Another Person Shot While Looking for Help

[charl_huntress]

Police took 40 minutes to respond to the accident. By the time they arrived she was already gone.

Just as an aside...this may explain why the homeowner thought he needed to take matters into his own hands. 40 minutes! Jeeze. Have you read that they told her she had to wait forty minutes and she said no, or that it just would have taken 40 minutes because that is how long it takes in that part of town? I'm just curious.

Unless she posed a real demonstrable threat to the guy's life he had no right to shoot her.

Okay, please forgive me, but someone breaking into your home is NOT a demonstrable threat? Ummm...then what is it? I really what to know this. Please answer.

It doesnt matter if she was confused and couldnt articulate her needs properly or if he misinterpreted her as a potential home invader.

HOW the hell does this NOT matter??? It gives you cause to his and her state of mind at the time.

And the potential home invader thing still sounds stupid.

Why does it sound stupid? What part about a strange noise at night that you think means something is breaking in sound stupid? Again, please explain.

Why would you even open your door if youre afraid that the person on the other side is trying to break in?

I don't know why he did. I'm not saying that was the best thing to do, or very rational. I'll even go as far as to say that was poor choice by the owner.

Speaking for myself, the only reason I would open my door if I thought someone was breaking in is if my dog was outside, or if I thought someone I knew was hurt outside. My dog is a house dog, but there is a door he can go out of. Sometimes that door is unlocked. People forget to lock it...usually, and though he doesn't generally go out at night. I will tell you this, if he wasn't at my side when this was happening, I would assume he was outside. Then I would open that door....and come out with my gun.

Now please let me explain this. Once I have opened that door, I have accepted the risk that I may confront someone, which puts me in a whole different mind frame. You may think my reasons for opening that door are wrong, but once I have then I'm going to confront you with my gun. I'm not really thinking rationally because if I was I would acknowledge that is not an acceptable risk and my dog is probably alright...but at that time I know I would do it.

Now again, I don't know why this guy did. I'm only saying why I know I would. Yet, do keep in mind that this person was also scared and not thinking rationally.

Youre saying she made the mistake of looking for help in the first place because she was hurt and in trouble. Thats the part thats so wrong about your take on the situation.

It's not wrong. I do get you don't like it though...lol

If youre drunk and get into a car accident you should be found guilty of DUI and whatever charges that apply. I dont see how that same drunk person looking for help by knocking on someone's door should be blamed for being murdered if the guy on the other side decides to shoot him because he was scared.

le sigh...one day I think why I find this so asinine will make sense to you, but I know that day is not today.

 

[charl_huntress]

Couple things:


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-renisha-mcbride-20131113,0,5934972.story

A couple things I'm taking away from this:

1) If the homeowner can be believed, she was not "knocking" on the door, but actively trying to gain entry - break into - his home. I don't care who you are, but if you are woken up at 4am to the sounds of someone trying to break into your home, you are going to assume the worst, and you would be totally justified in thinking so. (note: that is not the same as being justified in shooting someone). I think it is likely that, perhaps after her knocks didn't arouse a response, she assumed no one was home and choose to break in to find a phone. I can see this being deemed an "acceptable" action in the mind of someone confused and panicked.

2) If she was standing on the porch and shot in the face, that means that she and the homeowner faced each other and it is likely there was some sort of confrontation leading up to him firing his gun. Perhaps she didn't react in a way that displayed her innocence when confronted? Perhaps they argued. If she is confused with a lot of adrenaline going and trying to break in, its likely the homeowner made a not-farfetched (albeit horrifically wrong) assumption that this person meant to do harm. Conversely, she could have acted 100% appropriately and clearly explained her situation the best she could, but was at the mercy of a psychopath who wanted to "stand his ground". We don't know, but we need to know what happened in those moments leading to her death.

Being a victim does not negate ones actions that lead up to the event in which they become said victims. Sometimes, it IS the victims fault, but there is a major difference between acknowledging the mistakes/actions of the vicitm in order to understand what happened, and actually placing blame on them. It seems very few here understand this concept.

A perfect example of this is one I've told on these boards before during a similar conversation: several years ago my 17 year old cousin snuck out of her house and in an effort to buy beer for a party, she asked a stranger to buy her beer. This stranger then offered to take her to an ABC store. Security footage of her getting into the car is the last anyone saw her alive...long story short, she was raped and murdered. Who is to blame for her death? The scumbag who killed her, of course. But it must be said that she made a lot of stupid choices that night that ultimately lead to her death. This does not make her responsible for her death - she did not put the knife in that ****er's hand - but that fact does not negate the need to understand and acknowledge her actions.

