Another Person Shot While Looking for Help

[Motown Marvel]

the only facts we know about this case are:

-the girl got in a car accident. witnesses say she was bleeding from her head and stumbled away confused and disoriented.

-she knocked on a door. the door owner opened the door armed with a shot gun and the girl was shot in the face.

-the man called the police and said he just shot a girl on his doorstep and hung up hastily without providing anymore information. When 911 called him back, he denied everything and hung up.

those are the facts we know. and based on those facts alone, it does not look good for the homeowner.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Remember kids, having an accident in the evening means having to wait until morning to seek help. And robbers will knock on your door to break in first. But only at night. They never break in during broad daylight.

I always love it when people are unable to form a cohesive or at least semi-intelligent response and resort to grossly re-interpreting others’ thoughts. I often wonder…do people like you who do this think it is a legitimate form of discussion? Do you think that twisting people’s words to make their stance sound ludicrous actually changes what they really said, or is there hope that others will read your “retelling” and, not bothering to read the original statements, think your version is accurate? Or, most sad of all, do you actually think the sarcasm is funny and intelligent?

And for the record, there are plenty of instances where robbers, kidnappers, killers, rapists, etc have knocked on the door to gain access – what’s the easiest way of breaking into a home? Having the person inside open it for you. And here’s a shocker: criminals can and do pretend to be hurt, in trouble or other people to trick victims. MS13 does that crap near my hometown all the time – stand on the side of the road and pretend to be hurt or have a broken down car, and wait for a good Samaritan to see them and stop to help. And when I went to college, there was a rash of robberies where the crooks would knock on doors claiming to be delivering food (“do I have the wrong house? Or I’m new…could you tell me which of your neighbors is…”) and when the door is opened, they’d force their way past the occupants.

Sorry, says he did call, but then hung up. Which is only a little better. ..

Really? Your original stance was “he shot her and then went back to beg because he’s a cold-blooded murderer. He left her body on the porch and didn’t tell anyone for hours”. The fact is, as soon as he shot her, he called the cops and told them what he did. And the cops were there within minutes. Yes, he did hang up after telling them what happened, but he answered their return call and stayed on the line answering their questions while the police were in transit. Your story and the FACTS are incredibly different. Can’t get much different, in fact. Nothing “little” about it.

Was it because he feared for his life or did he not mean to pull the trigger? If he feared for his life then why didn't he call the police first? Why did he open the door? If it was accidental, why did he also claim to fear for his life?

He could have feared for his life AND accidently pulled the trigger. People have this funny little habit of thinking, feeling, and doing (even speaking!) various things at once, as well as having a hard time controlling reflexes, dexterity, etc in the event of something scaring them. But, like I’ve been saying all along, we don’t know what exactly happened…way too many variables to consider, so we need to know as much as possible before passing judgment.

She wasn't that close to him so why pull the trigger? Why even have the gun aimed at her? If he feared for his life and she wasn't that close he could have tried to talk to her or call the police or even fire a warning shot into the ground, not in her face.

They haven’t determined how far away she was, but if we are going under the assumption that firing the weapon was intentional, I don’t see your point about the distance, especially when keeping a “threat” at a distance is kind of important, yes, even when you have a gun. Stepping outside of THIS specific scenario, if you’re in a situation where you feel threatened enough to use a gun, it is STUPID to wait until the threat is just a few feet away from you – they closer they get, the greater the risk.

As far as why aim the gun at her…..a weapon, especially a firearm, is utterly useless if you’re not pointing it at your target. Of course, the autopsy will give a pretty good indication of whether or not he had the rifle intentionally pointed at her face…again, one of those pesky little facts we don’t know yet that help shed light on the situation.

Still her fault for not staying with the car?

At this point I’m convinced you really are unable to understand this notion of the difference between placing blame on the victim, and wanting to know/understand what the victim did and why they did it in order to understand the whole story.

But the guy was scared, there's a black bleeding woman on his porch and she looks dangerous despite having no weapons in her hands or anyone with her. Better to shoot her than maybe try to help her.

