Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.
Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines. We apologize for any inconvenience.
We've already esablished you live in inside a small fortress that would strongly deter anyone from even reaching the front door. so, that doesn't play. No one is saying he can't leave doors open. What I'm saying is that given the overnight temperature it would be highly unlikely for him to do so. Especially if he's the kind of person who does not live inside a small fortress but, is still fearful of break-ins.
I'll give Charl one thing. She sure does stick to her guns.
Had she not ran from that accountability then she would be alive.
It happens. I myself have done it. Sometimes you forget it is open.
No less irresponsible then yours saying this girl who had already broken the law did nothing to make him think she was intruding. You know how drunks can act, so you still don't want to even thinks that possible. C'mon... Plus the fact he THOUGHT she was breaking in is all that matters because that's what he thought. He didn't think she was a girl scout there to sell cookies and shot her. He thought it was an intruder and at that time of night that is not an unreasonable belief.
He never runs from accountability.
first, witness accounts say she stumbled away disoriented. that is not running away from accountability. second, running away from accountability does not justify being shot in the face. so far, there is absolutely no evidence to support that any of her actions justified being shot in the face with a shotgun.
yes, it does happen. but you are speculating that is what happened here, which you do not know and logic would dictate is unlikely. but none of that matter because the door already being open would not justify the mans actions. im not speculating that she did nothing to make him think she wasnt intruding. rather, the current facts found by investigators show there was no signs of her attempting to force entry, which if that holds up, means she was posing no threat to his life and his actions were unjustified, no matter what he thought.
Let me put it to you simply: the only way this man could justify shooting this woman in the face with his shotgun is if there is evidence that she posed a threat to his life. there is currently no evidence to support that justification.
Had she not been drunk in the first place she would have never crashed her car. She is to blame for her own damn accident and being dazed and confused. There is no disputing that. She was driving drunk and crashed her car. Why would she leave if injured? Why not stay? Obviously, some part of her wanted to "cover up". She fled. That's her fault.
again, you are speculating about her actions. and again, the only way the man could legally be acting in self-defense is if there is evidence that proves acting in self defense was necessary. so far there is none. just because he THOUGHT his life was at risk does not mean his life was actually at risk. the only way self-defense would apply is if his life was actually at risk. which, again, there is no evidence to support that it was.We are all speculating. Yet, she was drunk so her actions were compromised and may not have been those of a rational person. You can't say she didn't do anything because there is a high probability she did in that state. Why you want to ignore that is foolish. So there were no signs of forced entry. He thought she was breaking in because of the noise. It doesn't matter if she was trying to force an entry because the reality is he THOUGHT she was. That's the point. He thought she was trying to intrude and in her state she very well could have been making enough noise to actually make it sound like someone was.
being scared does not meet the legal standards to justify self-defense.The only way this man can justify the shooting is to say he did it in fear because he thought she was an intruder. At that time of night it is reasonable to think that because he was asleep and the noise woke him. He did not have time to determine what it was because he was asleep. He awoke with that impression and acted on it. The threat to this life was the intrusion he was trying to defend against. The law says you can defend yourself against an intruder. They don't have to physically threaten you. The simple fact they are trying to break in is threat enough.
again, you are speculating about her reasons for leaving the scene of the accident. and regardless, no matter her reason, it does not give the shooter justification to shoot her under the guise of self defense.
again, you are speculating about her actions. and again, the only way the man could legally be acting in self-defense is if there is evidence that proves acting in self defense was necessary. so far there is none. just because he THOUGHT his life was at risk does not mean his life was actually at risk. the only way self-defense would apply is if his life was actually at risk. which, again, there is no evidence to support that it was.
being scared does not meet the legal standards to justify self-defense.
You are willing to speculate the illogical for the homeowner but not the victim. You can't have it both ways. Given the temperature that night, it actually makes sense for someone to try and seek out help if their vehicle is disabled. However, given that same temperature, is doesn't make sense for someone to leave the front door open as you've speculated. This has nothing to do with his right to leave it open but more to do with, why would he when it was in the 30s that night. You're making every excuse you can come up with on why he was justified and giving no wiggle room to the victim.You can be fearful of break-ins and not live in a small fortress and still forget to close the interior door. Again, it seems you are trying to find some reason to negate this man's fear when it's obvious he did have that fear. That was the whole point of him grabbing the gun in the first place.
And again, while some of you might think calling the cops was the thing to do. For him the threat was imminent. I don't get this well he should have called the cops when he thought at that moment someone was breaking in. He was defending against what he thought was about to be an actual intrusion. The threat was there now and the cops weren't. He felt the need to defend himself and did. Saying well I think he should have called the cops is just saying what you think he should have done. It doesn't really mean ****.
You are willing to speculate the illogical for the homeowner but not the victim. You can't have it both ways. Given the temperature that night, it actually makes sense for someone to try and seek out help if their vehicle is disabled. However, given that same temperature, is doesn't make sense for someone to leave the front door open as you've speculated. This has nothing to do with his right to leave it open but more to do with, why would he when it was in the 30s that night. You're making every excuse you can come up with on why he was justified and giving no wiggle room to the victim.
