View Full Version : Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism
Lov3ll
11-16-2007, 09:48 AM
Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 16, 2007
LAKEPORT, Calif. (AP) -- 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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Break-In-Murder.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
wicked_hind
11-16-2007, 10:24 AM
The way I see it, if you're committing a crime and someone ends up getting killed, even if it's your accomplice, I think you should be charged with murder. Sorry, but I don't think that race should be the issue in any case like this.
Euroamerican
11-16-2007, 10:40 AM
Three men break into your house in the middle of the night, you're too far away from the possible help from authorities, and they proceed to start KILLING your step son witha baseball bat.
What would you do?
Three To Five Things Learned:
1. Criminals would like it if homeowners have no weapons to protect themselves.
2. The homeowner is in more trouble now because he did not wipe out all the attackers.
3. The only racism here is reverse-racism. If the attackers had been white, nobody would care. If the attackers were white and the family was black, everyone would scream that the attack on the homeowners itself was racist in nature.
4. This law, whereby the attacker is being charged for murder, is a good law. He and his friends committed a murderous act together. People died becaue of their act. he should be charged for that outcome.
5. Baseball bats should be banned.
Oh, and the family should sue the surviving attacker, the NAACP, and all the attackers relatives to cover the cost of the step son's lifetime of medical bills.
Laconian
11-16-2007, 10:40 AM
This has always been called "felony murder." During the commission of a felony somebody other than the victim (co-conspirator, third party, first responder, whomever) dies/is killed, it's felony murder. I don't understand this CA law. The article reports it as if this is a newer statute. Maybe because this statute alludes to the fact that the the bad guy knew/should have known his act would lead to a death, it warrants the 1st degree murder beef. In my experience felony murder is usually a 2nd degree charge, unless there are special circumstances.
"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."
Must not be enough scumbags in the county to get a jury of his peers...
The way I see it, if you're committing a crime and someone ends up getting killed, even if it's your accomplice, I think you should be charged with murder. Sorry, but I don't think that race should be the issue in any case like this.
x2 -------------------
The homeowner screwed up big time.....he missed one.
California Joe
11-16-2007, 10:56 AM
The Rev. Amos Brown can blow me.
The Rev. Amos Brown can blow me.
Famous Amos
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that maybe these guys made it out of the house and had already gotten away when they were shot. If not there is probably some uber-relevant fact that didn't make it into this article. As Laconion points out this is pretty simple felony murder, unless the felony had stopped at which point you'd need some novel legal theory to get at the survigin guy for the deaths of his cohorts. I could be wrong but this article gives enough information to make me think we didn't get hte whole story.
Before I get a bunch of lawyer-bashing I'm not saying anything about their crimes or the racism. I'm just saying that the procecutor probably wouldn't go to the trouble to try a novel legal theory if he could prove simple felony murder. There are no style points in criminal prosecution.
hank
The venue change for black defendants in predominately white county is a no-brainer. Whether you agree or not no judge would keep the case under thos circumstances because an appeals court will hammer them for it.
hank
I'm just waiting for the case when 3 black kids kill a white man, but its racist to charge them that way because white people are all racist and deserve it.
Its coming folks, just wait and see!
I'm just waiting for the case when 3 black kids kill a white man, but its racist to charge them that way because white people are all racist and deserve it.
Its coming folks, just wait and see!
LMAV, in addition to your bleeding a** you clearly have some race issues you need to deal with. Relax.
hank
2Sheds_Jackson
11-16-2007, 11:40 AM
The venue change for black defendants in predominately white county is a no-brainer. Whether you agree or not no judge would keep the case under thos circumstances because an appeals court will hammer them for it.
hank
Yeah that's true. But it's downright pathetic that a jury of "peers" now means people of the same color who live far away, rather than your neighbors who happen to be of a different color.
Yeah that's true. But it's downright pathetic that a jury of "peers" now means people of the same color who live far away, rather than your neighbors who happen to be of a different color.
