• 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

nope its a fact, plain and simple, sorry this fact bothers you, its the country prosecutor and it has nothign to do with the family.

please support your following lie


the country prosecutor is biased
the country prosecutor is basing the investigation fact from the family and not evidence.

we would love to see the proof of these posted lies
Wrong! It is a false and adopted narrative. Nothing more than that.
It was what the family was saying (which is contrary to the evidence), when they had no clue before the Prosecutor decided to press charges.
The Prosecutor adopted it, and it flies directly in the face of the evidence which is she was banging. Not knocking.
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.)J, this post just displays why I don't generally try to discuss anything with you...
2.) I made the distinction of "polite knock" and "open handed banging" to show in words that the two are completely different in the way they sound inside a house to people....
3.) Now, the homeowner says 'banging', and the prosecutor tries
4.) as probably 10 out of 10 prosecutors would to insert 'knocking' in order to downplay the possible state of mind of the homeowner.
5.) But I guarantee you that at trial any lawyer representing the homeowner will make a big deal out of the difference between a 'knock' at the door at 4:30am and 'banging' at the door at 4:30am...
6.).If you can't see that, then I guess you continue and have a nice day,
7.) because we are done. ;)

1.) not being able to back up claims is not my issue but please continue to deflect
2.) so whats a closed hand pounding? is that a knock or a banging? by itself legal and factually what does it change? nothign
while both words are accurate one is suggestive that there was something wrong being done
3.) yes thats his claim
4.) the country prosecutor
5.) now its not a down play, since theres no evidence of forcible entry its accurate and since they are educated on law and what not they use accurate veribage

would you like proof?


legal, based on the action and name alone

what is the difference between knock and banging?

5.) of course they will try to play a dishonest dramatic word game and try to paint a picture has the driver was doing something wrong when the action alone is no different legally, i agree 100%

6.) nope i see reality
ill repeat the story i just told in the other thread

banging is subjective and suggest wrong doing and emotion and i agree it will cause a reaction that will be different to everybody.

again my daughter did it (banging) one night about 3 in the morning on time, she didnt have her key, was at the neighbors house sleeping over but they wanted to leave to go to the hospital and she wanted to come home. phones didnt wake us so she knocked on the door, it was a louder knock, banging, you know since it was 3am and we were probably sleeping. It did the trick it woke me up and at no time did i think break in. WHy because thats stupid and banging on a door alone is not equal to breaking in

when she did it in the middle of the day i was frustrated and told her not to do that, theres no need but again, she did nothing wrong and i never thought break in.

the bottom line is its dramatic language and you know it

LEGALLY by itself its MEANINGLESS unless theres MORE

banging on a door and evidence of forced entry, THAT matters, banging on a door alone NOPE

heck stereo typically how do most police "knock" on a door? people say they bang on it lol

7.) you concession and inability to defend your post is noted and if thats what you choose to do that fine by me

nothing you said changes the facts list or has any legal impact at all, feel free to disagree with those to fact if you like though

and if you dont want to concede by all means simply provide proof why the two terms by themselves legally and factually matter
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

J, this post just displays why I don't generally try to discuss anything with you...I made the distinction of "polite knock" and "open handed banging" to show in words that the two are completely different in the way they sound inside a house to people....Now, the homeowner says 'banging', and the prosecutor tries, as probably 10 out of 10 prosecutors would to insert 'knocking' in order to downplay the possible state of mind of the homeowner. But I guarantee you that at trial any lawyer representing the homeowner will make a big deal out of the difference between a 'knock' at the door at 4:30am and 'banging' at the door at 4:30am....If you can't see that, then I guess you continue and have a nice day, because we are done. ;)
I also get the feeling that is is just time to push him and his absurdity to the wayside.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.)Wow. Your thoughts are so convoluted. And so perplexing that you think you are right when you are actually wrong.
2.) It really is sad, as you are only fooling yourself if you actually believe what you say.
3.) You are wrong and are just trying to maintain an illusion in your head that you are right.
4.) Banging is not the same as knocking, legal or otherwise.
5.) And any competent attorney will demonstrate the difference in the Court to emphasize what the jury already knows... that banging is not the same as knocking.
6.) They will also point out that at oh-dark-thirty in the morning, banging can and does sound like someone could be breaking-in.

1.) really more specific please because it seems you cant prove anythign i claimed to be a fact wrong.
if you disagree with an opinion i have by all means point it out and we can discuss it

2.) see 1, these failed deflections dont work. Are you going to continuing making failed posts and trying to discuss me or do you have something on topic?

3.) weird since he things i pointed out to be facts are and can be proved and your posts have failed at changing that

4.) by themselves, factually it is, this fact will never change based on your opinion.