She was still drunk and at fault for her own accident. Nothing should excuse that and nothing does.
You can defend against intrusion. You don't need to have your life physically threatened. The actual intrusion or attempted intrusion is the threat itself.
no...it doesnt.In a break in it does. We are not talking about a case like Zimmerman. This is a case where he thought someone was breaking into his house. If it had been someone trying to break in and he shot them then wouldn't be having this conversation because he would be in the right. The fact is he shot someone he THOUGHT was breaking who actually wasn't. That doesn't negate the fact he did think someone was breaking in. You want to find some reason why this is not acceptable, but it absolutely is if he did indeed think she was trying to break in because you can shoot an intruder, or someone trying to intrude. If this man had a reasonable belief that someone was trying to intrude, which I think he does because of the time of night alone, then he shouldn't be found guilty of anything except manslaughter at the very most.
no one is excusing her for the accident which she clearly seems to be at fault for. her accident has nothing to do with this man being able to claim self defense when shooting her in the face.
in order to legally justify him acting in self-defense which resulted in her death, it would have to be proven that his life was being threatened by her. there is currently no evidence to support this.
no...it doesnt.
He had the right to be afraid, sure. However, I don't think his actions are those of someone who was afraid. To me, they are the actions of someone who heard someone at his door and went to the door with full preparations to shoot whomever he found there.What you have been saying and keep saying is he had no right to be afraid and the simple fact of the matter is he did.
I'll give Charl one thing. She sure does stick to her guns.
He had the right to be afraid, sure. However, I don't think his actions are those of someone who was afraid. To me, they are the actions of someone who heard someone at his door and went to the door with full preparations to shoot whomever he found there.
and point them at innocent motorists, apparently.
You have such disdain for her. You can forgive others for making mistake but, with her, you damn near say she got what she deserved for seeking help from a stranger. That home invasion that happened to you has really turned you into a heartless, paranoid woman. You have no compassion for anyone other than those you deem worthy. I'm going to go one step further and you take it how you like. I noticed you posted in the Jesus Christ thread saying, "Praise HIM." Is this mentality something Jesus would condone? Condemning this woman to death and saying she got what she deserved? I doubt it. You have fun blaming the victim for getting her face shot off by a trigger happy gunnut, I'll just leave you to it. Knowing that this is not behavior your God would approve of.That's what it is to you because you don't believe him, but it is a valid fear that he could have had because of the time of night and the fact he was asleep. He woke up thinking someone was intruding. You don't have to believe him, but I do because it's a reasonable fear to have when you're sleep and it's late at night.
Plueeze...there was nothing innocent about this chick, but if it makes you happy to think of her as some angel who got shot while selling cookies then go for it.![]()
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
You.
He thought she was in the process. That's the point.
it...doesn't....matter....what....he.....thought. that is the point. what i posted above is the actual literature of the law which clearly states the person must actually be in the process of breaking and entering. renisha mcbride was not in the process of breaking and entering. at this point you are just delusionally committing to ignorance.
So childish.le sigh...and you go right back on ignore. Don't even have time to read this after you start with the personal attacks. Again, please go screw yourself then.
Let go, dude. She's not listening. You could explain it until you're blue in the face. Unless the guy pulls a movie courtroom move and goes on a racist rant in open court, she's sticking by him. We're all just wasting our time here.it...doesn't....matter....what....he.....thought. that is the point. what i posted above is the actual literature of the law which clearly states the person must actually be in the process of breaking and entering. it says the person "IS IN THE PROCESS" not "assumed to be in the process" or "thought to be in the process" or "might possibly be in the process" but "IS IN THE PROCESS". renisha mcbride was not in the process of breaking and entering. at this point you are just delusionally committed to ignorance.
It does matter what he thought if he thought she was breaking in. I can't even see how you say it doesn't matter. He thought she was in the process right then and there. I know you don't believe him, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he DID think that.
edit:
Now at this point...we can keep checking back to see how the trial goes because I think he has a good defense on his side. It's the prosecution's job to try and make that argument that he didn't have the right to act as he did.
you cant see how i can say it doesnt matter?! BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER!
are you trying to be this stupid? i cant imagine such stupidity would be naturally occurring without you actually putting effort into it. it's like we are looking at a car, and there is a sign on it that says "this is a car", and there is a used car salesman next to it trying to get you sign the papers for a car loan, and there is a TV plaing a geico commercial for car insurance, and zombie henry ford is like "wow thats a great looking car"...but you refuse to believe it's anything other than a giraffe.
Yes, clearly it's everyone else but you being ridiculous.lol...don't start getting ridiculous, Motown.
I'll be sad for y'all though if he is found only guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty at all, because I know y'all will be crying about it in your sleep...lol
lol...don't start getting ridiculous, Motown. I'm saying this is what he thought and now the law has to prove that wasn't the case, or he had no good reason to think that. We know that was not the case, but again I think he has a good defense on his side because of the time of night alone. Had she come at 4pm verse 4am this would be a different story. At this point we'll have to see how the LAW judges him...not you or I.
I'll be sad for y'all though if he is found only guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty at all, because I know y'all will be crying about it in your sleep...lol