In the same vein, we can - no, MUST - question what this poor girl did and why in order to fully understand all of the events leading up to her death. Being a victim does not magically wash one's mistakes and choices away. This pursuit does not mean we are placing blame on her, nor does it mean we are accepting the shooter's actions as justified; he shot her and she is dead. Those are the only facts we have right now, and nothing will change that, but that doesn't remove our responsibility to the Truth, whatever it may be. Allowing gut reaction and emotion to keep us ignorant of all the facts leading up to her death because of the mistaken belief that searching for those facts equates to blame of the victim is a disservice to the victim and allows for blinding ourselves to potential ways of avoiding similar situations in the future.

I enjoyed the way you explained this and thought I would post it again.

 

[Asgard]

Okay, please forgive me, but someone breaking into your home is NOT a demonstrable threat? Ummm...then what is it? I really what to know this. Please answer.

Demonstrable threat to your life, not property. Although I think in some states youre allowed to kill anyone who breaks into your home without the invader being a threat, like having a gun pointed at you. Not the case here though. He killed her outside of his house and at a great enough distance that no gunpowder residue was found on her body.

HOW the hell does this NOT matter??? It gives you cause to his and her state of mind at the time.

It doesnt matter because from the information released thus far, she didnt do anything that represented a threat to his life. She didnt have a weapon on her and was pointing it at him, there's no mention that she was making threats to his life and attempting to lunge at him in a threatening matter etc. All the guy said is that she was knocking on his door pretty loudly. He opens his door even though he was supposed to be scared and shoots her in the face.

le sigh...one day I think why I find this so asinine will make sense to you, but I know that day is not today.

Well, you asked if a drunk driver would have to be held accountable, and he would be. For drinking and driving.

 

[charl_huntress]

Demonstrable threat to your life, not property. Although I think in some states youre allowed to kill anyone who breaks into your home without the invader being a threat, like having a gun pointed at you. Not the case here though. He killed her outside of his house and at a great enough distance that no gunpowder residue was found on her body.

Gun powder residue not being on her face means there was distant between them and HE DIDN'T JUST PUT THE MUZZLE TO HER HEAD AND SHOOT HER. If he executed her with the gun to her head there would be residue on her.

Please at least tell me you can see how someone (not you obviously) can perceive someone trying to break into his or her home as a threat to their life???? Please tell me you can see that??? It's not about their friggin property!!! If you can't see someone breaking in would not make someone think their life is in peril, then you are actually suggesting that person wait and find out after they may already think their life is in peril. I don't know anyone capable of waiting to find out if someone is going to kill them, especially if they do believe that it's a big possibility because said person is clearly (or you think they are) not a law-abiding citizen and is demonstrating this very fact at that moment by breaking in. I just don't know anyone like that and I do know some bad mamma jammas who claim they don't fear death...lol.

It doesnt matter because from the information released thus far, she didnt do anything that represented a threat to his life. She didnt have a weapon on her and was pointing it at him, there's no mention that she was making threats to his life and attempting to lunge at him in a threatening matter etc. All the guy said is that she was knocking on his door pretty loudly. He opens his door even though he was supposed to be scared and shoots her in the face.

There has been no information released on what she did. I have not read that. I also am not sure it was confirmed that she actually knocked. I have not read that either. I did read though the owner thought someone was breaking in. Yet, you think his side doesn't matter because he's obviously just some trigger happy gun nut. That is what you think right?

 

[Asgard]

Gun powder residue not being on her face means there was distant between them and HE DIDN'T JUST PUT THE MUZZLE TO HER HEAD AND SHOOT HER. If he executed her with the gun to her head there would be residue on her.

Please at least tell me you can see how someone (not you obviously) can perceive someone trying to break into his or her home as a threat to their life???? Please tell me you can see that??? It's not about their friggin property!!! If you can't see someone breaking in would not make someone think their life is in peril, then you are actually suggesting that person wait and find out after they may already think their life is in peril. I don't know anyone capable of waiting to find out if someone is going to kill them, especially if they do believe that it's a big possibility because said person is clearing not a law-abiding citizen and is demonstrating this very fact at that moment by breaking in. I just don't know anyone like that and I do know some bad mamma jammas who claim they don't fear death...lol.