5.) yes i agree any competent lawyer for the home owner will try to make it like theres a difference between the two and that banging is some how magically wrong or illegal but they will fail if thats all there is as i already pointed out.

legally alone he are the same and meaningless

6.) i again agree they will TRY this but legally, that along by itself wont change anything. There will have to be MORE.

once again nothing has changed
there's factually NOTHING you have pointed out that has changed any factson the the list nor are relevant to the list of facts

please continue to try though and try to stick to the topic
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Wow!
You are simply over the top wrong!
The evidence that has been reported is ...
He said it was banging. Period.
He said he believed someone was trying to break in. Period.​
Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.)Wrong! It is a false and adopted narrative. Nothing more than that.
2.) It was what the family was saying
3.) (which is contrary to the evidence)
4.) when they had no clue before the Prosecutor decided to press charges.
5.) The Prosecutor adopted i
6.) t, and it flies directly in the face of the evidence which is she was banging. Not knocking.

1.) no has proven with evidence its a fact and the narritive is facts and legality
2.) yes the family did say this and it has nothgin to do with the county prosecutor
3.) no legally there is no evidence to suggest there was anything more than knocking, if you disagree please please provide this evidence that LEGALLY says there was something more than knocking we would love to read it
4.) yes the family had no clue what happened at the time of thier statments this is true and impacts nothgin being discussed
5.) false the county prosecuted WAITED for the evidence then stated what the evidence reports
6.) again see 3#

legally alone they are the same
again your post fails to change any facts
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

I also get the feeling that is is just time to push him and his absurdity to the wayside.

the concession of the inability of your posts to back up your posted lies is noted, along with this deflection and repeated post trying to focus on me and not the topic.

When you have something on topic and can support the lies pointed out in your post please do so.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?

yes this is true

legally knocking and "banging" are no different by themselves

since theres zero evidence of forced entry they are the same legally

dents in the door? then yes they are different
evidence of prying the door away? yes they are different

since the police stated there's no signs of forced entry then legally they are the same since they were done with a hand.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.) not being able to back up claims is not my issue but please continue to deflect
2.) so whats a closed hand pounding? is that a knock or a banging? by itself legal and factually what does it change? nothign
while both words are accurate one is suggestive that there was something wrong being done
3.) yes thats his claim
4.) the country prosecutor
5.) now its not a down play, since theres no evidence of forcible entry its accurate and since they are educated on law and what not they use accurate veribage

would you like proof?


legal, based on the action and name alone

what is the difference between knock and banging?

5.) of course they will try to play a dishonest dramatic word game and try to paint a picture has the driver was doing something wrong when the action alone is no different legally, i agree 100%

6.) nope i see reality
ill repeat the story i just told in the other thread

banging is subjective and suggest wrong doing and emotion and i agree it will cause a reaction that will be different to everybody.

again my daughter did it (banging) one night about 3 in the morning on time, she didnt have her key, was at the neighbors house sleeping over but they wanted to leave to go to the hospital and she wanted to come home. phones didnt wake us so she knocked on the door, it was a louder knock, banging, you know since it was 3am and we were probably sleeping. It did the trick it woke me up and at no time did i think break in. WHy because thats stupid and banging on a door alone is not equal to breaking in

when she did it in the middle of the day i was frustrated and told her not to do that, theres no need but again, she did nothing wrong and i never thought break in.

the bottom line is its dramatic language and you know it

LEGALLY by itself its MEANINGLESS unless theres MORE

banging on a door and evidence of forced entry, THAT matters, banging on a door alone NOPE

heck stereo typically how do most police "knock" on a door? people say they bang on it lol

7.) you concession and inability to defend your post is noted and if thats what you choose to do that fine by me

nothing you said changes the facts list or has any legal impact at all, feel free to disagree with those to fact if you like though

and if you dont want to concede by all means simply provide proof why the two terms by themselves legally and factually matter

1.) Here you go, maybe you'll understand this:
2.) I don't care what you have to say
3.) I don't care what you have to say
4.) I don't care what you have to say
5.) Writing in listed points is so annoying that I am considering blocking you from my view
6.) What your reaction to your daughter was, is irrelevant, and I don't care what you have to say
7.) I don't care what you have to say....

Get it? See a pattern there?
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?

Of course they can.
What do you think the following means?
"If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law."


The defense can do the same with what they have said.
The defendant is a witness to what he is being charged.
There is an accused version of events, is there not? And that they are allowed to present that to the jury, are they not?



And, it is in the 911 call. It is part of the record.


