• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges[W:287]

Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Michigan law states:

PA 311 provides a “rebuttable presumption” in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties.

Read more: Michigan's Castle Doctrine & No-Retreat Legislation Review
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Ok, so here is where under MI law the homeowner has the right to defend himself, and the standard he has to overcome is, 1. he is in a dwelling, and 2. if he believes he is threatened.

This is where the difference between "knock" and "bang" comes in. IMHO, and that of the people I asked last night among our group of friends down at the sport bar for MNF.....The consensus was that a "knock" is different from a "bang" however, neither constitute "forced entry", but under MI law, they don't have to. Under the scenario given, 4:30 am, dark, neighborhood involved, as well as state of mind of the girl, and appearance, this scenario is not out of the question considering an armed household.

Now functionally, as a matter of legal terminology, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know, but it would seem that the prosecutor in this case has a job to get an indictment, if the state feels they can bring a case. In order to do that the words used to describe the events of the time in question will definitely be questioned at any trial in front of a jury, with a demonstration as to the difference between a "knock", and "banging"... As one person last night put it with no prompting, "A knock would mean someone was at the door, banging means they want in.." I thought that was pretty good at establishing what the average person perceives as a knock v. bang...

Further, it is a relatively small point in the overall charge v. conviction on the charges...So I am not going to spend page after page arguing that infantesable point, but rather move on to can "Murder 2" be won, or is this the typical prosecutor overcharge in hopes that lessor charges stick? I tell ya, the more I read of the story, and knowing now MI law that I posted above, I don't even know if Manslaughter can stick if this guy has good representation, and events went down like he says they did....Keep in mind, the hurdle is what was in his mind at the time of the event, and only he knows this....So, carry on all....

We do not know if the screen door was locked or even if she was opening it and coming right into his face when he opened the door - finding a bloody crazied person coming at you at 3.40 am is a life threatening situation. This video of another thread shows just how fast a person can be knocked down and out - and if in your home alone you then easily killed thereafter:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...ut-game__blacks-attack-whites-simply-fun.html

At this point, the most critical evidence we do not know is 1.) was the screen door unlocked? 2.) does he say she was opening the screen door?, 3.) was she beating on the screen door or the inner door and 4.) is her dna and/or prints on the screen door and/or inner door handle?

If his statement is that she was opening the screen door and this not contradicted by evidence, he has a very good chance of a not guilty verdict.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

100% agree. Murder 2 is something the prosecutor to strive for, but manslaughter is definitely a given.

No it's not a "given." We do not have enough facts to know that.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Again folks, don't let the other poster confuse you.
The banging goes directly to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.

That is inescapable.


We don't know that she wasn't.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Again folks, don't let the other poster confuse you.
The banging goes directly to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.

That is inescapable.
100% factually false
facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it


without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

No it's not a "given." We do not have enough facts to know that.

IMO we do. There's no evidence of attempted force entry and the screen door was locked. The man was in no danger at all.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

We do not know if the screen door was locked or even if she was opening it and coming right into his face when he opened the door - finding a bloody crazied person coming at you at 3.40 am is a life threatening situation. This video of another thread shows just how fast a person can be knocked down and out - and if in your home alone you then easily killed thereafter:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...ut-game__blacks-attack-whites-simply-fun.html

At this point, the most critical evidence we do not know is 1.) was the screen door unlocked? 2.) does he say she was opening the screen door?, 3.) was she beating on the screen door or the inner door and 4.) is her dna and/or prints on the screen door and/or inner door handle?

If his statement is that she was opening the screen door and this not contradicted by evidence, he has a very good chance of a not guilty verdict.

false we do know the screen door was locked


these are the known facts

FACT LIST
additions made to make everyone happy



car wreck a little before 1
-cell phone was dead
-911 was called to report accident by passer by/ neighbor
-People stopped to help driver
-driver is a 19yr old woman 5'4"
-driver was disoriented and bloody
-driver left scene
-driver returned to scene, 911 was called again to report this about 1:25
-cops and EMS show up to seen about 1:42, driver is gone
-driver left scene
-County prosecutor statement says driver knocked on locked screen door about a mile away and there is no evidence of forced entry
-home owner opened interior door
-home owner is 54yr old man, over 6ft and 200lbs
-driver was shot in the face through locked screen door
-911 was called to report shooting by home owner, home owner claims the following:
"Uh yes... I just shot somebody on my front porch with a shotgun, banging on my door." Wafer gives his address (we deleted the address in our post) and ends the call by saying "thank you" and hanging up, even as ---police dispatch continued.
-911 dispatched police
-911 called homeowner back and he confirmed he shot someone he didnt know on his porch
-police arrive find driver on porch with large hole in face



autopsy confirms homicide and shot in face at a distance
toxicology reveals drinking and weed in driver


Murder 2 charges have been filed along with man slaughter and possession of a firearm during the attempted commission of a felony or commission of a felony.

anything else feel free to add with links

also any further audio of the 911 claims please post the official audio or transcript and ill gladly add them

more specifically the call back
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

100% factually false
facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it


without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff

No they don't. The "FACTS" for that question have not been published as far as I know.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

IMO we do. There's no evidence of attempted force entry and the screen door was locked. The man was in no danger at all.