Unless she actually broke into his home he had no right to shoot her. A person who breaks into your home and entering your premises could be seen as a viable threat and a homeowner could be justified in shooting at the home invader. What we have here is a girl who was knocking on his door. We can even say banging on his door if you want. She never broke in. She never entered his home. The only reason there was a confrontation in the first place is when he opened the door and pointed the shotgun at her face. And if there was no residue on her person that leads me to believe that she put some distance between him before he shoots her. That doesnt sound like he was in any danger of being killed or hurt.

There has been no information released on what she did. I have not read that. I also am not sure it was confirmed that she actually knocked. I have not read that either. I did read though the owner thought someone was breaking in. Yet, you think his side doesn't matter because he's obviously just some trigger happy gun nut. That is what you think right?

Youre only allowed to use deadly force if youre reasonably afraid for your life though. Just because you think or feel your life is danger doesnt give you the right to kill someone. Nothing released about the case demonstrates that he was in any danger of losing his life or anything close to that save for that he was apparently afraid. That doesnt justify shooting someone in the face with a shotgun.

 

[charl_huntress]

Unless she actually broke into his home he had no right to shoot her. A person who breaks into your home and entering your premises could be seen as a viable threat and a homeowner could be justified in shooting at the home invader. What we have here is a girl who was knocking on his door. We can even say banging on his door if you want. She never broke in. She never entered his home. The only reason there was a confrontation in the first place is when he opened the door and pointed the shotgun at her face. And if there was no residue on her person that leads me to believe that she put some distance between him before he shoots her. That doesnt sound like he was in any danger of being killed or hurt.

Goodness...people are just adding facts that have not been reported. You're just making **** up at this point to say there was NO WAY this dude could have been scared or feared for his life. You don't even know if she was JUST knocking, which is weird considering it's your contention she was dazed and confused because of the car accident? You also don't think it's at all possible that in this state (through no fault of her own due to this dazed stated) that she couldn't have possibly done anything to make it seem like she was intruding or being a threat?

Nope, that can't be. Guy just overreacted somehow. He just shot some poor defenseless girl in the face. I'm sure you think when he went to bed that night he was hoping and praying some random person stopped by in the middle of the night so he could shoot them in the face. Yep, he said the Lord's pray and then dozed off with murder on this mind.

You don't even think it is possible she perhaps did something in that state that might have led the home owner to believe she was an intruder or a threat. This tells me a lot.

Youre only allowed to use deadly force if youre reasonably afraid for your life though. Just because you think or feel your life is danger doesnt give you the right to kill someone. Nothing released about the case demonstrates that he was in any danger of losing his life or anything close to that save for that he was apparently afraid. That doesnt justify shooting someone in the face with a shotgun.

Perhaps he was reasonably afraid for his life. He thought someone was breaking into his house. But again, just thinking someone is breaking in is not enough. YOU want them to actually wait until they get inside your house. Give me a ****ing break. This is real life scenario here. People don't wait for **** like that.

We are not going to agree on this and that's okay. I'm not trying to make anyone change their mind. I'm am simply presenting a different viewpoint that possibly considers this was not cold blooded murder. Yet, if you are convinced it is then that is your belief and we'll have to wait how it all plays out in a court of law.

 

[Asgard]

Goodness...people are just adding facts that have not been reported. You're just making **** up at this point to say there was NO WAY this dude could have been scared or feared for his life. You don't even know if she was JUST knocking, which is weird considering it's your contention she was dazed and confused because of the car accident? You also don't think it's at all possible that in this state (through no fault of her own due to this dazed stated) that she couldn't have possibly done anything to make it seem like she was intruding or being a threat?

I never disputed that he said he was scared. That's in his statement. I just dont really buy his excuse.

You don't even think it is possible she perhaps did something in that state that might have led the home owner to believe she was an intruder or a threat. This tells me a lot.

I cant imagine a scenario where she would do something to threaten this guy's life. She was in an accident and hurt and wanted to go home. Doesnt sound like someone looking to hurt another person even in a confused state.

Perhaps he was reasonably afraid for his life. He thought someone was breaking into his house. But again, just thinking someone is breaking in is not enough. YOU want them to actually wait until they get inside your house. Give me a ****ing break. This is real life scenario here. People don't wait for **** like that.