Not really. There is good statistical evidence (and I mean really compelling) that black defendants in front of all white juries have a much higher chance of being convicted. Whatever you think about the racial implication of that you can't deny the statistics. Its just a sad fact that blacks charged with a crime have a much better chance of getting convicted than a white (for the same crime) when the jury is predominately white. Appellate courts overturn hose decisions not to change venue becasue they've seen those statistics and have found its just unjust. The reality is this guy will probably plead guilty anyway so its not like its fatal to the prosecution or something. It adds a littel delay but if the result stands up its worth it.
hank
Laconian
11-16-2007, 11:48 AM
The venue change for black defendants in predominately white county is a no-brainer. Whether you agree or not no judge would keep the case under thos circumstances because an appeals court will hammer them for it.
hank
I know hank, I was being facetious. There was no mention in the article, other than from the activists, that pointed to the fact that the shooting may have occurred after the BGs left the initial scene. If that is the case, that puts a different spin on the whole thing.
Herrmannek
11-16-2007, 11:49 AM
The homeowner screwed up big time.....he missed one.
Quote of the day :)
I know hank, I was being facetious. There was no mention in the article, other than from the activists, that pointed to the fact that the shooting may have occurred after the BGs left the initial scene. If that is the case, that puts a different spin on the whole thing.
Can you think of another reason why they would try this when felony murder seems so apparent? I was just guessing but I think there must be something that would lead (or force) the prosecutor to go that route.
I wasn't directing that venue comment at you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that way.
hank
Laconian
11-16-2007, 11:56 AM
hank, it's California what other explanation do you need? I've never heard of this law they are charging him under.
BTW, no offense taken.
vinny_121_ND
11-16-2007, 11:57 AM
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.
This is not about race. They clearly broke the law, tried to kill the dude, and now playing the race card. Case should be thrown out. Lawyers are just trying to make more money. Next case please.
Can you think of another reason why they would try this when felony murder seems so apparent? I was just guessing but I think there must be something that would lead (or force) the prosecutor to go that route.
I wasn't directing that venue comment at you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that way.
hank
I understand what you are saying about the trial venue and stuff. Are you saying you feel the shooting took place outside the house? Even if it did take place outside the house after the initial robbery, isn't shooting the assialiants still justified?
This is not about race. They clearly broke the law, tried to kill the dude, and now playing the race card. Case should be thrown out. Lawyers are just trying to make more money. Next case please.
That is why I am saying there may/must be something more. The race part (and the prosecution quirkiness) would relate to these guys having already left (or some other fact we don't have). Despite what anybody says, you can't shoot people in a situation like this if the guys have already left. If they were in process, then shoot away and in that case the prosecution would be felony murder. As it stands there is some doubt about that.
hank
California Joe
11-16-2007, 12:02 PM
The homeowner screwed up big time.....he missed one.
Why do you hate black people Red?
I understand what you are saying about the trial venue and stuff. Are you saying you feel the shooting took place outside the house? Even if it did take place outside the house after the initial robbery, isn't shooting the assialiants still justified?
No, once the assault/fear of bodily injury is over you can't just keep shooting. That would be some homicide against the homeowner. That is precisely my point. If those guys were in the house beating the 19 year old when he shot its felony murder and the race claim is pointless and moot. But, if the guys left (or is there is some other fact I can't think of) that would mean the guy shouldn't have shot, then this makes a little more sense.
hank
Laconian
11-16-2007, 12:05 PM
This is not about race. They clearly broke the law, tried to kill the dude, and now playing the race card. Case should be thrown out. Lawyers are just trying to make more money. Next case please.
No, the case should not be thrown out. We have this little thing called due process of law. Under it the defendant gets arrested, indicted, tried (or pleads out), and THEN sentenced. Along the way, the defense attorney has the obligation to ensure his client gets fair treatment, and the government proves their case. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.
If it were you, would you want YOUR defense attorney to roll over and give you up or do everything within the law to ensure a fair trial?
Herrmannek
11-16-2007, 12:06 PM
Why do you hate black people Red?
I guess because Gypsies are a past year fashion :)
Why do you hate black people Red?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Best post of the day CJ.