And you can ignore him, as everybody knows there is a difference between knocking and banging.
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.) Here you go, maybe you'll understand this:
2.) I don't care what you have to say
3.) I don't care what you have to say
4.) I don't care what you have to say
5.) Writing in listed points is so annoying that I am considering blocking you from my view
6.) What your reaction to your daughter was, is irrelevant, and I don't care what you have to say
7.) I don't care what you have to say....

8.)Get it? See a pattern there?

1-7) yes i understand you dont care what the facts are and youd rather deflect then to actually have to defend your post with any facts of your of you own you have proved this
8.) yes i have seen this obvious patteren in your post history

but keeping on topic and not talkign about ME since you changed nothign ill just say it point it out again'


fact is, alone and by themselves there is no legal difference between knocking and "banging"

when you have ANYTHING to change this fact please let me know . . . or even ONE thing that changes it. . . . .one
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Moderator's Warning:
Whatcha say fellas that we drop the personal comments and chill out a bit. Stick to topic and knock off the baiting as well.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Of course they can.
What do you think the following means?
"If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law."


The defense can do the same with what they have said.
The defendant is a witness to what he is being charged.
There is an accused version of events, is there not? And that they are allowed to present that to the jury, are they not?



And, it is in the 911 call. It is part of the record.


And you can ignore him, as everybody knows there is a difference between knocking and banging.
That's what she said?

Sorry...:mrgreen:

But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.

If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

That's what she said?

Sorry...:mrgreen:

But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.

If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
I understand that.
I was just emphasizing that what a defendant says can be evidence.

But he really doesn't have to convince.
He can and will present it in the best light, but the prosecution is the one who has to prove their case.
Not the other way around.
Even in cases off an affirmative defense, the Prosecution still has to prove it's case.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

That's what she said?

Sorry...:mrgreen:

But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.

If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...

not only that unless theres more facts with it "banging" doesnt establish anything legally in favor of the homeowner
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

I understand that.
I was just emphasizing that what a defendant says can be evidence.

But he really doesn't have to convince.
He can and will present it in the best light, but the prosecution is the one who has to prove their case.
Not the other way around.
Even in cases off an affirmative defense, the Prosecution still has to prove it's case.
Well of course.

But, obviously, the prosecution will try to say he is lying. Or it seems likely
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

That's what she said?

Sorry...:mrgreen:

But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.

If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
Contrary from what you may have been told by another, the banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
But in all reality, with what we know and if he was actually pointing or aiming, it doesn't matter as he has already established it as Manslaughter by saying the discharge was accidental.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Well of course.

But, obviously, the prosecution will try to say he is lying. Or it seems likely
Not saying they can't, but they would have to prove he was by the evidence.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

1.)Contrary from what you may have been told by another, the banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
But in all reality, with what we know and if he was actually pointing or aiming, it doesn't matter as he has already established it as Manslaughter by saying the discharge was accidental.

1.) factually not true without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts, reality or evidence

there is credence without factual or rational evidence

if there was evidence of forced or attempted forced entry then yes, without it, nope.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

An again folks, don't let the other poster confuse you.
The banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

An again folks, don't let the other poster confuse you.
The banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.

100% factually false

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

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence

if there was evidence of forced or attempted forced entry then yes, without it, nope.

if you have ANYTHING that counters this please please present it

that failed logic is failed its like saying, hey that guy was looking at me funny so that gives credence to my thoughts he was going to kill me

nope, reality and legal situations simply factually need more
 
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....
 
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....

all meaningless with out further evidence
the belief has to be reasonable

banging could also mean they were simply trying to wake sleeping person lol
there is nothing factually about banging that relates to waiting in or breaking in, that is all speculation and without further evidence rendered completely meaningless

banging is absolutely meaningless without further evidence, dents in the door, evidence of attempted forced entry etc which there were none

also its either a dark neighborhood and he couldn't see or he could see so well he knew what she looked like and could GUESS at her state of mind it cant be both, just saying. Not implying you said its both just pointing out those would totally contradict eachother in a trial.

then theres his statement of it was an accident, its a factor
the major factor that probably makes some type of conviction almost a lock is shooting through a locked door, thats going to be huge

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

there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence

if there was evidence of forced or attempted forced entry then yes, without it, nope.

as for your question for Murder 2

IMO its too much and Im guessing its being used to deal and nothign more thats why the multiple charges and not a single charge

Manslaughter seems like a lock with all the facts we currently know

his mind isnt any hurdle at all it has to be reasonable and there has to be evidence to support it, it always has to be reasonable with support from evidence and reality.
 
Re: Homeowner in Renisha McBride's killing to face murder charges

Manslaughter seems like a lock with all the facts we currently know.

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