White man shoots very drunk black woman breaking into his house. Charged w murder

He didn't need to open the door. He opened the door and then shot her through the screen door. He should have first and foremost, before he did anything, called 911 and said he was in imminent danger, that someone one was trying to get into his house. The cops, thinking a break-in is in progress, will come as soon as possible. I think it is a lame excuse that it is Detroit and they will take hours to come when they are told someone is in the process of breaking into a home and the home owner is there frightened. Also, the home owner could say he has a gun and if the cops don't get there soon, there might be a tragedy. That will get them there. Telling the cops he's got a gun and if they don't get there pronto he might have to shoot someone will light a fire under them. The guy with the gun needs to use his head first and the gun last. He did just the opposite.

After calling 911 and making sure they knew it was necessary to come immediately, he should have stayed inside, prepared, and only shot if the person actually did try to break in. Because she wasn't breaking in, she would be alive and he'd wouldn't be on trial for murder, if he had only used his head and not a gun.

It's easy to think logically when we are on a message board, comfortably in the security of our homes at 7 at night. We aren't terrified and are thinking clearly. Sure, call 911 and tell them I don't want to shoot this intruder, but get here quickly, like 2 minutes ago. This is a city well known for not having police available and that is going through the victim's mind. Then the victim must think, what does the law state? Does the intruder have to be INSIDE the premises? Is there a STG law? What are my legal rights? Does the intruder have a weapon? What is his/her intentions, how many are there?

How old was the victim? Male or female? Were there children in the home to protect?

How can we judge?

There was only one child there that needed protecting that night

#sorryforcornballing
 
She was NOT trying to break in. That is why this guy will do time. All the things you mentioned does not matter because of the fact that she was NOT trying to break in. He was not in fear for his life and I hope he does at least 15 years for killing this unarmed girl.

Fuck him.

You were there?

I hope he walks.

Fuck you.

Oh were you there?

I hope the jury looks at the evidence, sincerely debate it, and come to an informed decision.

On the surface it looks like he killed an unarmed teenage girl and will rot for a long time.

Perhaps. Is it state law that the intruder has to be inside the home? Then that might be the case.
 
That's a tough call. Police don't always come, do they? Or if they do come, it may be a long time. I can see the jury, if there is one, using jury nullification on this case.

What if it was a armed burglary and the man was in real danger?

If you say to the dispatcher "I've got a gun and I'm gonna shoot" they come right away.
 
There's a lot for a good defense lawyer to work with, starting with the crime riddled city, the lack of police presence, and the state of mind of a man living among such conditions when startled out of bed at 3am to a dark figure trying to break in.

State of mind can get this guy off. A good attorney can make the case.

She was NOT trying to break in. That is why this guy will do time. All the things you mentioned does not matter because of the fact that she was NOT trying to break in. He was not in fear for his life and I hope he does at least 15 years for killing this unarmed girl.

Fuck him.

Did she ring the bell or knock on the door? Does it say that somewhere? She was drunk, doped up and disoriented. Banging on a door. I would not have answered the door and perceived her as a danger. If she is banging, she may try to enter.
 
Last edited:
He didn't need to open the door. He opened the door and then shot her through the screen door. He should have first and foremost, before he did anything, called 911 and said he was in imminent danger, that someone one was trying to get into his house. The cops, thinking a break-in is in progress, will come as soon as possible. I think it is a lame excuse that it is Detroit and they will take hours to come when they are told someone is in the process of breaking into a home and the home owner is there frightened. Also, the home owner could say he has a gun and if the cops don't get there soon, there might be a tragedy. That will get them there. Telling the cops he's got a gun and if they don't get there pronto he might have to shoot someone will light a fire under them. The guy with the gun needs to use his head first and the gun last. He did just the opposite.

After calling 911 and making sure they knew it was necessary to come immediately, he should have stayed inside, prepared, and only shot if the person actually did try to break in. Because she wasn't breaking in, she would be alive and he'd wouldn't be on trial for murder, if he had only used his head and not a gun.

It's easy to think logically when we are on a message board, comfortably in the security of our homes at 7 at night. We aren't terrified and are thinking clearly. Sure, call 911 and tell them I don't want to shoot this intruder, but get here quickly, like 2 minutes ago. This is a city well known for not having police available and that is going through the victim's mind. Then the victim must think, what does the law state? Does the intruder have to be INSIDE the premises? Is there a STG law? What are my legal rights? Does the intruder have a weapon? What is his/her intentions, how many are there?

How old was the victim? Male or female? Were there children in the home to protect?

How can we judge?

