Another Case of the "Civil Rights" Community Standing Up for Criminals

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311894,00.html

Robbery Suspect Charged With Murder After Alleged Accomplices Killed by Homeowner
Thursday, November 15, 2007



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 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."


Earlier it was the Jena 6, who got overwhelming support from the black community for beating the hell out of a white kid because there were nooses hung from a tree outside of the school weeks before. Did the poor kid have anything to do with the nooses, or any type of racist behavior? Nope.

Now, a group of black men broke into a white family's house and beat one of them so severely he cannot feed himself anymore and has permanent brain damage. Thankfully, two of them were put down like dogs, but the third is now getting support from the so called "civil rights" community because they claim the charges are too strong.

What's up with the "civil rights" movement these days? Are there no more real cases of racism in America?? :thumbsdown:

[Papewaio]

The Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and pastor at Hughes' church

Well maybe the Rev should concentrate on being a Rev and making sure his flock gives unto Caesar and none of this would have happened.

The Rev obviously isn't getting the message through. If they expect donations for their authourity shouldn't they expect responsibility... so shouldn't he get sued for failing to instill correct social values into the youth at his church.

[Kralizec]

I don't think the dad is guilty one slightest bit, and that civil rights activists shouldn't make a fuss about every other black guy that gets prosecuted...but it seems like a bizarre law.

[Azi Tohak]

Thanks for posting this PJ, I was going to do it when I saw this.

I think it is too bad Papa didn't get the third one too. Maybe clip his skull so he can't feed himself either. I love how Mama doesn't think they were going to steal. So how does the massive beating figure into this?

Azi

[Fragony]

Equality industry should just come clear and admit that they are anti-white.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

That doctrine may be rarely used, but similar laws frequently are - namely, felony murder, where if a person dies during a felony, the criminals can be charged with murder. Even if, as in this case, it was one of the criminals killed by the victim.


"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."

Guess they shouldn't have attacked in the first place. Besides, the idea that once someone turns around they are no longer a threat is foolish.


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."


Yeah, that's why they burst in at 4am and beat a teen into permanent brain damage with a bat.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Now, a group of black men broke into a white family's house and beat one of them so severely he cannot feed himself anymore and has permanent brain damage. Thankfully, two of them were put down like dogs, but the third is now getting support from the so called "civil rights" community because they claim the charges are too strong.

What's up with the "civil rights" movement these days? Are there no more real cases of racism in America?? :thumbsdown:

Uhm, the thing is, he can only shoot them to defend himself and/or others. He can't shoot them just because they beat up his son. Sorry, but that's jungle justice.

So what they're claiming, is that he shot the two when they faced no threat, ie. illegal.

[Geoffrey S]

I find this whole law a rather strange one. Hughes didn't murder anyone; attempted robbery, attempted murder, assault, it can pretty much all be levelled at him. Even Edmonds' actions can't be considered murder, so where does that come from?

Also struggling with this allegation at 'the Civil Rights community'. I think the representatives of the NAACP are taking things too far here and should back off, but I'm curious as to how representative they are of such movements in the present USA; I know they were hugely influential, but are they still?

[Husar]

Uhm, the thing is, he can only shoot them to defend himself and/or others. He can't shoot them just because they beat up his son. Sorry, but that's jungle justice.

So what they're claiming, is that he shot the two when they faced no threat, ie. illegal.
Pfft, he cannot be held responsible since he was under shock, what else would he be after seeing his son beaten like that?
That shock was inflicted by the three criminals. Enraging a father with a gun by beating up his family is like driving your car against a tree, can hardly blame the tree for killing you.

[HoreTore]

Pfft, he cannot be held responsible since he was under shock, what else would he be after seeing his son beaten like that?
That shock was inflicted by the three criminals. Enraging a father with a gun by beating up his family is like driving your car against a tree, can hardly blame the tree for killing you.

That depends on whether he was criminally insane(if that's the english term) or not, which is a question for the psychologists to determine.

[Fragony]

Castle law for the win, here you aren't even allowed to defend yourselve.

[Don Corleone]

I think we're being very, very premature assigning culpability in this case, as there's a lot of unknown facts in this case. One thing is for certain, Mrs. Hughes isn't dealing in reality. Her son and two other young men invaded a house, brought weapons with them, and proceeded to assault a young man, to the point where he is brain damaged. There is no way this is a simple drug purchase gone bad.