No, the case should not be thrown out. We have this little thing called due process of law. Under it the defendant gets arrested, indicted, tried (or pleads out), and THEN sentenced. Along the way, the defense attorney has the obligation to ensure his client gets fair treatment, and the government proves their case. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.
If it were you, would you want YOUR defense attorney to roll over and give you up or do everything within the law to ensure a fair trial?
I say throw a tire over me, douse em with petrol and roast his ass.
ZoneOne
11-16-2007, 12:09 PM
Felony Murder, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.
The man should be lucky he wasn't shot as well.
Laconian
11-16-2007, 12:19 PM
Everytime we have one these legal threads and people just want to summarily execute folks, I'm reminded of the Peter Weller/Sam Elliott flick from the '80s, SHAKEDOWN. Weller plays a public defender charged with defending a black kid accused of murder. He asks a jury who thinks they should just hang the defendant, then asks who thinks they should try the defendant, then hang him. Senior moment, sorry.
California Joe
11-16-2007, 12:27 PM
That's a good flick. heh.
I agree, I think it's pretty goddamned nice to be able to read posts and informed opinions from actual lawyers, cops, Feds etc. It just seems to me that sometimes the reading comprehension level is poor around here.
Then again I've been around here so long that I take it for granted that people know who the other posters are, and what they do, and why their opinion is more valid than others.
2Sheds_Jackson
11-16-2007, 01:05 PM
Not really. There is good statistical evidence (and I mean really compelling) that black defendants in front of all white juries have a much higher chance of being convicted. Whatever you think about the racial implication of that you can't deny the statistics. Its just a sad fact that blacks charged with a crime have a much better chance of getting convicted than a white (for the same crime) when the jury is predominately white. Appellate courts overturn hose decisions not to change venue becasue they've seen those statistics and have found its just unjust. The reality is this guy will probably plead guilty anyway so its not like its fatal to the prosecution or something. It adds a littel delay but if the result stands up its worth it.
hank
Oh I won't argue that it changes the verdict - that's well known. But it's supposed to IMHO...that's the whole point. The intent of being tried by a "jury of peers" is meant to subject members of a community to the justice of that community. You're supposed to be judged by the people that your actions have affected - your neighbors, not distant strangers of the same color. I think going fishing outside that community to find a jury pool that would likely rule differently is exactly the opposite of the intent. A jury from a community hundreds of miles away has no stake at all in the outcome of a trial - the defendant isn't going to be released onto their streets. This is supposed to make justice local to some extent, so that people are able to determine how their communities are.
Obviously like you say this can lead to real problems. But IMHO in the long run, we're not doing ourselves any favors by on one hand passing laws to make racial bias illegal, then on the other hand, using racial bias to implement justice. It has to be all or nothing - or we're doomed to create communities within a community - and where they meet, there's gonna be trouble.
Everytime we have one these legal threads and people just want to summarily execute folks, I'm reminded of the Peter Weller/Sam Elliott flick from the '80s, SHAKEDOWN. Weller plays a public defender charged with defending a black kid accused of murder. He asks a jury who thinks they should just hang the defendant, then asks who thinks they should try the defendant, then hang him. Senior moment, sorry.
I understand where you are coming from with this. I have been in and seen people who have been in similar situations where some random person feels they can prey on you but they find out you are tooled up. I guess he should get his day in court.
That's a good flick. heh.
I agree, I think it's pretty goddamned nice to be able to read posts and informed opinions from actual lawyers, cops, Feds etc. It just seems to me that sometimes the reading comprehension level is poor around here.
Then again I've been around here so long that I take it for granted that people know who the other posters are, and what they do, and why their opinion is more valid than others.
CJ, didn't you know already after all this years that I have the comprehension skills of a 2 year old. p-)
Firetxmi
11-16-2007, 01:15 PM
Oh I won't argue that it changes the verdict - that's well known. But it's supposed to IMHO...that's the whole point. The intent of being tried by a "jury of peers" is meant to subject members of a community to the justice of that community. You're supposed to be judged by the people that your actions have affected - your neighbors, not distant strangers of the same color. I think going fishing outside that community to find a jury pool that would likely rule differently is exactly the opposite of the intent. A jury from a community hundreds of miles away has no stake at all in the outcome of a trial - the defendant isn't going to be released onto their streets. This is supposed to make justice local to some extent, so that people are able to determine how their communities are.