You are taking our knowledge of the situation and applying it to the homeowner as if there is no reason for him to not have known what we do now. The ONLY thing he knew at the time was that he heard the sounds of someone trying to break into his home in the middle of the night. He had no idea who they were, if there were one or more people, if they were crazy, armed, etc. No clue. We also don’t know where she was standing on the porch, how she was acting, how long they saw each other before she was shot, if he had a porch light, if there were street lights, etc. He could have had a clear view of her, and he just as easily could have just seen her silhouette. And depending on where she was on the porch and how she was acting could have been misinterpreted as aggression, (added to the perceived aggression of trying to break in). Once again, asking these questions does not free him from the guilt of killing an unarmed woman, nor does it place blame on the victim, but for the millionth time, there’s a HELL of a lot of information we don’t know yet and it is both unwise, immature and duplicitous to fill in the gaps yourself (or ignore them completely) in order to construct a false narrative that you prefer.

this is also how you greet people who knock on your door at night. With a gun in their face.

…Except she wasn’t knocking on the door. She was circling his home, going from door to door (most houses have at least two, you know) and trying to bust her way in. You can’t expect someone to hear that and not want to protect themselves. Hell, even if I hear a normal knock on my door in the middle of the night, I’m going to be cautious if I’m not expecting company (I’m not immediately reaching for my gun at the sound of a knock, but I’m going to make sure I know the person before I even consider opening the door).

 

[Spider-Who?]

the only facts we know about this case are:

-the girl got in a car accident. witnesses say she was bleeding from her head and stumbled away confused and disoriented.

-she knocked on a door. the door owner opened the door armed with a shot gun and the girl was shot in the face.

-the man called the police and said he just shot a girl on his doorstep and hung up hastily without providing anymore information. When 911 called him back, he denied everything and hung up.

Correct, except for the bold.

She did not (just) "knock on the door". She was circling the house, banging on front and rear doors trying to force her way inside.

Yes, the shooter did hang up after initially informing the police, but when they returned the call moments later, he was answering questions - he was even on the phone with the 911 operator when the police arrived at his house minutes after his initial 911 call was placed.

those are the facts we know. and based on those facts alone, it does not look good for the homeowner.

Additional facts won't change the fact that he killed her, accident or not, and therefore deserves jail time. But further facts will (hopefully) let us better understand how everything happened so that the correct amount of justice is dealt (an accident born out of mistaken identity does not deserve the same level of punishment as if he willingly shot someone he knew not to be a threat).

 

[Teelie]

I also love it when people like you come in and do the exact thing they claim other people are doing wrong. Only you aren't wrong because it's you doing it but since you will ignore that I'm not going to line by line you like some kind of teacher with a fetish for red ink corrections.

But don't worry, you can still claim a victory because I'm not going to play the game you are playing.

I see all your troll baiting remarks and I'm just wondering, do you really think this is how you win an debate? By insulting people's intelligence and capability? I may have my problems with charl's comments but at least I didn't do like you did and insinuate things about her competence.

 

[charl_huntress]

Correct, except for the bold.

She did not (just) "knock on the door". She was circling the house, banging on front and rear doors trying to force her way inside.

Yes, the shooter did hang up after initially informing the police, but when they returned the call moments later, he was answering questions - he was even on the phone with the 911 operator when the police arrived at his house minutes after his initial 911 call was placed.



Additional facts won't change the fact that he killed her, accident or not, and therefore deserves jail time. But further facts will (hopefully) let us better understand how everything happened so that the correct amount of justice is dealt (an accident born out of mistaken identity does not deserve the same level of punishment as if he willingly shot someone he knew not to be a threat).

OMG...just thank you. Just thank you. I for a second actually thought I was crazy that I was the only one who sees this.

 

[charl_huntress]

I see all your troll baiting remarks and I'm just wondering, do you really think this is how you win an debate? By insulting people's intelligence and capability? I may have my problems with charl's comments but at least I didn't do like you did and insinuate things about her competence.

Dude...you are taking this too far that someone doesn't agree with you. I think this issue has seriously touched a nerve within you. I understand that this was a tragedy and you want justice, but let it be true justice and not the lynch-mob mentality you are rolling with. Not an insult, but you won't even give the person who shot her the benefit of the doubt, and the victim is completely blameless. These are your contentions for how you want that justice to play out? That is not justice! You see the scales and the lady with the blind fold before? You have to be critical and objective regardless of what you find to be sure you not serving up a travesty of justice.