I dont buy he was reasonably afraid for his life because there's no way Im going to believe a young girl who was in a car accident is then going to do something like threaten some stranger's life out of nowhere. Whats more believable is that he shot her because he thought she was a threat even though she wasnt one. And again, just because you think someone is a threat to your life doesnt mean squat unless that person proves to be an actual threat to it.

 

[Anubis]

All we can go on his word. He can say she was using a puppy as a battering ram to try and break down his door. It's his word against a dead womans.

Which is why I don't really buy anything he has to say.

 

[charl_huntress]

I never disputed that he said he was scared. That's in his statement. I just dont really buy his excuse.

Why? Because you don't believe he actually thought someone was trying to break in and that WASN'T a good enough excuse as you say? Or is it you don't like the fact he didn't wait to see if someone actually was breaking in? Or....is it the fact he made a poor choice and opened the door when he was scared? What exactly can't you buy about someone thinking at 2:30am/4am/3:15am that someone is breaking into their home and they shot them (inadvertently or not) because they were scared of that simple fact? What is so hard to buy from that?

I cant imagine a scenario where she would do something to threaten this guy's life. She was in an accident and hurt and wanted to go home. Doesnt sound like someone looking to hurt another person even in a confused state. I dont buy he was reasonably afraid for his life because there's no way Im going to believe a young girl who was in a car accident is then going to do something like threaten some stranger's life out of nowhere. Whats more believable is that he shot her because he thought she was a threat even though she wasnt one. And again, just because you think someone is a threat to your life doesnt mean squat unless that person proves to be an actual threat to it.

You can't imagine a scenario where a dazed and confused girl might do something ill advised when she is dazed and confused???? What if she was dazed and confused and thought the house she was going to her was her own and did actually try to break in because she was dazed and confused? C'mon....

He did shoot her because he thought she was a threat...unless you are saying he did it in cold blood. That's been established. He thought she was a threat. He thought she was an intruder. He thought she was trying to break in. He may have been wrong that she wasn't an intruder, but there is no evidence to actually proves she wasn't posing a threat. Again, she dazed and confused according to you. She could have been doing any ****ing thing.

Also, if you think some is a threat to your life and you think it doesn't mean squat until it's PROVEN!!!!! WTF!!!

All we can go on his word. He can say she was using a puppy as a battering ram to try and break down his door. It's his word against a dead womans.

Which is why I don't really buy anything he has to say.

There was someone with her after the accident who had called the cops and she walked away after ignoring, for whatever reason, that sage advice. Everyone who defends this actions says she was not in the right mind (that's their reasoning because she was injured) and the bystander SAID she seemed "confused". So even if it HIS word against her there is I guess plenty of evidence to show SHE wasn't in her right mind.

 

[Lantern Venom]

HE WAS ASLEEP. He likely didn't think the noise were knocks, which is understandable at least to me because:

A. He was not expecting company
B. It's 2:30am and he's not expecting company
C. He was asleep, so he's really not expecting company.

So? I've lost track of how many times I've been awakened by someone at an odd hour. If you've ever had roomates or lived in an apartment building (where people lose track of doors or come looking for an old resident), it's an annoying, but understandable occurance.

Never once have I thought, "Must get gun! Must kill! Danger, Will Robinson!!!" There is this little thing called "the mouth". It's located below the nose. It's used for communcation, and it solves most problems. I think the issue here is that the shooter's mouth wasn't properly connected to organic battery that runs it.

 

[charl_huntress]

So? I've lost track of how many times I've been awakened by someone at an odd hour. If you've ever had roomates or lived in an apartment building (where people lose track of doors or come looking for an old resident), it's an annoying, but understandable occurance.

Never once have I thought, "Must get gun! Must kill! Danger, Will Robinson!!!" There is this little thing called "the mouth". It's located below the nose. It's used for communcation, and it solves most problems. I think the issue here is that the shooter's mouth wasn't properly connected to organic battery that runs it.

Okay, let me see if I can explain this in a way you might understand because...well. I'm just going to try, but I still don't think you will get it. Here we go though.

People have what I like to call "Normal-Operating" hours. It's very similar to business hours. For instance, the bank is open from 9am - 5pm. You can freely go to the bank at that time because it's open; however, if you show up at that same bank at 2am, and stand outside wanting to get in, then someone might object. There may even by a security guard there with a gun, or the cops, and they may tell you to leave because guess what friend? The bank is closed! If perhaps this person was dazed and confused and acting threatening (or someone thought they were threatening) then that poor innocent person just trying to get into the bank at 2am may get shot because NORMAL people don't show up at the bank at 2am wanting to get inside.

