Which opens the possibility she could have hit the bong once a week ago. But wait! Young? Ghetto? Black? People in that venn tend to abuse all sorts of drugs, not hit it once and quit.
Which opens the possibility she could have hit the bong once a week ago. But wait! Young? Ghetto? Black? People in that venn tend to abuse all sorts of drugs, not hit it once and quit.
Didn't realize they had released the tox report, but I'd be shocked if he gets convicted of anything. I can imagine how this defense is going to go: She was drunk, high, and disoriented from her crash, was banging on the door, the guy thought someone was trying to break in, and so he brought a gun which he accidentally fired because her banging startled him. There were no other witnesses (if anything, anyone living with him can confirm that they thought someone was trying to break in), so all they need to do is convince once juror that he reasonably thought someone was trying to break into his house.
Plus she is black. Case closed.
At the minimum manslaughter. He'll probably plead out before it goes to trial. It's already splattered around enough with the media and they'll work out a deal so it'll quietly go away.
.2 BAC is pretty high. The THC in her system like most people pointed out is pretty moot. I've never seen someone, even after they just took a hit, become violent off of marijuana. Alcohol on the other hand is a very violence inducing drug, especially once your adrenaline is up and you're cruising. I'm sure she wasn't just knocking on the door. She was probably freaking the hell out and this asshole came up half cocked and shot her. Hopefully the family has a good attorney that can get the case rolling in the right direction. I believe in defending your home and am a huge fan of the Castle Law, but this type of thing makes guys like me who believe in the system feel like one persons mistake will cost all of us in the end.
I highly doubt he'll plead out. This case will get attention from both sides, and he'll probably get a very good lawyer. Honestly, it's probably going to be similar to the Zimmerman trial -- the defense will argue that he had reason to feel threatened, and the prosecution will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no reason to be. And the BAC is going to the piece that, imo, will keep him out of jail. Even if the prosecution can line up every character witness under the sun that attests to the fact that she was a sweet girl who would never hurt anyone (as the family has repeatedly claimed), she was so drunk that night that she ran away from a crime -- twice. The defense just needs to argue that she was so drunk she wasn't acting like herself, was banging on this guy's door etc.
I don't see how he can get out of manslaughter when he already admitted his gun went off by accident. If he shot and killed someone that he didn't intend to shoot and kill, isn't that involuntary manslaughter?
It's Involuntary if it lacks intent. Looking back on it, I would say Negligent Homicide since his neglect in keeping the firearm safe until he needed it caused the death of another. The way we interpret it is involuntary say if someone tried to subdue an individual through other means and the person dies. This is more of a dumb ass who either: 1. doesn't know jack about a firearm and bought it for personal home defense or 2. Is trying to cover up his overzealousness by saying it "accidentally" went off. It's the burden of the state to prove the second point (similar to Zimmerman where they had to prove his intent to kill Martin).
Comparing it to Zimmerman's defense is a good point I didn't think of as there's no real way to prove the intention of the subject either way unless he's 100% cooperative and slips up somewhere along the lines to prove his story is BS. He might actually get off unless he realizes he fucked up and they can convince him that what he did is wrong, which he should and if he doesn't think he did anything wrong then they can prove some sort of intent there.
^^^ THIS is why I think he's not so innocent. Carry a gun to the door, have it in hand and in a position to where you can raise and shoot if needed, but why the hell was the safety even off? It's a button right near the trigger on most guns and you don't need to disengage it unless you're absolutely sure you're gonna shoot.
And until I hear anything more than "she was just being drunk and causing a disturbance," I'm not going to believe she was posing an actual threat to him.
Welp, I was wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2A Michigan man accused of gunning down an unarmed young woman on his front porch in November was convicted Thursday of second-degree murder, manslaughter and possessing a firearm while committing a felony.
Good.