 

[BestGirl]

If this woman was trying to force her way in the back door, why did the homeowner open his front door to her? If I thought some psycho was circling my house I'd be calling the police and keeping the door shut.

 

[charl_huntress]

I don't agree with the decision to open the door and go out, but I could easily see him doing this if he thought there may have been more than one intruder. That would make it really seem like he was under attack and that he needed to fight. So maybe he went to confront them? Hard to say...but that could be something. I don't know, but I do know he had to be scared. That SOUNDS terrifying and it's not my house.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't agree with the decision to open the door and go out, but I could easily see him doing this if he thought there may have been more than one intruder. That would make it really seem like he was under attack and that he needed to fight. So maybe he went to confront them? Hard to say...but that could be something. I don't know, but I do know he had to be scared. That SOUNDS terrifying and it's not my house.

If you think you're under attack from multiple people then leaving your house to confront them would have to be the dumbest thing to do. The smartest thing t do would be to call the cops and sit in the house with the gun ready and wait for help.

Does anyone know if he called the police before he shot her?

 

[charl_huntress]

If you think you're under attack from multiple people then leaving your house to confront them would have to be the dumbest thing to do. The smartest thing t do would be to call the cops and sit in the house with the gun ready and wait for help.

Does anyone know if he called the police before he shot her?

I know it's not a good decision, but we're not talking about rational decision. Rationally anyone would know that one against more than one is not good odds, even with your gun, at night, and especially if they have guns. It is foolish to go outside, but if you are not thinking rationally you might just do that.

Spidey who posted a link in one their post with a link to a very detailed article.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I also love it when people like you come in and do the exact thing they claim other people are doing wrong.

What I take issue with is the fact that you and others are 1) basing calls for justice on pure rage emotion and a complete disregard for facts; and 2) replying with those that disagree with you with nothing but sarcasm, strawmen, and the intentional misinterpretation of comments. It happens all the time, so I'm not surprised, but seriously, if you're not willing to actually discuss important topics, then it is better to not post at all instead of wasting your and others' time with the sarcasm and obnoxious twisting of words. If you can point to where I've responded to posts with nothing but sarcasm, or purposefully twisted people's words in an attempt to belittle and avoid actual discourse, feel free to point it out to me.

Only you aren't wrong because it's you doing it but since you will ignore that I'm not going to line by line you like some kind of teacher with a fetish for red ink corrections.

No fetish here (for red ink, anyway); line by line is just easier if there's a lot I want to respond to.

But don't worry, you can still claim a victory because I'm not going to play the game you are playing.

I'm neither attempting to win (what victory is to be had here, exactly?), nor play any games. I'm offering counter-arguments, corrections to misinformation, and trying to stress the importance of rational thought in the clamor for justice, which for some reason is quite absent for a few here. If you disagree with me, that's 110% OK, so long as we're all understanding what facts are correct and what is at stake.

I see all your troll baiting remarks and I'm just wondering, do you really think this is how you win an debate?

I'm attempting to have worthwhile discussions here. Yes, I have called you out a few times in the midst of greater discussion in hopes that you would see those types of posts aren't helpful, but troll baiting that is not.

By insulting people's intelligence and capability? I may have my problems with charl's comments but at least I didn't do like you did and insinuate things about her competence.

No, you just purposefully mock and twist her words to try and discredit her viewpoints and call question to her character.

Here's a (sincere) friendly tip: persistent and unnecessary sarcasm and/or puerile attempts to mock and discredit others' comments in lieu of actual discussion doesn't reflect positively on those who engage in such activity. If you don't like people making observations that reflect negatively on you, it's best to avoid behavior that promotes such things.

Can we move on now?

 

[Asgard]

Correct, except for the bold.

She did not (just) "knock on the door". She was circling the house, banging on front and rear doors trying to force her way inside.

Link?

 

[charl_huntress]

The link is in one of Spidey-Who's post. You have to read a bit to find it. It's there though.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Saw on the news this morning that sometime today they will announce if they are going to charge the homeowner

 

[Motown Marvel]

Homeowner has been charged. The investigation shows no signs of a forced entry happening, so self-defense is probably out the window.