Now I understand you may live in an apartment, a dorm, the barracks, with your parents, with a roommate, or generally around people who make noises then yes will expect some noise. However, if you live in say...a house...and you DO NOT expect those same comings and goings then you might think that strange sound IS someone breaking in, and not Joe down the street just making the same ole racket. Also keep in mind the man is 54 years old according to the report. He likely hasn't lived in any such situation like you are living since when he was a teen. I can tell you from personal experience that one of the reasons I saved for years to buy a home was so I could get the hell out of living in apartments. I hate all that damn noise, so when I bought my house I was looking for peace and quiet. Imagine how scary it can be if suddenly while you are asleep that peace and quiet is disturbed by a foreign noise that you think is someone breaking in because it is noise you are NOT used to hearing. Just try to imagine that...

But I get it Scar...you won't be scared! You'll just stand there with Asgard and wait for the person to break in just so you're sure you really need to be scared. This is, of course, if the intruder hasn't heeded your verbal warning to not break and enter.

 

[Teelie]

But I get Scar...please don't get scared! Stand there with Asgard and wait for the person to break in just so you're sure.

Nope, he should shoot to kill anyone approaching his house, just to be sure.

 

[charl_huntress]

No I think Scar would yell at them. He believes that will work effectively. No gun or any sort of other protection needed.

 

[moviedoors]

This is ridiculous. An innocent woman got shot in the face but the shooter was justified in this gross overreaction because he was scared? In what ****ing world is this okay?

 

[moviedoors]

No I think Scar would yell at them. He believes that will work effectively. No gun or any sort of other protection needed.

So, shoot first, ask questions later. Who cares if innocent people lose their lives, right?

 

[Lantern Venom]

No I think Scar would yell at them. He believes that will work effectively. No gun or any sort of other protection needed.

Yes, there is a little phrase, called "Who is it?" I'm assuming the guy has some family or friends that might come by?

I don't care if the hour is unusual, a rational person's mind it's going to go straight to "grab the gun and point it".

 

[Hotwire]

Charl, I think someone mentioned here earlier that you were once the victim of a home invasion of some sort, is that right? If so, don't you think that maybe your own personal experience could be clouding your perception of the incident? I can totally understand that being the case. If I had been a victim of home invasion, I'd be wary as well. HOWEVER! That doesn't change the law! Unless the person is either in your home or threatening you, you don't get to use deadly force. Here's a link to Michigan's law on the use of deadly force.

When it comes to the fact that no gunshot residue was found on her body means she was at least 5 feet away from the homeowner. To put that in perspective, count the tiles on the floor. So, assuming the scared homeowner who stupidly opened the door, because I always open the door when I'm scared of what's out there, is standing in the doorway, she's maybe at his front step. That's not close enough to assume she's, at that point, attempting to break in. Also, 5 feet is a lot of distance to cover when you have a shotgun aimed at your head. Given her established condition, her making any kind of threatening gestures doesn't click.

Again, If I'm correct is about your experience with home invasion, I can understand your need to vindicate the homeowner. If I'm wrong, as before, correct me and I'll own up to being wrong.

 

[Teelie]

So, shoot first, ask questions later. Who cares if innocent people lose their lives, right?

Nope, it's fine to just shoot first then go back to bed. Questions are excessive. Don't worry about calling the cops either. Someone else like the neighbors can do that for you.

 

[charl_huntress]

Charl .

Aren't you the person who pities me????? I wouldn't even think you would have the nerve... Ignored.

 

[charl_huntress]

Why don't you people just admit why you are so upset about this? Just admit it. You know what it is.

You don't like the fact he killed her with a gun.

I betcha if he had cracked her ass in the skull with a bat, damaged some internal organs with a golf club, or did something that caused death that didn't involve THE GUN. You'll wouldn't be half as pissed...

Just ****ing admit already.

 

[Teelie]

No, I think most people don't like the fact he shot and killed an innocent, unarmed 19 year old woman who was in a car accident seeking help, then went back to bed and didn't even consider calling the cops.

If he beat her, stabbed her, choked her to death, done anything else to kill her I guarantee the reaction would be the same.

You should admit you are wrong, or at the very least over-defending a man who has so far shown no defensible action. The only claims of self defense are from his lawyer, and apparently, you.

 

[moviedoors]

Why don't you people just admit why you are so upset about this? Just admit it. You know what it is.