But some other questions I'd like to see answered.... "shot in the back"... does this mean that the 2 young men had ceased the attack at the time they were shot? Were they in fact in the process of fleeing the scene? The article doesn't say.

Did the father take reasonable efforts to end the conflict without actually using lethal force? Doesn't say.

HT, I think you need to wait to see what happened. You assumed they had halted the attack, but they may have been shot in the back because the father came upon them beating the son from behind. Or, you may be right, and he shot them as they attempted to flee the scene. Two very different scenarios.

Fragony, there's plenty of jurisdictions in the United States where the father would be going away, regardless of the circumstances. Rudy G (at least when he was mayor of New York) would have prosecuted him. "Self-defense" is technically on the books in most parts of the U.S. (though not all). But frequently aggressive prosecuters go after people that defend themselves anyway. Typically, they stretch the 'common sense' doctrine.

For example, most people would agree you cannot shoot somebody who's not posing a threat to you, just your property... a thief you came upon in your home that's trying to climb out the window with a pocket full of your wife's jewelry... that would be a bad shoot.

But there's been cases where the assailant had a bat or a knife and the homewner was found guilty, because the gun constituted a lethal threat while the bat or the knife only constituted a 'potentially lethal threat', and most self defense statutes only allow you to meet force with like force. You can't stab a guy who's punching you, and you can't shoot a guy who's swinging a crowbar.

But back to my main point... there's a LOT of unknowns I'd like to find out with regards to this story.

[Fragony]

At least it isn't a negative, in the case of self-defense, if you even hit a burglar once you are charged with assault by default, and assault is a heavier crime then break&enter. There is a talk about talking about talking to change it though.

[HoreTore]

Did the father take reasonable efforts to end the conflict without actually using lethal force? Doesn't say.

HT, I think you need to wait to see what happened. You assumed they had halted the attack, but they may have been shot in the back because the father came upon them beating the son from behind. Or, you may be right, and he shot them as they attempted to flee the scene. Two very different scenarios.

That's what I said though. I didn't say it was true, I said that was what the other side was claiming :yes:

AND, if that is true, then he's guilty of murder, because he shot 2 people who weren't posing any threat(as they were fleeing). But of course, it's not a given that he was accountable for his actions at that time.

@Fragony: That's because we have something called a police force, to prevent the law of the jungle.

[Fragony]

@Fragony: That's because we have something called a police force, to prevent the law of the jungle.

That is at useful to us as a bycicle is to a fish, and if they actually do catch someone the judge will sentence him to community service which he will never actually have to do. And I am not talking small offenses here, (child)rape, armed robbery, attempted murder. That is why we have the law of jungle.

[HoreTore]

That is at useful to us as a bycicle is to a fish, and if they actually do catch someone the judge will sentence him to community service which he will never actually have to do. And I am not talking small offenses here, (child)rape, armed robbery, attempted murder. That is why we have the law of jungle.

Building a moat around your house still does not seem like the best thing to do...

[Fragony]

Building a moat around your house still does not seem like the best thing to do...

Just make sure you have a 2 by 2 plastic and a saw ~;)

All kidding aside, it is redicilously soft here, it has gone completily out of control. I don't think you will find any dutchie here, not even chairman AdrianII, that doesn't agree with me that they could negotiate the comfortable wellbeing of criminals somewhat more aggresively.

[Don Corleone]

Building a moat around your house still does not seem like the best thing to do...

So, I'm curious about how things actually work in Norway. You don't put locks on your doors? You let people into your house on the benefit of the doubt, and then if they act illegally once there, you call the police and hope for the best? How does that work for you guys... do you just not have criminals in Norway? I ask, because I'm having a hard time picturing a predatory pedophile climbing off of your daughter and hitching up his pants with a polite 'sorry, my bad', simply because you asked him to. I'm also rather incredulous that Norwegian fathers would restrain themselves to just calling the police and waiting for them to arrive, that they wouldn't take some act of self-defense.

[Ice]

@Fragony: That's because we have something called a police force, to prevent the law of the jungle.

Really, Horetore? So the guy should have just put down his weapon and said "Please leave my house you evil men" and waited for the police to arrive?

[Fragony]

You lock your house when you are at home? Only lock up when I am leaving, nobody does that here.

EDIT well at night we do you probably meant that

[Fragony]

Really, Horetore? So the guy should have just put down his weapon and said "Please leave my house you evil men" and waited for the police to arrive?