Correct, except for the bold.

She did not (just) "knock on the door". She was circling the house, banging on front and rear doors trying to force her way inside.

Yes, the shooter did hang up after initially informing the police, but when they returned the call moments later, he was answering questions - he was even on the phone with the 911 operator when the police arrived at his house minutes after his initial 911 call was placed.

That's not what I read at all. I think there is a lot of mixed and misleading information going around.

 

[charl_huntress]

They have to charge him. He killed someone. Even if it was an accident, he was going to be charged. The question is can they convict him, and if so of what, because in this land you are INNOCENT until proven guilty.

I hope people remember and acknowledge that if the situation was reversed and it was a BLACK homeowner who shot a WHITE girl, you would want that person to get a fair trail. This is also what this man deserves.

I am an equal opportunist when it comes to truth and justice.

 

[Asgard]

Hah, if the races in this case were reversed, the homeowner would most likely be in prison the night of the crime.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Yup he's been charges. Here is some more info on the case that is actual facts:

Here's what we now know: McBride had been in a car accident sometime after midnight. Witnesses called 911 to report that a woman had hit a parked car and left the scene with a bleeding wound on her head, but police weren't immediately dispatched because the accident was considered a low priority. Toxicology reports show that McBride, who was 19, had a blood alcohol level of .218, more than twice Michigan's legal limit for driving. She also had marijuana in her system.

Shortly before 4 A.M., McBride, whose cellphone battery had died, showed up on the porch of a 54-year-old white man now identified as Theodore P. Wafer. It's unclear how long McBride was on Wafer's porch, or what exactly she said to Wafer—it's assumed she was asking for help—but the interaction ended with Wafer shooting the teenager in the face with a shotgun. Wafer would later tell police that he thought McBride was an intruder and that his gun discharged "accidentally."
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said today that there was no evidence McBride was attempting to break into Wafer's home. Reports the Associated Press (emphasis ours):

Worthy said evidence showed McBride knocked on the locked screen door, and that there was no evidence of forced entry.
"These are the appropriate charges and he did not act in lawful self-defense," Worthy said.
​

Wafer is not currently in police custody, but authorities are asking him to turn himself in before a scheduled arraignment at 2 P.M. today.
Update: This post has been updated to note that McBride was on Wafer's porch around 4 A.M., not at 2:30 A.M. as had been initially reported.

So we can get rid of all this nonsense about her banging on doors and going around the house

 

[charl_huntress]

This sounds like it will be an interesting case. DJ thanks for posting that.

He had no right to shoot her since she was unarmed, so he would have to claim an accidental discharge....but she was drunk and high so she could have been posing a threat in her inebriated state. Anyone who doesn't believe that has never been drunk and she was at .218. While I was in the Navy I got into a fight and blew .19. Yes, I was drunk off my ass. Hard to say here how this will go and it's going to be a tough one to watch objectively.

Hah, if the races in this case were reversed, the homeowner would most likely be in prison the night of the crime.

You are probably right, but we'll never every have true equality in justice if we support this tit for tat ********.

 

[Motown Marvel]

They have to charge him. He killed someone. Even if it was an accident, he was going to be charged. The question is can they convict him, and if so of what, because in this land you are INNOCENT until proven guilty.

I hope people remember and acknowledge that if the situation was reversed and it was a BLACK homeowner who shot a WHITE girl, you would want that person to get a fair trail. This is also what this man deserves.

I am an equal opportunist when it comes to truth and justice.

I don't think any rational person would argue the mans right to a fair trial, which he is absolutely due. But none of us here are on the jury to dispense that justice. We are havi a discussion and forming opinions based on what little info we have. And I'm sure those opinions will form and evolve as more info comes to light. Even if we have a poor opinion of this man and his actions, we're not convicting him.

He had no right to shoot her since she was unarmed, so he would have to claim an accidental discharge....but she was drunk and high so she could have been posing a threat in her inebriated state. Anyone who doesn't believe that has never been drunk and she was at .218. While I was in the Navy I got into a fight and blew .19. Yes, I was drunk off my ass. Hard to say here how this will go and it's going to be a tough one to watch objectively.