Obviously like you say this can lead to real problems. But IMHO in the long run, we're not doing ourselves any favors by on one hand passing laws to make racial bias illegal, then on the other hand, using racial bias to implement justice. It has to be all or nothing - or we're doomed to create communities within a community - and where they meet, there's gonna be trouble.
Thats not the way I view "Jury of your peers." If it were those who you victimized who is to say that you would not be presumed guilty based on the fact they you were indicted, and thus lead to a revenge guilty plea?
I am not saying that everyone on the jury has to be your same race either. I don't think race should change the verdict, even though (according to hank) studies have shown that unfortunately it does.
Herrmannek
11-16-2007, 01:43 PM
Oh I won't argue that it changes the verdict - that's well known. But it's supposed to IMHO...that's the whole point. The intent of being tried by a "jury of peers" is meant to subject members of a community to the justice of that community. You're supposed to be judged by the people that your actions have affected - your neighbors, not distant strangers of the same color. I think going fishing outside that community to find a jury pool that would likely rule differently is exactly the opposite of the intent. A jury from a community hundreds of miles away has no stake at all in the outcome of a trial - the defendant isn't going to be released onto their streets. This is supposed to make justice local to some extent, so that people are able to determine how their communities are.
Obviously like you say this can lead to real problems. But IMHO in the long run, we're not doing ourselves any favors by on one hand passing laws to make racial bias illegal, then on the other hand, using racial bias to implement justice. It has to be all or nothing - or we're doomed to create communities within a community - and where they meet, there's gonna be trouble.
Make a law that black can steal only in black neighbors and white only in white ones. That should solve the problem ;)
Make a law that black can steal only in black neighbors and white only in white ones. That should solve the problem ;)
How about making a law that no one should steal. Get your own crap.
Obviously like you say this can lead to real problems. But IMHO in the long run, we're not doing ourselves any favors by on one hand passing laws to make racial bias illegal, then on the other hand, using racial bias to implement justice. It has to be all or nothing - or we're doomed to create communities within a community - and where they meet, there's gonna be trouble.
That is always an interesting iorny. All the steps we take to try and root out prejudice and then we move the trial because we say people can't be fair. Only thing I can say is it is getting better. Something our system works on - to our credit I say.
hank
I am not saying that everyone on the jury has to be your same race either. I don't think race should change the verdict, even though (according to hank) studies have shown that unfortunately it does.
I will make an effot to get some of this data although I won't make any promises. One of the cases that lead to the studies is from Georgia and the Georgia Supreme Court has references them before, as has SCOTUS.
hank
LMAV, in addition to your bleeding a** you clearly have some race issues you need to deal with. Relax.
hank
I have run in to some pretty racist black people in my life. Being a bleeding heart liberal in my early days, I always believed in the goodness of all people. After I got to college though that all changed, as I ran in to some pretty racist black power groups that were supported not only by the community but the school.
Over the years, I've noticed this same kind of tendency to paint all white people as racist and an equal push to absolve "people of color" of any deficiency that could be called racism. the Jena 6 incident solidified my stance when the BET awards gave a standing ovation to the kids that beat up the white kid. They committed a hate crime against someone because of their skin color and people are tripping over each other to justify it. Its that trend that bothers me.
Anyway, sorry for the slight derail.
Thats not the way I view "Jury of your peers." If it were those who you victimized who is to say that you would not be presumed guilty based on the fact they you were indicted, and thus lead to a revenge guilty plea?
I am not saying that everyone on the jury has to be your same race either. I don't think race should change the verdict, even though (according to hank) studies have shown that unfortunately it does.
I think you make a great point. The "jury of your peers" probably doesn't mean your neighbors and in light of the due process requirements of the BoR it can't mean that when its not fair or will lead to a biased decision.
