Does anyone else see a problem with this article?

Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by lochneffmonster, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. lochneffmonster Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a joke. Three thugs break into a home, leave a man brain-damaged and in a home, and the NAACP has the audacity to cry racism? What would any of you do if the situation arose in your home?





    Rare robbery case brings cries of racism

    By JULIANA BARBASSA

    Associated Press Writer





    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 of venue. The defense had argued that he would not be able to get a fair trial because of extensive local media coverage and the unlikelihood that Hughes could get a jury of his peers in the county. A new location for the trial will be selected Dec. 14.
    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."
     
  2. Logan's Runt Runtmuffin

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...They're not calling racism on the homeowner for protecting his home. You realize that, right?
     
  3. Enriquespy Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes Received:
    1,233
    Hey Wild Cat!!!
     
  4. Nell2ThaIzzay Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    my take on the article (and i just skimmed it) is that the black kid is being charged with murder...

    murder that he didn't commit.

    i'm not saying it's racism, but no, the black kid should not be charged with murder. breaking and entering, robbery, all that stuff? yes. and the white man WAS in self defense.

    but the black kid shouldn't be charged with murder.
     
  5. The Dark Guybrush Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    why shouldn't he be charged with murder? his actions directly resulted in the deaths of his two cohorts. or maybe he should be charged with assisting in their suicides? either way, he's an idiot.
     
  6. Kaleb 2010 & 2018 SHHFFL Champion

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    26,408
    Likes Received:
    748
    I really cant take anything the naacp says seriously anymore.
     
  7. Kaleb 2010 & 2018 SHHFFL Champion

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    26,408
    Likes Received:
    748
  8. lochneffmonster Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know, but the fact that they think race plays any part in this at all is a travesty.
     
  9. Logan's Runt Runtmuffin

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can see how they could perceive it that way- digging up an old, rarely used law to charge a black kid with the murders of his two cohorts when he was clearly not the one who pulled the trigger. Not that I think its racism, but I don't think its a stretch for NAACP.

    A murder charge is ridiculous. By definition, homicide requires the intent to kill/willful disregard for life. I don't think the kid led his two cohorts into the house intending for them to die. If anything, involuntary manslaughter should be the only legally applicable charge, and that's still kind of a stretch. Is there any proof that the survivor was the 'leader'? How can you be responsible for the person next to you's death if they were there entirely of their own free will? Yes, he's an idiot for taking part in a robbery, but its not like the other two were innocent victims that he forced to accompany him in a robbery.
     
  10. Manic User title? USER TITLE?!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    35,954
    Likes Received:
    3
    The NAACP needs to learn how to pick their battles. This isn't racism. This is a bullcrap old law that should've been erased from the books years ago.

    Yes, he was a moron for attempting to rob someone. Yes, he should do time for assault, as well. However, his responsibility of his friends' deaths is questionable. It's definitely not murder. Murder is the willful killing of another person, typically involving malice. As Logan's Runt said, it's involuntary manslaughter at most.
     
  11. logansoldcigar Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    8,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can i ask something, what with me being british , and we very rarely get such things as gun crime *cough*...can self defense be used by the homeowner when he shot them in the back?
     
  12. Manic User title? USER TITLE?!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    35,954
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yep. That was non-criminal homicide. Not even an issue. According to our laws, if somebody breaks into your house, you're free to shoot them in self defense.
     
  13. Logan's Runt Runtmuffin

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless they're accidentally hurt, then the robber can sue you for their injuries. :up:
     
  14. The Dark Guybrush Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually, it depends on which state you live in. laws are different all over the place. and even if it is ruled as justifiable homicide, the dead intruder's family could possibly file a civil suit against the defending homeowner, once again depending on the laws of the state in which the act took place.

    america. land of the free, home of the ****ed.
     
  15. Damien Rage Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. who cares what color the people are. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!

    If people broke into my home and got hurt and sued me...and if they won...I would become homeless and say F you mofo try and get something from me now.
     
  16. Manic User title? USER TITLE?!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    35,954
    Likes Received:
    3
    The classic divorcee tactic. Sell and donate all your stuff, so the other person can't win anything from you.
     
  17. Danger Mouse Kitchen Appliance

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    32,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greatly depends on the situation. For the defence of self-defence to be employed, one must generally be in an imminent state of danger to his life or property or the life of others. If the shooting in the back is evidence of the assailants fleeing, thus posing no imminent danger, then the defence of self-defence shouldn't hold.

    In any event, the kid's murder charge is inherently ridiculous.
     
  18. Danger Mouse Kitchen Appliance

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    32,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    Definitely not the case here. The family of the deceased are not pursuing legal action against the homeowner for shooting the kids.
     
  19. Damien Rage Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I know. I just wanted to say it.

    (stupid) people are sue happy. We live in a world where some stupid B spills coffee an HERSELF and gets money??? I'm sorry thats just ******ed.
     
  20. Danger Mouse Kitchen Appliance

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    32,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally agree with you on that note.
     
  21. Wilhelm-Scream Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    46,300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah dude.
    If only we American Barbarians were enlightened like you guys, the old man and his family could've been beaten within an inch of their lives or killed in their sleep by the guys who invaded their home, instead of these two, poor, put upon gangsters dying....shucks.

    :whatever:
     
  22. The Dark Guybrush Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol @ common sense.. maybe we should trade our guns in for trusty whistles and lead saps? :dry:
     
  23. Manic User title? USER TITLE?!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    35,954
    Likes Received:
    3
    Take away our guns, and we'll find a different way to kill each other.

    By the by, aren't knife crimes getting steadily worse every year in the UK?
     
  24. Danger Mouse Kitchen Appliance

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    32,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point logansoldcigar was asking was the fact that the kids were shot in the back which, without prejudice to further evidence presented, would seem to appear that the kids were fleeing.

    If the kids were shot in the face while they were wielding axes, logansoldcigar wouldn't have posed his question.
     
  25. Manic User title? USER TITLE?!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    35,954
    Likes Received:
    3
    But we don't know all the details. They could've been shot in the back while facing one member of his family.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"