise in trying to invent an excuse for Wafer.