Bias is a good basis for excluding a juror in all settings. Venue change is appropriate when it seems like the whole jury pool will be biased.
Also don't forget that it doesn't really change anything. There will still be a trial and it will still have jurors.
hank
2Sheds_Jackson
11-16-2007, 02:33 PM
Thats not the way I view "Jury of your peers." If it were those who you victimized who is to say that you would not be presumed guilty based on the fact they you were indicted, and thus lead to a revenge guilty plea?
Well obviously we wouldn't want people who are in the victim's family on the jury - or even his actual neighbors. That's a little too local. But that's why we pick people at random from the community, and they go through a vetting process. When you exclude the entire town, you're basically saying they're all unfit - and you call in another group from another town with different values and standards. That completely removes the aspect of "peers" from the equation. In what sense are people from hundreds of miles away my peers? Like I said, IMHO the stipulation that they be "peers" means something - and it's not just that the jurors be human beings.
I realize that there's problems with bias - but to me the answer is to begin imposing community standards on community members, not allowing community members to buck the system by going outside of it. Isn't that what "community" is all about?
Firetxmi
11-16-2007, 02:41 PM
I realize that there's problems with bias - but to me the answer is to begin imposing community standards on community members, not allowing community members to buck the system by going outside of it. Isn't that what "community" is all about?
And what are these community standards that should be imposed? Who will enforce it?
When you exclude the entire town, you're basically saying they're all unfit - and you call in another group from another town with different values and standards. That completely removes the aspect of "peers" from the equation.
Not really unfit, just incapable of being objective and having already formed an opinion before the trial. That is the basis for venue change.
I realize that there's problems with bias - but to me the answer is to begin imposing community standards on community members, not allowing community members to buck the system by going outside of it. Isn't that what "community" is all about?
Again, the only objective is to get people who haven't already formed an opinion. The same principle would probably exclude you and me beacsue we've talked about it and begun to form opinions. You want the jurors' minds to be like clean slates.
You are making a valid point but it is a bit of an overstatement of what's happened to say that the court is declaring the neighbors "unfit". It is a little bit more objective than that.
hank
I have run in to some pretty racist black people in my life. Being a bleeding heart liberal in my early days, I always believed in the goodness of all people. After I got to college though that all changed, as I ran in to some pretty racist black power groups that were supported not only by the community but the school.
Over the years, I've noticed this same kind of tendency to paint all white people as racist and an equal push to absolve "people of color" of any deficiency that could be called racism. the Jena 6 incident solidified my stance when the BET awards gave a standing ovation to the kids that beat up the white kid. They committed a hate crime against someone because of their skin color and people are tripping over each other to justify it. Its that trend that bothers me.
Anyway, sorry for the slight derail.
I bet a $100 there is some little black boy with blue eyes saying the same thing about you right now.
Herrmannek
11-16-2007, 03:58 PM
How about making a law that no one should steal. Get your own crap.
rofl Thats utopia.
I bet a $100 there is some little black boy with blue eyes saying the same thing about you right now.
I'm not blaming black people for the way things are going, but rather the PC/diversity/liberal groups. There are lots of black people that feel the same way I do about the current civil rights movement and hows its been taken over by bad people.
Firetxmi
11-16-2007, 04:15 PM
I'm not blaming black people for the way things are going, but rather the PC/diversity/liberal groups. There are lots of black people that feel the same way I do about the current civil rights movement and hows its been taken over by bad people.
I think you missed the point of his post.
StukaJr
11-16-2007, 04:42 PM
So who is racist in this case? The homeowner that used a firearm against home invaders and in fear of his life? The DA charging the surviving invader with the applicable crime? I guess it's suppose to be both - I guess judge is also racist for not throwing out the case and so would be all 12 jurors... That's a total of 15 racists VS one black man not taking responsibility for his actions and the grave outcome of what they decided to do that night... Staying out of people's homes was a direct social and moral responsibility of the three... that's now a one... that's hopefully a zero soon.
