Dearborn Heights, MI - homeowner will be charged after shooting drunk woman

[ATCclears]

Man charged in Detroit-area woman's shooting death - CNN.com

A Michigan man who claimed he accidentally shot and killed a 19-year-old woman he thought was trying to break into his Dearborn Heights home this month will be charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Friday.

Lawyers for the woman's family claim the 19-year-old, Renisha McBride, was looking for help after she was in a car crash on November 2. Dearborn Heights is a suburb of Detroit.

The report from the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office said McBride's alcohol level was 0.218%. The legal limit for drivers in Michigan is 0.08%.

Read More

 

[ZigZagZeke]

From the article her family says about her future, "She could have been anything".

Yes, she could have. But what she was, was a drunk driver, about to be charged with a DUI and hit and run. If she were crazy drunk and banging on the window of a police cruiser she'd have gotten the same treatment and nobody would be on trial. Pity the homeowner.

 

[luke23]

Here's the thing. There's no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent discharge. He can either claim affirmative defense or negligence on his part. The latter might net a lighter sentence, but the former is pretty ridiculous. He shot an unarmed woman from the other side of a door. There was absolutely no imminent threat.

We've got to be careful to pick our targets.

 

[Mark W.]

This pretty much covers it

"McBride was unarmed and there was no evidence of a break-in, so Wafer -- who authorities say shot McBride from behind a closed, locked screen door -- cannot lawfully claim he needed to shoot her to stop an imminent threat, "

 

[U201491]

Thank Biden.
He said to just shoot through the door with a shotgun.......................biden >

<broken link removed>

 

[Stomper]

What we have here is merely the 2013 playoffs of the Darwin awards.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

This was a no shoot situation. There was no imminent threat. Yes she was drunk, yes she was looking for help, yes she was young (19) and no she wont make it to 20. You and I, we, have an obligation as firearms owners to know when deadly force is warranted, and this wasn't one of them.

I applaud the earlier article about the family rescuing their family member from her estranged boyfriend who had kidnapped and was stabbing her when they shot the ba$tard dead, but this one isn't even in the same league.

 

[adidasguy]

Others have told me my thinking is wrong... but in a possible danger situation, I would first fire int o the air or ground to scare off an intruder. (One friend once told me that just the sight of a gun would scare away most people unless they are up on drugs).
Not liking the idea of killing someone, I would first go for the legs or arms to scare and disable an intruder. If that didn't do it, I'd go for abdomen next then go for the kill.
That may be wrong by convention, but I'm willing to listen and learn.
I'd rather disable someone and call 911 than kill unless I had to. Yes - if they had a gun I'd empty a magazine into them. If a drunk, a shot in the leg might be more than enough.

 

[U201491]

Others have told me my thinking is wrong... but in a possible danger situation, I would first fire int o the air or ground to scare off an intruder. (One friend once told me that just the sight of a gun would scare away most people unless they are up on drugs).
Not liking the idea of killing someone, I would first go for the legs or arms to scare and disable an intruder. If that didn't do it, I'd go for abdomen next then go for the kill.
That may be wrong by convention, but I'm willing to listen and learn.
I'd rather disable someone and call 911 than kill unless I had to. Yes - if they had a gun I'd empty a magazine into them. If a drunk, a shot in the leg might be more than enough.

First off. You do not fire warning shots.
You fire in defense of yours or another's life.
You fire to stop the threat, neither to wound or kill.
Just to stop the threat, so 3 rds to the head would qualify <G>
The reason you fire is in defense of life.
If you do as you stated, you would qualify also............for probably a 10 year sentence.
Also when someone is drunk or on drugs it may just take a bit more than a leg shot to slow them down.
Besides that leaves them wide open to turn around and sue as well. There are many instances where drug influenced people have taken a dozen rounds and still remained mobile enough to harm you. Please get some training for when to and when not to use your firearm for personal protection.
Mentally prepare yourself for real life scenarios as well.

Ps Never follow Bidens advice

 

[luke23]

Others have told me my thinking is wrong... but in a possible danger situation, I would first fire int o the air or ground to scare off an intruder. (One friend once told me that just the sight of a gun would scare away most people unless they are up on drugs).
Not liking the idea of killing someone, I would first go for the legs or arms to scare and disable an intruder. If that didn't do it, I'd go for abdomen next then go for the kill.
That may be wrong by convention, but I'm willing to listen and learn.
I'd rather disable someone and call 911 than kill unless I had to. Yes - if they had a gun I'd empty a magazine into them. If a drunk, a shot in the leg might be more than enough.

Here's the thing. It's a crisis, and you have split seconds to decide what to do and act on it. If you try to accurately aim at a narrow bodypart like an arm or leg under stress, you will probably miss, and the threat will not be neutralized.

How you defend should be determined by your weapons. If you are squeamish about killing someone to save your own life, then you should get a shotgun and put a beanbag round in the chamber. The first shot should then knock the wind out of them, and allow you to detain the attacker until Police arrive.

If you have a pistol, you need to commit to taking down the target. The only circumstance I can think of to not shoot at the center of the chest would be if they have a melee weapon and a real chance of reaching you. Then I would shoot into the pelvis to immobilize.

I've got to say, I agree with Taku. You need to develop the right mindset if you plan to use a firearm for defense.

 

[Stomper]

Others have told me my thinking is wrong... but in a possible danger situation, I would first fire int o the air or ground to scare off an intruder. (One friend once told me that just the sight of a gun would scare away most people unless they are up on drugs).
Not liking the idea of killing someone, I would first go for the legs or arms to scare and disable an intruder. If that didn't do it, I'd go for abdomen next then go for the kill.
That may be wrong by convention, but I'm willing to listen and learn.
I'd rather disable someone and call 911 than kill unless I had to. Yes - if they had a gun I'd empty a magazine into them. If a drunk, a shot in the leg might be more than enough.

If you aren't COMMITTED to the notion of the possibility that you may have to take another life in the face of a justifiable event, then IMHO you have no business carrying a weapon.

Armed confrontations generally happen within two eye blinks, and there is not a menu of tactics and bodily areas to choose from, you train, train, then train some more to develop muscle memory. If you are in fear for your life, one or two beats to decide on deadly force and you shoot center mass until the threat is gone. That could mean one shot or a mag-dump into someone.

Ultimately you are responsible for every single round you fire, you're over analyzing the wrong aspect of concealed carry IMHO, and if you're that averse to the notion of taking another life (nothing wrong with that, BTW) then your best defense is wear some good running shoes and train to run in the opposite direction really, really fast.