LAKEPORT, Calif. - Three young black men break into a white man's home in rural Northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death _ but it's the surviving black man who is charged with murder.
In a case that has brought cries of racism from civil rights groups, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, was charged by prosecutors in this overwhelmingly white county under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed.
He is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 27.
"It was pandemonium" inside the house that night, District Attorney Jon Hopkins said. Hughes was responsible for "setting the whole thing in motion by his actions and the actions of his accomplices."
Prosecutors said homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire Dec. 7 after three young men rampaged through the Clearlake house demanding marijuana and brutally beat his stepson. Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, were shot in the back. Hughes fled.
Hughes was charged with first-degree murder under California's Provocative Act doctrine, versions of which have been on the books in many states for generations but are rarely used.
The Provocative Act doctrine does not require prosecutors to prove the accused intended to kill. Instead, "they have to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner," said Brian Getz, a San Francisco defense attorney unconnected to the case.
The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes, who also faces robbery, burglary and assault charges. Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty.
The Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and pastor at Hughes' church, said the case demonstrates the legal system is racist in remote Lake County, aspiring wine country 100 miles north of San Francisco. The sparsely populated county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black.
Brown and other NAACP officials are asking why the homeowner is walking free. Tests showed Edmonds had marijuana and prescription medication in his system the night of the shooting. Edmonds had a prescription for both the pot and the medication to treat depression.
"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."
The district attorney said that race played no part in the charges against Hughes and that the homeowner was spared prosecution because of evidence he was defending himself and his family, who were asleep when the assailants barged in at 4 a.m.
Edmonds' stepson, Dale Lafferty, suffered brain damage from the baseball bat beating he took during the melee. The 19-year-old lives in a rehabilitation center and can no longer feed himself.
"I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was defend my family and my children's lives," said Edmonds, 33. "I'm sad the kids are dead, I didn't mean to kill them."
He added: "Race has nothing to do with it other than this was a gang of black people who thought they were going to beat up this white family."
California's Provocative Act doctrine has primarily been used to charge people whose actions led to shooting deaths.
However, in one notable case in Southern California in 1999, a man who robbed a family at gunpoint in their home was convicted of murder because a police officer pursuing him in a car chase slammed into another driver in an intersection, killing her.
Hughes' mother, San Francisco schoolteacher Judy Hughes, said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana. She called the case against her son a "legal lynching."
"Only God knows what happened in that house," she said. "But this I know: My son did not murder his childhood friends."
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
Why is it every time a white guy shoots a black guy in self defense, it's racism? And why is it that the black guy who gets shot is NEVER guilty of anything, at least according to his family?
Seems like a pretty cut and dried case to me - homeowner defends his family against a group of thugs - of course the NAACP sees it as a good old fashioned lynching
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
I think the issue is that the third burglar is being charged with the murder of his accomplices, even though it was the homeowner who shot them. I doubt many would complain if he was just charged with burglary, but charging him with murder when he's probably lucky he isn't dead too might seem a bit unreasonable.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin
"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell
Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
The legal point is that if during the commission of a robbery and one of your partners gets shot, hurt, killed etc the legal president is that the surviving robber is charged with the assault/murder as if it was him firing the gun, swinging the bat, etc.
Really the idiocy of this makes me groan. After breaking into a man's house and the man defends said house they claim they are now the victim somehow.
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
I truly love the Mother's comments because just going to buy some mary-J is a good reason for beating a kid with a baseball bat inside his home at 4am.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
I really fail to see how someone can be around just to buy some drugs when his accomplices beat a person into a (essentially) vegetative state.
I don't know how I feel about the murder charge though. Manslaughter maybe. His actions did run a serious risk of getting his buddies killed. In effect though, I think beating someone bad enough that they can't even feed themselves should be something more than just "assault." It's essentially murder in that you've destroyed their entire life.
This was a pretty clear cut case a self-defense. Intruders in my home assaulting my family: it really doesn't matter where I shoot him. They've made intent perfectly clear. Just because someone has their back to you does not mean they pose no threat.
The principle is that if anyone dies during a felony, it's the guy who's committing the crime's fault. If they didn't commit the crime, no one would be dead.
The dead men being shot in the back may not be applicable. If they were moving towards a location where the homeowner knew someone was, they'd be justified, because the homeowner is defending that person.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
Brown and other NAACP officials are asking why the homeowner is walking free. Tests showed Edmonds had marijuana and prescription medication in his system the night of the shooting. Edmonds had a prescription for both the pot and the medication to treat depression.
"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."
They weren't 'boys', they were men in their twenties who had committed armed robbery and assault. If you beat a family-member of mine so he can't feed himself, I'll put a whole clip inside of you, I don't care how young and carefree you are!
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
Murder carries a higher penalty then attempted murder possibly?
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
Murder carries a higher penalty then attempted murder possibly?
Yes. My limited understanding of the law is that they can hit him for a lot more time with the murder charge.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
It’s a pretty well known law in the US if that’s what you’re thinking; a good portion of the jury will have previously heard of it. A double murder charge of is easily going to put this guy away for 50 years, probably for life. Any assault charge is going to be a lot less then that; it would depend on the details of the case if an attempted murder charge could be supported.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
Hmm... you usually are arguing against weapon use. In this case it was shown that they were shot in the back so they were running. Why do you think this case is different?