That never ceases to amaze me, how blind can your trust be on a system that has to get a message, mobilise, drive to it and if you are lucky do something, all the bad could easily have happened by then. It is completily unresponsible to not allow people to have firearms (and be able to use them) how arogant can these people that we pay to prevent us from doing what we sometimes have to do out of necesity are. If they can't keep or simply won't take the monopoly they shouldn't get into the way of people just trying to have their little place.

[Husar]

I lock my door when I'm at home, though primarily because it prevents
a) the door from opening itself which the old thing sometimes seems to do otherwise
b) me from going out without the keys since I'm the only one who has one. :sweatdrop:

Apart from that I suggest a silencer and a big grave backyard if your selfdefence laws state that the guy has to kill you before you are allowed to defend yourself or something that practically leads to this.
If someone came into my flat during the night and I could not identify him as an official, someone I know, fireman or anyone else who might be allowed in here I'd not hesitate to throw him out of the window or do whatever else necessary to incapacitate him because
a) I would be scared ****less
b) I might be under shock because of a)
c) he'd done something wrong
d) I wouldn't care a lot about him because of c)
e) a judge or police would not even enter my mind until I'd feel safer
f) I have my precious stuff, my telephone and my bed in the same room so to call the police I'd probably have to politely ask him to let me go to the phone

Ok, it's rather unlikely anyway since I'm a poor student anyway, but just if it happened, he might die. I might go to prison for that but it's not like I'd think about that kind of consequences while the guy was still in my room. :laugh4:
On the other hand, he might also hurt me but then hardly anyone could blame me. :sweatdrop:

Victimising the criminals in such cases is pretty stupid and whether I kill him with a gun, a nuke or a pan doesn't really matter IMO. This isn't some sort of renaissance duel, it's a surprise "attack" and thus he gets a surprise "reaction" from me and I guess most other people. :thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

I just think there should be a nobelprice for please.

[Don Corleone]

As I suspected, there is a lot more going on in this case than appeared at first. Do a Google Search on Renalto Hughes, and you'll see what I mean.

The homeowner, Shannon Edmonds, was an unemployed tractor mechanic. He was taking medicinal marijuana, which I believe is legal in California. However, Mr. Edmonds isn't taking the marijuana to combat chemotherapy side affects or chronic pain, which is why it's usually prescribed. He was taking it combat depression, a use I didn't think was valid for medical marijuana. 5 pounds is a LOT of marijuana for personal consumption (don't ask me how I know that). A hell of a lot. I have a hard time imagining why anybody would have 5 lbs. on hand for personal consumption. What's more, Mr. Edmonds does have charges outstanding on selling his legally obtained marijuana, which would not be copasetic.

Second, according to the statement Mr. Edmonds gave the police, he followed the fleeing intruders, Christian Foster and Rashad Williams, and shot them as they attempted to run away from his yard. There is no evidence whether the shooting began inside the house or outside. However, one of the robbers was shot twice in the back. Once was shot 5 times in the back. One was found dead in the street outside the house. One was found dying in a bush in the neighbors yard. I suppose it's possible to run out of a house and across a yard after getting shot in the back 5 times... I don't think anybody would call me a gun-grabber, but even I have to say hmmm....

Finally, there's unsubstantiated claims that there was a history of violence between the 17-year old that was beaten and 2 of the three intruders. Not that he had done anything wrong, actually, quite the contrary, that the two of them had threatened him on several occasions with serious physical violence. What's more, two of the three invaders had rapsheets, one for bank robbery.

Personally, here's what I think. I think it's a stretch to charge the 3rd invader with murder. With assault, robbery, breaking and entering, attempted murder (on the son), sure. But it seems like a stretch to use this legal doctrine, intended to end gang violence and drive-by shootings. They aren't even contending that Hughes was the leader or had the idea for the crime (at least I haven't heard it yet).

I still don't have enough information on whether the homeowner had a clean shoot. It all depends on whether he shot the guys while they were in the house or while they were fleeing. Thus far, that's the one critical detail I can't find. Odd, since the crime actually happened two years ago.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe that I have (and should have) the right to defend my life, liberty, and property [Go Locke Go!] and to defend the life, liberty, and property of those sharing my domicile, and to use deadly force if required. If any credible threat to life, liberty or property is apparent, it would be an appropriate courtesy -- not requirement -- to warn the intruder to desist first.

As details from Don's 2nd long post suggest, the homeowner may not only have been involved in some business deal with the "invaders" but may well have shot them after they fled his property -- that would be beyond the pale.