Do you have a link to the screen door being locked? I have not seen that.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

No they don't.
The "FACTS" for that question have not been published as far as I know.

you seem to have quoted the wrong post because nothing you said makes any sense
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Do you have a link to the screen door being locked? I have not seen that.

in been posted in this thread many by muiltiple sources, hell didnt you post it once?
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

100% factually false
facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it


without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff
And there you have it folks.
This is what you should not give one iota of attention as he is absolutely wrong.
He has no idea of what he speaks.

The banging goes directly to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Do you have a link to the screen door being locked? I have not seen that.

do you care to explain this? this was your claim, you provided a link in another thread and it was backed up by others? Guess you forgot

The latest claim is there is a shot hole thru the screen door.

IF that is so, and IF he shot thru the screen door, from what I know it is likely at least manslaughter. IF that is accurate new information it should definitely go to the grand jury.


Family attorney calls for justice in death of Renisha McBride - Fox 2 News Headlines

Also, can't find it at the moment, a Fox Reporter stated repeatedly the police told her the shot was thru the screen door.

If so, burn the asshole. No defense I even care to think about.




The shot going thru the screen door changes everything on this matter. If he shot her thru the screen door? Hell, burn him. There is no excuse, nor any excuse why he had leveled it at her face.

THAT specific fact - he shot thru the screen door - pretty much kills any self-defense claim and accidental in that circumstance doesn't work. I also think this means this is going to die down quickly. There will be an arrest, the grand jury will indict, and he will ultimately plea to manslaughter. And that will be the end of the story.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

And there you have it folks.
This is what you should not give one iota of attention as he is absolutely wrong.
He has no idea of what he speaks.

The banging goes directly to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.

still 100% factually false
facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it
without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff
please keep doubling down on the asinine claim that only his feelings matter, its hilarious!

remind us what you have on your side support you? thats right nothing but your opinion that is factually wrong, let us know when that fact changes
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

still 100% factually false
Yes you are.

The evidence is that he heard banging and thought someone was trying to break in.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Yes you are.

The evidence is that he heard banging and thought someone was trying to break in.
yes, he CLAIMED somebody was banging and thats where it ends (no evidence supports there was banging and evidence proves there was no attempted forced entry)

translation: you have zero facts to support your failed claims

facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it
without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff

im gonna shoot somebody tonight and say i thought they looked like they were going to kill me so there for i believed my life was in danger

this "evidence" will be all that is needed and nothign else will be necessary besides my statement, i will go totally free because thats all that is needed!:lamo

again please keep doubling down on your factually wrong and severely topically uneducated post, its hilarious.

oh yeah and let us know when you have and facts to support your lie, we will greatly appreciate it.


any facts at all . . . heck even ONE fact that supports it . . . . ONE
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

yes, he CLAIMED somebody was banging and thats where it ends (no evidence supports there was banging and evidence proves there was no attempted forced entry)

translation: you have zero facts to support your failed claims

facts still prove you wrong and no matter how many times the false post is repeated nobody honest and educated buys it
without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence, this is basic 101 stuff

im gonna shoot somebody tonight and say i thought they looked like they were going to kill me so there for i believed my life was in danger

this "evidence" will be all that is needed and nothign else will be necessary besides my statement, i will go totally free because thats all that is needed!:lamo

again please keep doubling down on your factually wrong and severely topically uneducated post, its hilarious.

oh yeah and let us know when you have and facts to support your lie, we will greatly appreciate it.


any facts at all . . . heck even ONE fact that supports it . . . . ONE
Translation ~ You have no idea what you are talking about.
He heard banging.
Banging causes him to believe someone was trying to break in.

No forced entry matters not to his belief.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Translation ~ You have no idea what you are talking about.
He heard banging.
Banging causes him to believe someone was trying to break in.

No forced entry matters not to his belief.

still ZERO facts that support your posts
and trying to back pedal and move the goal post like you just did wont work either, facts destroy your post again

lets us know when you have any facts to support your lie, we will greatly appreciate it.
any facts at all . . . heck even ONE fact that supports it . . . . ONE

who wants to take bets this request is dodged again?
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

:laughat:
still ZERO facts that support your posts
and trying to back pedal and move the goal post like you just did wont work either, facts destroy your post again

lets us know when you have any facts to support your lie, we will greatly appreciate it.
any facts at all . . . heck even ONE fact that supports it . . . . ONE

who wants to take bets this request is dodged again?
Still batting zero huh?
You say no facts provided. Why you continue being dishonest is beyond me.
Fact - He heard banging.
Fact - He believed someone was trying to break-in. His belief is supported by the banging he heard.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

:laughat:Still batting zero huh?
2.)You say no facts provided. Why you continue being dishonest is beyond me.
3.) Fact - He heard banging.
4.) Fact - He believed someone was trying to break-in.
5.) His belief is supported by the banging he heard.