Btw, I would have done the same thing and think that he was in the right. This guy deserves everything he gets.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
Ghetto Edit: Unless they had guns I don't see how he can't be charged with some form of homicide for shooting them in the back as they were running away.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
I'm wondering where they were when he shot them in the back. You can argue that if they were outside running down the street, it was uncalled for, but if the guy comes out of a room and there they are running around in his house still, I don't think you can say "Hey you shouldn't have shot them". Especially since it was fucking three of them, and they had already resorted to violence.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
I'm wondering where they were when he shot them in the back. You can argue that if they were outside running down the street, it was uncalled for, but if the guy comes out of a room and there they are running around in his house still, I don't think you can say "Hey you shouldn't have shot them". Especially since it was fucking three of them, and they had already resorted to violence.
Yeah, it would depend on exactly where they were and what they were doing. If he confronted them with a gun and they simply tried to retreat to another part of the house for an advantage then I can see it. If they were running out of the house and obviousely attempting to flee the scene, then its not so good for the shooter.
That said, I'm glad 2 of the punks are dead and I hope the third one goes away for the rest of his life. I probably would have done the same thing, then put a bullet or 2 in each of their skulls to make sure the job was done.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
yeah, it would depend on where they were and what they were doing in relation to him. if they were fleeing, that is one thing. I am not sure if he should be charged for it, but that is beside the point. If their backs were to him and they were robbing his house, fuck em.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Question though: if they wanted to throw the book at him, why use this strange and counter-intuitive clause when they could charge him with the severe beating of the young victim?
They're almost certainly charging him with the burglarly and the assaults, along with the 2 counts of murder and any other criminal acts that transpired during the home invasion.
I pretty much support that law, too. If you break into someones house you know it's a possibility that you or your accomplices might get killed by the homeowner. If that happens, you get charged with their murder because you were part of the criminal conspiracy that resulted in his death. If you hadn't helped them commit the crime, you're dumbass friends wouldn't have gotten blown away. Too bad, so sad.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:
That said, I'm glad 2 of the punks are dead and I hope the third one goes away for the rest of his life. I probably would have done the same thing, then put a bullet or 2 in each of their skulls to make sure the job was done.
Do that and you'll be very lucky to escape life in prison. It is ALWAYS illegal to 'finish off' someone. That said, always shoot to kill and hope you manage it before they hit the ground; you really don’t want to have to deal with the repercussions in civil court of having shot and merely maimed someone. Its much easier to defend yourself if they died, fucked as that is.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Who gives a fuck if they were shot in the back. Is he supposed to alert them so that they can turn around? What if they had guns too? If they weren't beating his stepson into a brain damaged life with a bat they wouldn't have got shot at all. The got what they gave.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
havokeff wrote:Who gives a fuck if they were shot in the back. Is he supposed to alert them so that they can turn around? What if they had guns too? If they weren't beating his stepson into a brain damaged life with a bat they wouldn't have got shot at all. The got what they gave.
If they are running away and no longer an immediate threat then shooting them is murder. That's where is crosses the line from defense to vigilantism.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:
That said, I'm glad 2 of the punks are dead and I hope the third one goes away for the rest of his life. I probably would have done the same thing, then put a bullet or 2 in each of their skulls to make sure the job was done.
Do that and you'll be very lucky to escape life in prison. It is ALWAYS illegal to 'finish off' someone. That said, always shoot to kill and hope you manage it before they hit the ground; you really don’t want to have to deal with the repercussions in civil court of having shot and merely maimed someone. Its much easier to defend yourself if they died, fucked as that is.
Oh, most likely I'd be looking at the charge. But I'd plead not guilty due to temporary insanity and almost certainly get away with it after showing the jury pictures of my brain damaged step son.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
havokeff wrote:Who gives a fuck if they were shot in the back. Is he supposed to alert them so that they can turn around? What if they had guns too? If they weren't beating his stepson into a brain damaged life with a bat they wouldn't have got shot at all. The got what they gave.
If they are running away and no longer an immediate threat then shooting them is murder. That's where is crosses the line from defense to vigilantism.
Yeah I know. The article says they were shot in the back and then the kid that is alive fled. That sounds to me like the guy went and got his gun and came into what ever room they were in, shooting. It could also indicate he shot them while they were still beating his step son. If the article is accurate about the events.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
havokeff wrote:Who gives a fuck if they were shot in the back. Is he supposed to alert them so that they can turn around? What if they had guns too? If they weren't beating his stepson into a brain damaged life with a bat they wouldn't have got shot at all. The got what they gave.
If they are running away and no longer an immediate threat then shooting them is murder. That's where is crosses the line from defense to vigilantism.
Yeah I know. The article says they were shot in the back and then the kid that is alive fled. That sounds to me like the guy went and got his gun and came into what ever room they were in, shooting. It could also indicate he shot them while they were still beating his step son. If the article is accurate about the events.
I think it's kind of up for interpretation. If they were still well inside the house, then I have no issues with the shootings. If they were on their way out the door, then it becomes a bit iffy.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