You don't like the fact he killed her with a gun.

I betcha if he had cracked her ass in the skull with a bat, damaged some internal organs with a golf club, or did something that caused death that didn't involve THE GUN. You'll wouldn't be half as pissed...

Just ****ing admit already.

Drop the last three words of the bolded sentence, and you've got it. He could have used a crossbow, a hatchet, a rock, or a freakin' garden gnome, I don't like that a young woman is dead.

I can throw this right back in your face too. You're so hellbent on excusing him because you're a gun nut. Broad, irresponsible, generalizations are fun!

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Why don't you people just admit why you are so upset about this? Just admit it. You know what it is.

You don't like the fact he killed her with a gun.

I betcha if he had cracked her ass in the skull with a bat, damaged some internal organs with a golf club, or did something that caused death that didn't involve THE GUN. You'll wouldn't be half as pissed...

Just ****ing admit already.

Um, no. That would make it just as ****ed up if not more ****ed up.

You are completely out of touch with reality here. At this point I'm not sure you're even understanding the conversation anymore.

 

[TheBat812]

Charl, take a step back for a moment. This guy was certainly allowed to be scared and come to the door with a gun. But nothing that happened justified him shooting the girl. Worst case scenario, she did want to rob him and break into his house - but she never got inside, so no matter what, he is in the wrong. Why did he open the door at all if he was scared? Or maybe he opened it to be nice, and she made a quick movement and startled him and he shot her by accident. No matter the actual case, his actions are simply not defensible in the eyes of the law. Maybe there's a scenario where his actions are understandable, but never could they be justified or defensible from a purely objective viewpoint.

 

[charl_huntress]

Um, no.

You know what...you just like to throw insults. I have been noticing that. I don't know why I keep seeing your words then, so you can just go on ignore.

No, I think most people don't like the fact he shot and killed an innocent, unarmed 19 year old woman who was in a car accident seeking help, then went back to bed and didn't even consider calling the cops.

Okay good to know it's not a reaction to a gun death. Sometimes people do overreact when things like this happen just because the weapon was a gun.

However, why would you think this man just went to back to bed? Is that an actual fact, or something you are making up to keep hold of this belief that the person who did this is some kind of monster? He didn't call the cops, but the fact he didn't doesn't make him a monster who just rolled back up in bed. I don't understand this need to paint this man as some sort of serial killing, racially profiling, trigger happy nut until all the facts are known.

The ONLY FACTS we know from the police and the DA at this point is that she was there likely looking for help and he thought she was an intruder. All the rest of the stuff is talk from the lawyers, and it's their job to make their client look either less guilty or completely innocent.

I have never (go back and look if you want) defended this man for SHOOTING her. I have repeatedly defended his right to be scared or afraid. I have also explained that since I do believe he was scared and in fear then this wasn't some malicious act that he either meant to do deliberately, or did in such cold-blood that it was just shy of 1st degree murder. That is all I have said.

It was when I questioned the victim's intentions or motives in this incident that EVERYONE riled up and then I was a victim blamer. Yet, part of the process of determining someone's guilt or innocence in court of law is actually asking those questions because it helps determine each individuals state of mind.

I am not overreacting by NOT rushing to judgment on this man or this situation. YOU ALL ARE with barely any facts because it's probably touched some kind of nerve. You know two factual things about this case and you have already convicted this guy, but I am overreacting. Please...

You should admit you are wrong.

No, you should admit you don't know all the facts and are rushing to judgment without knowing all those facts.

Charl, take a step back for a moment. This guy was certainly allowed to be scared and come to the door with a gun. But nothing that happened justified him shooting the girl. Worst case scenario, she did want to rob him and break into his house - but she never got inside, so no matter what, he is in the wrong. Why did he open the door at all if he was scared? Or maybe he opened it to be nice, and she made a quick movement and startled him and he shot her by accident. No matter the actual case, his actions are simply not defensible in the eyes of the law. Maybe there's a scenario where his actions are understandable, but never could they be justified or defensible from a purely objective viewpoint.

Yes, he made a mistake, but he was scared. That would make it more likely to make a mistake because you're not thinking clearly. Again, I'm not absolving him of that mistake, but I am trying to find why he made his choice in the first place and to me barring this was a psycho standing his ground or cold-blooded case of murder then I WILLING to give him the benefit of the damn doubt that was not his intent. Jeeze people...I can't see why that offends you, or that you simply can't get that. It boggles my mind.