Oddly enough, I do find myself agreeing with Panzer's general point that the "Civil Rights" gurus are all to ready to scream "race" first before evaluating the facts. Even in this instance, I suspect race had less to do with the violence than did greed.

[HoreTore]

So, I'm curious about how things actually work in Norway. You don't put locks on your doors? You let people into your house on the benefit of the doubt, and then if they act illegally once there, you call the police and hope for the best? How does that work for you guys... do you just not have criminals in Norway? I ask, because I'm having a hard time picturing a predatory pedophile climbing off of your daughter and hitching up his pants with a polite 'sorry, my bad', simply because you asked him to. I'm also rather incredulous that Norwegian fathers would restrain themselves to just calling the police and waiting for them to arrive, that they wouldn't take some act of self-defense.

There's a difference between acting on a situation, and fortifying your house in case something should happen, Don...

Also, when the problem is that the police force isn't working(as fragony stated), the obvious solution would be to fix the police, not resorting to street justice.

As for how things are here.... Well, I can't remember the last time I locked my door.

[Fragony]

There's a difference between acting on a situation, and fortifying your house in case something should happen, Don...

Also, when the problem is that the police force isn't working(as fragony stated), the obvious solution would be to fix the police, not resorting to street justice.

As for how things are here.... Well, I can't remember the last time I locked my door.

No, the obvioux solution would be to get rid of the kind of thinking that makes the police such a sorry mess, and that would happen to be idealists getting stuck in the wrong places, must be a post-hippy thing, power to us good let's keep it. And they do.

[HoreTore]

No, the obvioux solution would be to get rid of the kind of thinking that makes the police such a sorry mess, and that would happen to be idealists getting stuck in the wrong places, must be a post-hippy thing, power to us good let's keep it. And they do.

Well, yes... that would be fixing the police....

[Don Corleone]

There's a difference between acting on a situation, and fortifying your house in case something should happen, Don...

Isn't locking your front door a way of fortifying your home against the outside world? I'm happy you don't have to, but frankly, I'm a bit skeptical. You don't have ANY violent criminals in Norway? I may have to reconsider the taxes and intrusive government. That might just be a fair bargain. Although, I imagine it would be hard to start a new social network in Norway, given your cultural leaning towards introversion... especially if we don't speak Norwegian.

Sure, fixing the police department should be an important part of any solution to ongoing violent crime, when it can be shown that the police system isn't working well by design. But I'm not willing to wait for the police to catch up. I'll stop defending myself and my family AFTER the police prove they can actually prevent crime, not just investegate it afterwards.

[Fragony]

Well, yes... that would be fixing the police....

Yeah, let me fill you in. The police here have a 'target', they have to collect a certain amount of money, they get a bad revier if they don't, it is their job to write as many tickets as they can. But, they are tought to do just that, and they are clueless when they are needed, a few months ago a guy was tortured to death while the police just stood there for 30 minutes being amazed that it was their responsibility. We have absolutily no use for the police, the best that happens is not being arrested yourselve because you failed to do whatever, and, get fined. And released, not everything is bad if you pay at once.

[HoreTore]

Isn't locking your front door a way of fortifying your home against the outside world?

Yes, but Fragony seemed to imply doing quite a bit more than that ~;)


I'm happy you don't have to, but frankly, I'm a bit skeptical. You don't have ANY violent criminals in Norway?

Sure we do. But I've barely seen any, so I have no need to worry about them. The crime waves here are mostly related to theft, and they're rarely violent. There's no question though, if I was being robbed by a violent guy, I'd fork over the cash in an instant, even if I had access to a weapon. No way am I valuing something as trivial as money over the possibility of dying.


I may have to reconsider the taxes and intrusive government. That might just be a fair bargain.

The taxes are high, but the government isn't very intrusive... We haven't made a patriot act here. But I can't guarantee that for long though... And we have a nice little group here that whines extremely high every time something resembling an intrusion of privacy comes along... Oh, 'cept money-wise, of course. They belong to the state.


Although, I imagine it would be hard to start a new social network in Norway, given your cultural leaning towards introversion... especially if we don't speak Norwegian.

Just get drunk and you'll get accepted. It's a sad thing about our culture, we won't accept people who doesn't want to spend sunday mornings puking in a ditch...


Sure, fixing the police department should be an important part of any solution to ongoing violent crime, when it can be shown that the police system isn't working well by design. But I'm not willing to wait for the police to catch up. I'll stop defending myself and my family AFTER the police prove they can actually prevent crime, not just investegate it afterwards.