And some say they should charge the home owner - I hope that "If you are found here at night, you will be found here in the morning" message is made loud and clear to anybody hoping to make an easy life of invading people's homes... The intent of mutated "Civil Rights" movements should focus on education and protection of hard working minorities - not defending failed criminals from righteous prosecution...
I would like any credible source that the two were shot in the back - other than claims of the activists with nothing to back up the claim... Even if so - the guy's house did not exactly chase them and swallowed up inside - unless it was a "running away" home invasion p-)
Click-Clack! Boom! Be civil and don't pray on others - this won't happen to you.
So who is racist in this case? The homeowner that used a firearm against home invaders and in fear of his life? The DA charging the surviving invader with the applicable crime? I guess it's suppose to be both - I guess judge is also racist for not throwing out the case and so would be all 12 jurors... That's a total of 15 racists VS one black man not taking responsibility for his actions and the grave outcome of what they decided to do that night... Staying out of people's homes was a direct social and moral responsibility of the three... that's now a one... that's hopefully a zero soon.
And some say they should charge the home owner - I hope that "If you are found here at night, you will be found here in the morning" message is made loud and clear to anybody hoping to make an easy life of invading people's homes... The intent of mutated "Civil Rights" movements should focus on education and protection of hard working minorities - not defending failed criminals from righteous prosecution...
I would like any credible source that the two were shot in the back - other than claims of the activists with nothing to back up the claim... Even if so - the guy's house did not exactly chase them and swallowed up inside - unless it was a "running away" home invasion p-)
Click-Clack! Boom! Be civil and don't pray on others - this won't happen to you.
I think the point is that the prosecution is racist for charging the survivuing guy with the murder of his cohorts.
There is no credible fact regarding where the other 2 guys were when they were shot. That is the point. My feeling is that since felony murder is not the charge then there is likely some fact which would explain that decision which is not relaued in the article. I don't know that: it is a supposition by me.
I, in agreement with CJ, often wonder if everybody really reads what is written. Methinks not.
hank
2Sheds_Jackson
11-16-2007, 06:42 PM
Not really unfit, just incapable of being objective and having already formed an opinion before the trial. That is the basis for venue change.
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.
I've got no problem with exclusions due to media exposure. But I thought that's one of the things that people got asked on their jury questionnaire. The defense seems to be driving home the fact that they need to go elsewhere by asserting that the defendant has no peers in the local community. Best relocate to a far away unknown land...inexplicably full of his "peers". p-)
Midav
11-16-2007, 07:03 PM
We've come a long way as a country but still have a long way to go.
There is no racism here. Some thugs broke into a home, began hurting someone and were shot.
They were not forced into the house. They were not forced to hurt another person. They chose to do so by their own free will and two paid with their lives. I think this is an apt punishment for the third guy who was involved in this unwise escapade.
Just my thoughts.
CPL Trevoga
11-16-2007, 07:20 PM
Three men break into your house in the middle of the night, you're too far away from the possible help from authorities, and they proceed to start KILLING your step son witha baseball bat.
What would you do?
Three To Five Things Learned:
1. Criminals would like it if homeowners have no weapons to protect themselves.
2. The homeowner is in more trouble now because he did not wipe out all the attackers.
3. The only racism here is reverse-racism. If the attackers had been white, nobody would care. If the attackers were white and the family was black, everyone would scream that the attack on the homeowners itself was racist in nature.
4. This law, whereby the attacker is being charged for murder, is a good law. He and his friends committed a murderous act together. People died becaue of their act. he should be charged for that outcome.
5. Baseball bats should be banned.
Oh, and the family should sue the surviving attacker, the NAACP, and all the attackers relatives to cover the cost of the step son's lifetime of medical bills.
WTF is reverse-racism?
T.H.E. rooster
11-16-2007, 07:56 PM
I think he meant a double standard.
shocker1
11-16-2007, 08:50 PM
I support the defense of the home however I take a different view on the other issues. The fact that the other two intruders took illegal dangerous actions themselves of their own free will, should make them responsible for their deaths. Now let's say he(surviving criminal) kidnapped someone and forced them to do something illegal and it resulted in their death, then I can see this charge. At most some kind of manslaughter charge or Hank's felony murder argument. Either way one reaps what they sow. Of course these assumptions are based on the info.
