Racism or Justice

[DOXXP29 5]

This is a unique case. Are the cries of racism true or is this how it should be handled?

Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism

The home of Shannon Edmonds, who shot and killed two of three intruders is s...

By JULIANA BARBASSA, AP

5 hours ago

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.

"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."

On Thursday, a judge granted a defense motion for a change<

[coolotter88 2]

ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

actually, skin color is not an excuse for ignorance of the law.

[KingTitan 6]

I am soooooooooooo sick of hearing NAACP step in everytime it involves a black citizen seemingling causing trouble or what have ya....all races cause trouble....Can you imagine if there was a Group of men and woman of a certaine race inveining everytime a crime was commited? I mean seriously now..... The LAW is the LAW.....im getting so sick and tired of hearing paople make it about Race... Enough is enough.

[Easy Bakes 253]

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.[quote>

I see no one in the NAACP mentions that when they cry racism.
Just they law they use to punish them is somehow unfair.
They were probably shot in the back While they beating this guy to death.
They should not only not prosucute the homeowner but give him a medal.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: DOXXP29 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.quote>

Interesting, I hadn't heard of this before. It makes sense in a way.

As far as the racism goes, I'm not seeing it. These guys took their chances by breaking in and assaulting the family, and they lost.

[amdinside 2]

No racism here. It is unfortunate that they were shot in the back but for the defense to say they should not have been shot is incorrect because THEY BROKE INTO A HOME AND BEAT SOMEONE WITH A BASEBALL BAT. If they had no guns then I would say the survivor does not deserve to have murder pinned on him but he needs to go to jail for a long time for the assault and burglary committed.

The issue to discuss should be whether the survivor gets murder or assault and this has nothing to do with skin color.

[ShortStraw 1]

I agree with every word of that, amdinside.

I don't think the fact that they were shot in the back indicates that they would not have caused further trouble just knowing that Edmonds was armed.  He acted in defense of his family to guess by only those facts presented in the article.  If they had not broken in then no one would have been killed.  Basically the prosecution is saying that the defendant must take full responsibility for the actions of that night.  This is something Prosecuting Attorneys say quite often.

[saltandsauce 0]

this is why i have most words with the suffix : ism except for prism

[His Divine Hand 244]

Well, being a resident of this area of California, living pretty much one county up and west of Lake, I can tell you that racism runs very high, so the NAACP may have a point in the very selective use of this Provocative Act charge in this case. I definitely question such a law being used in this action, and I don't feel that the homeowner should be charged (but, shooting people in the back is suspicious), but this Hughes kid should not be charged with murders he did not commit, only the crimes he did, robbery, burglary and assault. These alone, also due to his being black, guarantee him a long enough prison sentence.

[DuskTrooper 314]

The only injustice I see in this case is the fact that the homeowner was not able to dispatch the surviving perp....

[Joesocwork 4]

What an incident in the era of the Jena Six and Duke rape case! I hate to be cynical but I see a Law and Order episode out of this. My one question for the defense would be why would the defendant's mother think that her son would come at that house at that time of day to buy an illegal substance? I'd be curious to see what my African-American colleagues locally think about this.

[hamsterTK 93]

murder charges=not fair

other than that, this seems more ironic than injust.

[Somebody 12]

the kid should be charged for all of his charges except murder.

that law is unfair however, he did beat the stepson and debilitated him for life. I don't think there is any racism here.

[Zelgadis 638]

The only problem with laws such as those is that they're not used often enough. If you commit a crime and somebody dies during the commission of that crime, you should most definitely be charged with murder just as much as if you pulled the trigger yourself.

Perfectly fair, I think.

ISF

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In Canada the charges would be the same.  It is too bad we don't have consecutive sentencing yet.  It will come, and jerks like this will be in the sin bin for good.

The homeowner would be charged under the firearms act unless his gun was licensed.  In any case, he is guilty of discharging a fire arm withing the limits of a municipality.  Everyone does nto get away with everything, you know.

[dadyrghluv 8]

well according to the law book i have read, it does say that the robber can be tried for murder, considering they went to commit a crime, and died in the process. the robber can be held responsible to their demise. just like drunk driving, if u kill someone, even though it's not on purpose u can be tried for murder. u basically killed someone in the act of commiting a felony, so yes u can be held responisble.

i wouldn't say it's racism, but rather justice, on a clever scale.

[Zelgadis 638]

Yup. Reminds me of the age old adage. If your friends rob a bank and you drive the getaway car, you can basically be charged with robbing the bank.

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

I support holding people responsible for deaths which occur because of the actions, but there's two things wrong here:

1) It should be manslaughter, not murder. (which is still a felony, but a less serious charge)

2) Holding this guy responsible for deaths seems iffy since it's not like he acted alone and they got killed because of it, they were in on it too. And they could very well have gone and burglarized that house without him, and still gotten killed. And the survivor could easily have been killed, too, he just got lucky. I'd say if anyone is "liable" for their deaths, it's themselves. You could argue the homeowner used excessive force, but I don't know enough of the details to say whetehr or not that's the case.

N_O_Body In any case, he is guilty of discharging a fire arm withing the limits of a municipalityquote>

...in self defense. Therefore it's excused. What's the point of having a gun if you can't protect yourself (and your property, and your family) with it in your own home?

