Does anyone else see a problem with this article?

[MaskedManJRK]

They just wanted to lump one more charge I guess.

---Morzan

But the law can't make up charges against you. I mean...why? Surely any reasonable, rational judge would see the case and laugh the charge off. I mean...this is 2007, not 1964, people are aware of this kind of s**t.

 

[Denny67]

I don’t think he should be slapped with Murder1, as that (to my knowledge) has to be premeditated... but Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter is most certainly in order.

Just like with anything there is cause and effect. If you willingly commit a crime of violence or intimation, especially where there is a weapon employed to do so, such as robbery. And as a result of that action, death(s) occur… that death has to be accounted for in the punishment and in the criminal record.

My bet is they are slapping the Murder1 charge for a better shot at getting the perp to plea down to Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter and have it stick.

I do not see race being a factor in this whatsoever. I do appreciate the fact that the race card is being played though. The more it is, the more people get numb to it and it will eventually become completely irrelevant.

At that point all people will have to live with their own choices in like (good or bad) on their own merits.

 

[SuperMonkey]

What, what, what?

















WHAT?!

 

[Captain_BluTac]

reading the article it all within the law and IMO any who trys to rob somone in the manor they did deserve every thing they get

 

[Zero_Vault]

"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."

Yep; he's a racist.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

i dont see it as racist in anyway it wouldnt matter if they were black white or green they would of got shot

 

[Zoken]

I understand why Hughs is being charged the way he is. I can see why some people are screaming racism (Especially with such obviously biased journalism). I can definitely see why the changed the venue. However, I think the Provacative Act Law sounds a bit too vague to be a good law. I'd have to see the forensics to determine if the guys were actually running away or if they were just turning to pick up something else.

I think Edmonds was within his rights. I think Hughes needs to go down for robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted manslaughter. I don't know if the deaths of his friends should be tacked on to him as well.

Oh, and his Mommy is in denial. "he was there to buy some pot" at four A.M. he broke into a home to buy some pot.

 

[Zero_Vault]

What right does he have to shoot them in the back? What right? They didn't do anything.

He must be racist.

 

[hammy]

ok the black guy is charged with murder that he didnt commit, he never pulled the trigger

so does that mean

if i buy my friend a bananna, and he eats it and tosses it on the floor, and someone ends up dying from slipping on it, does that mean I SHOULD be charged with murder cause i bought it for him?

Are you serious? That's ridiculous. If you look at the intent behind the law, it's to say that anyone participating in criminal activity where there is a reasonable expectation that the homeowner may use deadly force, is culpable. I don't see a problem with that, myself.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

its wierd ive just read three crime threads one after the other 10 year old girl beats up 22 year old woman police shoot a 12 year old dead and this one and i now feel pretty sick

 

[Captain_BluTac]

What right does he have to shoot them in the back? What right? They didn't do anything.

He must be racist.

please god tell me your kidding they broke into his house battered his son with a baseball bat demanding they get supplied with weed i don't care if they were leaving those sons of *****es deserved to die and i would of gladly done the same thing to any1 who did that to my family

 

[WolfCypher]

Reading the title at first I thought this was one of those "2 guys walk into a bar, 1 guy sits next to a priest & a clown" joke topics lol!

Then I read the article...again, lol!

 

[Zero_Vault]

And does that mean you have to shoot them in the back?

 

[Captain_BluTac]

any person with a spine would shoot them in the back the front or any other angle they can take the bastards out with

 

[hammy]

I understand why Hughs is being charged the way he is. I can see why some people are screaming racism (Especially with such obviously biased journalism). I can definitely see why the changed the venue. However, I think the Provacative Act Law sounds a bit too vague to be a good law. I'd have to see the forensics to determine if the guys were actually running away or if they were just turning to pick up something else.

I mentioned this point in the other thread about this issue posted this morning; Most people are sound asleep at 4 am. The article was sketchy on details, but for most people woken in the dead of night, when it is pitch black and you are still confused from sleep, anything could happen. If that homeowner keeps a gun next to his bed as a lot of people do, and he was burst in upon by three strangers making demands, anything could happen. It's not like he's going to calmly think it through and try to figure out how best to handle the situation. He had not one, not two, but three men to deal with (men, not kids as some people have referred to them). Yes, he might have shot them as they were fleeing, or he might have shot them as they attacked his step son. In a highly agitated and terrified state like that, a person is liable to shoot first and think later.

 

[Zoken]

I think the article is quite biased and unreliable.

 

[Zero_Vault]

This is why guns should be banned.

Random acts of violence will help no one. Ugh, someone needs to toss the father in jail.

 

[hammy]

And does that mean you have to shoot them in the back?

Who says he was an expert marksman? Shoot, I'd be shaking so much I'd be lucky to shoot them anywhere.

 

[hammy]

This is why guns should be banned.

Random acts of violence will help no one.

It was hardly random.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

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?

being british have you never walked out of your door or something in the capital there is a lot of gun crime it only gets attention when kids are shot admittedly but even thats a weekly occurence and even where i live a little town in between odiham and oxford some kid got shot last week so i dont have a clue what your talking about

 

[Zero_Vault]

If a black owner killed a group of black thugs, I can accept that.

But when a white person does it? NO. They'd been far too much persecution, to allow such thing.

 

[Zoken]

And does that mean you have to shoot them in the back?

Where you shoot the person is not important. It's what they were doing at the time. and while "In the Back" does suggest heavily that they were fleeing, it does not proove they were fleeing. Nor does it absolve them of the fact that they also beat a boy so badly he was braindamaged. Edmonds shot the boys in the back. What were the boys doing at the time, and what frame of mind was edmonds in are the questions.

 

[Zoken]

This is why guns should be banned.

Random acts of violence will help no one. Ugh, someone needs to toss the father in jail.

Yes, because if he'd killed the two black men with a knife, that would have been so much less violent. You are either failing completely at being ironic, or an ignorant ass.

Also, SECOND AMENDMENT BABY!

 

[Captain_BluTac]

and ive just read the cough bit so your excused but seriously ir u werent being sarcastic that would of been bull****

 

[Zero_Vault]

No, it's called turning the other cheek.

Haven't you read the bible?