The homeowner who may have been well within his rights to shoot, had medical mary jane in the house. California law seems to protect him at the State level. How would weapons in a house with weed where a shooting took place be viewed from the Federal level? Could there be charges from that front?
On the racism issue I can not really form an opinion on that based on the information. One would really need to know the area to make that assumption.
Laconian
11-16-2007, 09:09 PM
The homeowner who may have been well within his rights to shoot, had medical mary jane in the house. California law seems to protect him at the State level. How would weapons in a house with weed where a shooting took place be viewed from the Federal level? Could there be charges from that front?
18 USC 924(c) makes it illegal to possess a firearm during a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. So possession of small amounts of MJ w/no indication of dealing he would probably be okay, from Federal prosecution.
18 USC 922(g)(3) makes it illegal for any person that is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) to possess a firearm that has moved interstate commerce. If the MJ was his prescription he could still get banged Federally because the Fed doesn't recognize MJ prescriptions AFAIK. Also, the local USAO might decide against prosecuting the guy. Max on 933g3 is five years.
shocker1
11-16-2007, 09:20 PM
Thank you that answered my question perfectly.
Indianer
11-17-2007, 11:35 AM
why is it that when a black person is charged with a crime, unlike any other American race, they all go out a march against the charges and try to scare the crap out of everyone by calling them racists????
Anybody else think its getting old???
timetraveller
11-17-2007, 12:27 PM
x2 -------------------
x3.............................................................
StukaJr
11-19-2007, 06:54 PM
I guess not all of the story has been reported by the article on page one:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,311894,00.html
First article chose to cry "race crime" and forget the important fact that the three were in the process of beating a 19 year old kid with a baseball bat, causing grievous and irreversible damage - changing the situation to "shooting in defense of another's life!
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.
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 knew that the original article was leaving out something like... someone getting bludgeoned to death! Getting shot in the back while running away my ass!
Laconian
11-19-2007, 07:41 PM
Stuka, the original article mentioned the bat-beating as well. The thing that was confusing to hank and I is what they charged the surviving bad guy with as opposed to the often charged felony murder, which is appropriate in this case. It was also unclear as to when the shooting occurred: during the agg battery with the bat or after they had done it and were trying to escape. I have little sympathy for subjects killed during home-invasion robbery, I just wanted more (better) facts of the incident.
Stuka, the original article mentioned the bat-beating as well. The thing that was confusing to hank and I is what they charged the surviving bad guy with as opposed to the often charged felony murder, which is appropriate in this case. It was also unclear as to when the shooting occurred: during the agg battery with the bat or after they had done it and were trying to escape. I have little sympathy for subjects killed during home-invasion robbery, I just wanted more (better) facts of the incident.
Laconion,
If you'll please refrain from actually reading these articles it will make Stukas posts much more entertaining and pro gun rights. thanks
hank
Laconian
11-20-2007, 09:17 AM
Laconion,
If you'll please refrain from actually reading these articles it will make Stukas posts much more entertaining and pro gun rights. thanks
hank
Right, then, my bad.
California Joe
11-20-2007, 10:32 AM
You're slipping lately. Tighten up.
p-)
StukaJr
11-20-2007, 03:05 PM
Stuka, the original article mentioned the bat-beating as well. The thing that was confusing to hank and I is what they charged the surviving bad guy with as opposed to the often charged felony murder, which is appropriate in this case. It was also unclear as to when the shooting occurred: during the agg battery with the bat or after they had done it and were trying to escape. I have little sympathy for subjects killed during home-invasion robbery, I just wanted more (better) facts of the incident.
I missed that info in the NYTimes article - my bad...
I hope there is more concrete information about this event and soon - before they make it any more of a race thing and get Mos Def and other underemployed celebrities to trumpet the cause (like that recent case I already forgot about)... But Black, White, Brown or Green - I support the right for defense of a life from those that prey on the defenseless.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.