[BurroDiablo 222]

In the UK the home owner would have got 20 years minimum for killing the 2 guys... murder is unjustifiable, no matter what the circumstances are...

There was a case over here where a Farmer shot and killed a Burglar breaking into his house and ended up being jailed for 3 years before getting released on the grounds of 'Good behaviour' and also being diagnosed with Paranoia.

Race should have nothing to do with this however... of course, they can hide behind an invisible wall of Rights and Amendments but when it comes down to it, one is a Burglar, one is a Murderer... they both deserve some good old fashioned jail time if you ask me.

[dadyrghluv 8]

in the U.S. u can only use deadly force if deadly force is used. u are basically only allowed to use equal force and u have to warn the person that u have a gun and are gonna shoot if they do not leave.

the only time it is ok to use more than appplied force is when u are backed into a corner or stuck in a spot that u cannot get out of, and u are in harms way. according to the newest law book. i just so happen to have a friend who is taking criminal justice in college, so i asked him.

EDIT: i have to agree with zelgadis, that a lesser charge of manslaughter should be used and not the case of actual murder, since he did not actually kill them, but was responsible for their death's.

[justintime 8]

Well, here in Texas, there's a law that says:

 "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

And this one is about fleeing the scene of th crime:

 "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Here is what the guy that lived can be charged with

CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE:

A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

[patriots_1228 51]

I agree its not a good rule, i think that he should only have burglary, robbery, etc., but im sick and tired of everytime somthing bad happens to a black person, its racism. It's not racism if its in the laws that white people follow also!

[Taylor1 0]

Okay IMO i think they should be charged with breaking and entering and some other thing i forgot what it is called not murder the homeowner did have the right to kill them because if you don't know who is in your house and someone is breaking in. I don't think you need to know if they have a gun or not you just make sure of it. its not racism its justice believe me.

[patriots_1228 51]

no matter what you shouldn't kill them. if you have to, you could shoot at their arm or leg, to disable them, but you should never try to kill someone, no matter what theyve done.

[dadyrghluv 8]

idk if i agree with that, some people DO deserve to die, i'll give u an example:

child molestors

rapists

these people are the filth of our society, and deserve equal punishment for the harm they cause. think of how messed up a child becomes after they have been taken advantage of, no sain mother or father would just sit there and let it happen, he would have his own vigilante justice. prefferebely tying them to a tree and bashing them with a shovel repeatedley.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Dying is the easy way out... I would rather have someone incarcerated for the rest of their lives than killed... incarceration means people suffer for longer, besides... Rapists, Child Molesters... you know how much those guys suffer in prison? They rather BE dead to be honest... so don't give them what they want

You think this case would've been any different if it was 3 White guys breaking into a Black guys house?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The homeowner would be charged under the firearms act unless his gun was licensed.  In any case, he is guilty of discharging a fire arm withing the limits of a municipality.  Everyone does nto get away with everything, you know.quote>

Which depending on where you live, especially in the US, is not at all a crime.  Here in the south particular, you can use whatever force you deem necessary to protect yourself and your property, even if said force only wounds the person, or blows an arm or head clean off.

EDIT: It has to be something sensible.  A shotgun is sensible.  Grenades aren't.

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: El Burro 

...You think this case would've been any different if it was 3 White guys breaking into a Black guys house? quote>

 

Visualizing the results if races are reversed is a mental tool I sometimes to use contemplate if an action is racially oriented.  It's not 100% foolproof, but it's definitely intriguing here.

The mother's comment still gnaws at me.  If she's right that means that all of the parties may had had a prior relationship and what happened might not have been random.

[hamsterTK 93]

In the UK the home owner would have got 20 years minimum for killing the 2 guys... murder is unjustifiable, no matter what the circumstances are...quote>

it's things like that which I think makes gun control unpalatable here

All I know is that it's pretty much inconcievable to me why it would be against the law to protect your life or that of someone else's. I almost thought that was basic human instinct?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Joesocwork

Originally posted by: El Burro 

...You think this case would've been any different if it was 3 White guys breaking into a Black guys house? quote>

 

Visualizing the results if races are reversed is a mental tool I sometimes to use contemplate if an action is racially oriented.  It's not 100% foolproof, but it's definitely intriguing here.

quote>

There was a case sort of like that around here.   Joe, Doxx, help me out here.   I remember this case but I'm not sure I have the details right.

It was about 10-15 years ago, either in DC or in a nearby suburb (but I think it was DC).  Black homeowner, a well known guy (a columnist or pundit, maybe?).  I can picture his face but can't recall the name.   He shot a white teenager who was in his (the homeowner's) backyard late at night.   He didn't kill the kid but he did shoot him in the hand, supposedly as the kid was diving to the ground for cover.   As I recall, the homeowner was charged with something, probably with violating the DC gun ban, but they couldn't find a jury that was willing to convict him.

Not exactly the same thing since no one died but it's the closest I can think of at the moment.

Edit:  Carl Rowan.  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1262560.html

Haven't yet found the whole story on a free service.  Most sites have it in the pay-per-view archives.