1.) destroyed every post you made
2.) because its 100% true there no fact you provided that support your lie of credence
3.) 100% false he says he heard banging, that does not make it fact
4.) 100% false he says he believed someone was trying to break-in, that does not make it fact
5.) yes thats what he says but its meaningless in court without reasonably logic or facts and evidence to support it

Your lie is destroyed again and you still havent posted any facts that support your lie, please do so in your next post we are waiting for you to stay on topic and support your claim
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Yes you are.

The evidence is that he heard banging and thought someone was trying to break in.

If he thought someone was trying to break in, then why did he open his front door before he shot her through the screen door? Who in their right mind would open their door like that, if they thought someone was attempting to break in? Nobody, that's who.

Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?

Based on the evidence, here is what I believe happened.

1) He heard the knock on the door.

2) He armed himself, to be on the safe side (OK, that makes sense).

3) He opened the front door.

4) The gun accidentally discharged, hitting the girl.

5) He then attempts to invent a story to explain away his carelessness.

Not murder, by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely manslaughter, as her death was caused by his carelessness.
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

If he thought someone was trying to break in, then why did he open his front door before he shot her through the screen door? Who in their right mind would open their door like that, if they thought someone was attempting to break in? Nobody, that's who.

Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?

please dont ask common sense questions like that

havent you been reading the homeowner claims he heard banging and he believed she was trying to break in that alone gives his statement credence and makes it fact <end sarcasm>
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.) destroyed every post you made
2.) because its 100% true there no fact you provided that support your lie of credence
3.) 100% false he says he heard banging, that does not make it fact
4.) 100% false he says he believed someone was trying to break-in, that does not make it fact
5.) yes thats what he says but its meaningless in court without reasonably logic or facts and evidence to support it

Your lie is destroyed again and you still havent posted any facts that support your lie, please do so in your next post we are waiting for you to stay on topic and support your claim
Your lying behavior and dishonesty runs deep.

You obviously do not know what a fact is.
And you obviously do not know that the Prosecution has to prove his account wrong by the evidence, if not, his account stands.

So please continue with your absurd replies, like I said, I am here to counter there stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

If he thought someone was trying to break in, then why did he open his front door before he shot her through the screen door? Who in their right mind would open their door like that, if they thought someone was attempting to break in? Nobody, that's who.

Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?

Based on the evidence, here is what I believe happened.

1) He heard the knock on the door.

2) He armed himself, to be on the safe side (OK, that makes sense).

3) He opened the front door.

4) The gun accidentally discharged, hitting the girl.

5) He then attempts to invent a story to explain away his carelessness.

Not murder, by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely manslaughter, as her death was caused by his carelessness.

I agree, other than you need to add "panic" to that seeing someone covered in blood and possibly acting frantic right there when he opened the door.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?
Is there a set established procedure that one must respond a certain way?
I am sorry, I haven't seen that written anywhere in the law. Could you please point it out?


If he thought someone was trying to break in, then why did he open his front door before he shot her through the screen door? Who in their right mind would open their door like that, if they thought someone was attempting to break in? Nobody, that's who.

Why did he call 911 AFTER he shot her in the face, and not while he assumed that she was attempting to break in?

Not murder, by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely manslaughter, as her death was caused by his carelessness.
Wtf?
Do you not follow what happened? There was no purposeful shooting.
He heard banging. Not knocking.
He believed someone was trying to break in.
He then arms himself and proceeds to the door. (The banging caused his belief and is what brought him to his door armed, which is what is important.)
He is protected and opens the door to find out what is going on, and the gun accidentally discharges.

There is no inventing any story here, as that is exactly what we have been informed of.

The only problem here is that you obviously think he armed himself in reply to simply knocking. That makes no sense.

What makes sense is that she was drunk and trying to get in to what she most likely thought was her home by banging on the door. Especially as drunks are given to banging, and not simply knocking on doors to get in.

And to answer your question, many would open the door like that. Why wouldn't he? He had protection.

As for manslaughter... Of course, that is what I have said all along.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

It is critical that a person allow a possible assailant to hit them at least once before using a deadly weapon - and ideally multiple times - to leave no doubt of the danger.

After the person has hit you multiple times, you should then overwhelm the person to prevail enough to be able to draw your weapon. Being hit 1, 2, 4, 5 times by an unarmed assailant doesn't prevent you from then defending yourself. This is particularly true if the would-be assailant is a teenager since they poise no danger to an adult. Teenage child lack the physical strength to harm or defeat an adult.

Here are some examples of how a person has plenty of time to know they are under attack by an unarmed attacker and the legal wisdom of allowing yourself to be hit at least once before using a deadly weapon in self defense - and certainly against teenagers who can't really hurt any adult without a weapon anyway.

 
Back
Top Bottom