I've worked in a bar for the past 7 years, security is part of my job. I've handled more drunks than you can imagine. Never have I needed a shotgun to handle a situation. Being drunk is not cause for having your head blown off.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Well she was definitely drunk but the weed could have been from days prior add to that a head injury and who knows how she could have been acting. I still think the homeowner should go down for manslaughter but that's just me. When I learned how to be proficient with firearms I was always taught never to place your finger on the trigger till your ready to shoot. Just goes to show nobody should be allowed to own guns without at least some sort of training.

 

[charl_huntress]

She was still on his doorstep at an odd hour, so he had the right to have the gun; however, he did not have ANY right to shoot her if she was unarmed, which we know she was not. But at .218 alcohol level, that is DRUNK. She might not have been in her right mind and there is legal and medical precedent to show this.

 

[charl_huntress]

Just goes to show nobody should be allowed to own guns without at least some sort of training.

This is 100% correct!

 

[Spider-Who?]

Homeowner has been charged. The investigation shows no signs of a forced entry happening, so self-defense is probably out the window.

So we can get rid of all this nonsense about her banging on doors and going around the house

This implies that they were looking for evidence of a successful entry. There was no actual forced entry, so of course there isn't going to be evidence of one. In order for there to be any evidence at all, damage would have to have been done to the doors or windows with either tools (which she did not have) or extreme physical force. Doors are made to take a beating: you can smack, punch, slam, push, push, and kick most exterior doors without causing any amount damage. The fact that there isn't any damage doesn't disprove anything, especially when you consider the fact that the victim was a tiny young woman, weak and delirious from her accident and high intoxication.

That being said, it's inconsequential in any case - this is going to come down to the prosecution being able to prove if he intentionally shot her, something I believe they know they're going to have a hard time doing; they charged him with both 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter - they'll try for 2nd Degree, but know there isn't enough to prove that, so at the very least they can get him on Manslaughter.

The defense is going to have an extremely hard time proving self defense (if they go that route, which I doubt) since she posed no legitimate threat. We still need to know what happened in the moments leading up to the shooting to know what happened to make him shoot her, whether by accident or on purpose. My bet is that the defense will argue that he was fearful due to the hour and noises, and that affected his mental/physical capabilities, leading to the poor choice of opening the door and accidentally firing (did the gun slip in his hand? did seeing her startle him and his body involuntarily tighten? did her intoxication and anxiety cause her to act in a way he took as a threat?)

That's not what I read at all. I think there is a lot of mixed and misleading information going around.

I posted a link on the last page talking about it all and you can easily find the 911 dispatcher audio online. The dispatcher, once calling the shooter back, informs the responding officer that she is speaking to the shooter again and getting for info. The officer responds to the dispatcher by saying he is at the house and see's the victims body. This article states that it took just two minutes for the cops to arrive after the initial call to 911.

 

[charl_huntress]

That being said, it's inconsequential in any case - this is going to come down to the prosecution being able to prove if he intentionally shot her, something I believe they know they're going to have a hard time doing; they charged him with both 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter - they'll try for 2nd Degree, but know there isn't enough to prove that, so at the very least they can get him on Manslaughter.

That is it right there. If he is a psychopath in hiding then it will be revealed.

edit:

correction made after I read it again...lol

My bet is that the defense will argue that he was fearful due to the hour and noises, and that affected his mental/physical capabilities, leading to the poor choice of opening the door and accidentally firing (did the gun slip in his hand? did seeing her startle him and his body involuntarily tighten? did her intoxication and anxiety cause her to act in a way he took as a threat?).

Agreed. I am going to follow this case. Not so much for the racial undertones, but more for the issue of property rights and gun responsibility. He had every right to be afraid at that hour and use his gun for protection if at the time he thought it was necessary. I will go down with that ship.

This also FINALLY answers my question of why SHE would leave her car in the first place. She was drunk and did not want to be arrested. That's why she "just wanted to go home". This is not to blame her, though you absolutely could blame a drunk driver for causing their own accident, but not for accidently getting shot in the head. She is not at blame for her death, but the poor choices she made that night certainly contributed to it.