and i would agree unless theres real evidence
but it m may come up anyway because the drivers lawyer already as suggested that injured and drinking and dazed form the head injury makes her less of a potential threat, we know already interacted with people that tried to help her and all she could tell them is she wanted to go home, no signs of aggression or begin defensive at that moment.
COuld that have changed? of course but again there will have to be further evidence not guessing like that poster is trying to do.
It sure as hell looks like the shooter is guilty of something, but I'm uncomfortable convicting him at this point without knowing why he shot. It seems crazy, without a chance of any reasonable argument or defense. I'd like to see a mental examination, a statement from the shooter, just a little more.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
theres zero factual evidence that says the the Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy deviated from evidence/protocol and adopted the family's "opinion" to bring charges against the home owner, she doesn't work for the parents, she doesn't represent the family. Her job is the county proscuter she brings charges against people for the county.
Gerald Thurswell is the attorney who represents McBride’s family
now this doesnt change the fact there will be a trial but here are the comments from Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy who after an investigation decided to bring charges against McBride based off of evidence her and the county and police have.
"evidence showed McBride, of Detroit, knocked on the locked screen door of Wafer’s home and that there was no evidence of forced entry."
" Evidence suggests that Wafer opened the front (interior) door before he fired through the closed and locked screen door"
“Under Michigan law, there is no duty to retreat in your own home. However, someone who claims self-defense must honestly and reasonably believe that he is in imminent danger of either losing his life or suffering great bodily harm, and that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent that harm,”
“This ‘reasonable belief,’ is not measured subjectively by the standards of the individual in question, but objectively, by the standards of a reasonable person.”
“we have examined everything and after examining everything these are the appropriate charges and he did not act in lawful self-defense,”
"We dont feel its relevant to our charges at all in this case" (talking about the driver being intoxicated)
"Race was not a factor in her decision to bring charges against Theodore Wafer for the death of Renisha McBride"
“No matter what kind of pressure you receive to not charge a case or to charge it, you don’t go by that,”
“If the facts and evidence are leading you, then you can’t go wrong. If you are afraid to make those decisions, then you need not have this job. If you are afraid you will lose friends or lose influence or lose whatever — lose traction — then you don’t need to have this job, because you’ll make decisions based on the wrong things.”
"We make our decisions based on the facts and the evidence"
if you have any factual support to back up the claim that the county prosecutor adopted the knocking from the family please provide it, id love to read it, seem you complete made it up.
In every weapons class that I have ever had, these were stressed:
Opportunity= A person has the immediate opportunity to cause serious physical harm (The young lady was on the other side of a locked screed door)
Ability= Same person has the ability, by a weapon or even from physical stature. (No weapon, but there is a possibility that she was acting in a bizarre manner than may have been threatening, but has nor been shown)
Intent= Through actions or words they have presented intent to exercise the ability and opportunity to cause such harm. (again, no evidence to support this)
I do not see any of those in the evidence as shown in the news stories so far.
As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!
The only witness said there was banging. That is the evidence that we have to go on. Period.
As most folks know from the Trayvon fiasco, what the prosecution says, is not evidence.
They can even say they are charging based on evidence and facts when they really aren't.
And in this case it is apparent that some folks are not paying attention to what was even said.
The Prosecutor said in her press conference that "It's alleged she was shot to death by the home owner after she knocked on his locked front screen door." The only folks who had alleged such has been the family.
The only evidence that would support knocking, would be an eye witness to such, yet none are present at this time.
The only other evidence that may be available, is of her touching the door. Which really would not indicate whether done by knock or bang.
The prosecution, adopted exactly what the family had been alleging (that she had been knocking), none of whom were there.
All we really have is the eye witnesses account that she was banging on the door.
Here is a link to a PDF of the Police report, heavily redacted.
And yes, her being inebriated well past the legal limit, will go directly to whether or not it is likely she was banging on the door as the only witness said.
Someone would have to be truly uneducated in the matters being discussed not to know that, as well as thinking what the Prosecutor thinks is relevant, or irrelevant, matters one bit to the defense.
For those interested, here is an interesting read about the case by Bennett L. Gershman, Professor of Law, Published at the Huff Post.
"I Didn't Mean to Kill Renisha McBride." But Does it Matter? | Bennett L. Gershman
"The law is reason, free from passion."
so i will ask again
if you have any factual support to back up the claim that the county prosecutor adopted the knocking from the family please provide it, id love to read it so far its nothing but a lie.