Actually we do know the only thing going through the victim's mind was a bullet.

What OldSchool said here:
I hope the jury looks at the evidence, sincerely debate it, and come to an informed decision.

I've "given out too much rep" but :thup:
 
[
She was NOT trying to break in. That is why this guy will do time. All the things you mentioned does not matter because of the fact that she was NOT trying to break in. He was not in fear for his life and I hope he does at least 15 years for killing this unarmed girl.

Fuck him.

Sure looks to me like she was trying to break in.
 
That's a tough call. Police don't always come, do they? Or if they do come, it may be a long time. I can see the jury, if there is one, using jury nullification on this case.

What if it was a armed burglary and the man was in real danger?

If you say to the dispatcher "I've got a gun and I'm gonna shoot" they come right away.

A 911 response in Detroit takes how long?- MSN Money

"A 911 emergency call takes 58 minutes."

A blast to an unarmed young woman's face takes a split second. I guess I see your point. Murder is much more efficient.
 
Um ... what?!?

She "said something" to MAKE him shoot her in the face? :cuckoo:
Sure, especially if she said to the guy that she was going to kill him. Since she was under the influence, it could have been anything that she said or did.

How do you know he didn't have alcohol and/or drugs in him?

What the hell can an unarmed teenage girl say that justifies getting shot in the face?
Since she was under the influence, she very well may have threatened to kill him and so he may sure that she couldn't go and do such a thing.

God bless you two and the man always!!! :) :) :)

Holly
 
If you say to the dispatcher "I've got a gun and I'm gonna shoot" they come right away.

A 911 response in Detroit takes how long?- MSN Money

"A 911 emergency call takes 58 minutes."

A blast to an unarmed young woman's face takes a split second. I guess I see your point. Murder is much more efficient.

I'm not saying that at all. Realistically, this young girl bears responsibility here. She a)drank too much; b) did pot; c) didn't stay at the site of the accident; d) went scaring the shit out of people at 3:00 in the morning; and the shooter a) overreacted and shot at the girl resulting in her death.

Now in a court of law, the girl would be guilty of 4 aggravating circumstances and the male of one. If no one was hurt and both were suing each other, who would be paying the other?
 
Um ... what?!?

She "said something" to MAKE him shoot her in the face? :cuckoo:
Sure, especially if she said to the guy that she was going to kill him. Since she was under the influence, it could have been anything that she said or did.

How do you know he didn't have alcohol and/or drugs in him?

What the hell can an unarmed teenage girl say that justifies getting shot in the face?
Since she was under the influence, she very well may have threatened to kill him and so he may sure that she couldn't go and do such a thing.

God bless you two and the man always!!! :) :) :)

Holly

Unarmed young girl shot pointblank in the face, and you're first instinct is to make excuses for the killer. I find that odd.
 

A blast to an unarmed young woman's face takes a split second. I guess I see your point. Murder is much more efficient.

I'm not saying that at all. Realistically, this young girl bears responsibility here. She a)drank too much; b) did pot; c) didn't stay at the site of the accident; d) went scaring the shit out of people at 3:00 in the morning; and the shooter a) overreacted and shot at the girl resulting in her death.

Now in a court of law, the girl would be guilty of 4 aggravating circumstances and the male of one. If no one was hurt and both were suing each other, who would be paying the other?

Neither would be able to sue the other for anything. So you're point is moot.
 
Unarmed young girl shot pointblank in the face, and you're first instinct is to make excuses for the killer. I find that odd.
Well I wasn't there to see what was or wasn't said and done. There had to be a reason why the guy felt that she needed to be shot.

God bless you and him always!!! :) :) :)

Holly
 
Last edited:
Um ... what?!?

She "said something" to MAKE him shoot her in the face? :cuckoo:
Sure, especially if she said to the guy that she was going to kill him. Since she was under the influence, it could have been anything that she said or did.

How do you know he didn't have alcohol and/or drugs in him?

What the hell can an unarmed teenage girl say that justifies getting shot in the face?
Since she was under the influence, she very well may have threatened to kill him and so he may sure that she couldn't go and do such a thing.

God bless you two and the man always!!! :) :) :)

Holly

Unarmed young girl shot pointblank in the face, and you're first instinct is to make excuses for the killer. I find that odd.

Drunk, drugged girl gets shot while banging on a strangers door at 3:00 in the morning and it is the fault of the sober frightened homeowner when he thought she was breaking in. And you are making excuses for the drunk, drugged intruder. I find that odd.

See how that works. It's a matter of semantics and perception. I think I won.
 

Forum List

Back
Top