Of course, if it's really THAT bad, it'll be acceptable as a temporary solution. But it won't ever be an acceptable permanent solution.

[Ironside]

Sure, fixing the police department should be an important part of any solution to ongoing violent crime, when it can be shown that the police system isn't working well by design. But I'm not willing to wait for the police to catch up. I'll stop defending myself and my family AFTER the police prove they can actually prevent crime, not just investegate it afterwards.

AFAIK it should end up as manslaughter or manslaugther (silly translations :laugh4:), so it should end up somewhere between 10 years or fines depending on the severity of the crime.

Ignoring the tidbit of owning a shotgun for home defense (remember that home invasions are very rare here, and with lethal ending even rarer), you should probably end up on the lower part of that scale while defending your family.
Unless you start end up in taking revenge on the criminals of course.

So with Dons extra information, the shooter in the article would probably do some time (and so would the accused do as well of course, not just on murder).

That law feels to be a bit too bendable to be comforting, sure I understand the need for a law that says that it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, you're all guilty, but this one goes a bit beyond that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Second, according to the statement Mr. Edmonds gave the police, he followed the fleeing intruders, Christian Foster and Rashad Williams, and shot them as they attempted to run away from his yard. There is no evidence whether the shooting began inside the house or outside. However, one of the robbers was shot twice in the back. Once was shot 5 times in the back. One was found dead in the street outside the house. One was found dying in a bush in the neighbors yard. I suppose it's possible to run out of a house and across a yard after getting shot in the back 5 times... I don't think anybody would call me a gun-grabber, but even I have to say hmmm....

Criminals often will get shot, run out and die a ways away. Even five shots won't instantly kill you. I've seen video of a guy shot in the gut with a .45 who continues wrestling with the police as though he was unharmed.

Though even if he shot the criminals as they were on his lawn running away I would have no problem with it. The 'no longer a threat' is bogus - they remain large threats. If they're a block down and running, that's different. And as to the idea that they stopped attacking - well tough ****, scum. You started the game, but you don't get to decide when to finish it.

The surviving criminal should be sued to pay for the teen victim's treatment for the rest of his life.

As to the idea that an ideal police department will mean no more need for self defense - when the crooks are at your door, the best police department in the world means nothing. Whatever deterrent power they had is over, and they can only get to the scene after the event has happened.


But there's been cases where the assailant had a bat or a knife and the homewner was found guilty, because the gun constituted a lethal threat while the bat or the knife only constituted a 'potentially lethal threat', and most self defense statutes only allow you to meet force with like force. You can't stab a guy who's punching you, and you can't shoot a guy who's swinging a crowbar.

I suspect those are in pathetic socialist areas, and that shooting a man with a crowbar in your home will likely not even result in charges in most states.

CR

[Husar]

As to the idea that an ideal police department will mean no more need for self defense - when the crooks are at your door, the best police department in the world means nothing. Whatever deterrent power they had is over, and they can only get to the scene after the event has happened.
Depends on your door. :laugh4:

[Ice]

As for how things are here.... Well, I can't remember the last time I locked my door.

:laugh4:

Try living 20 minutes from the 2nd most crime ridden city in the United States and try that. Just see what happens.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A better article on the incident:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/07/BAGR2H41LB1.DTL

According to prosecutor Jon Hopkins, the chief deputy district attorney in Lake County, at some point after 4 a.m., Hughes, Williams and Foster broke into the home where Edmonds was living with his young daughter, fiancee Lori Tyler, her son Dale Lafferty, and an unrelated teen, 16-year-old Justin Sutch. Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.

A free-for-all erupted, according to police, in which one intruder wrestled with Edmonds, one hit Tyler, and another bashed Lafferty with a bat. Edmonds grabbed his 9mm semiautomatic Browning and shot Williams twice in the back and Foster five times. It hasn't been established whether the shooting began indoors or outside.

When police got there, Williams was lying in the middle of 11th Street, dead, and Foster was dying in bushes 20 yards away.

The Lake County district attorney hasn't determined whether Edmonds has any criminal liability, but it has charged Mission High graduate Hughes, a 21-year-old clerk at a Trader Joe's in San Francisco, with two counts of first-degree murder and one count each of attempted murder, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and residential burglary.

On the provocative act:

Hopkins is relying on a controversial legal theory called the provocative act murder doctrine, which originated in 1965 and has been used mainly to convict gang members in Southern California -- drive-by shootings are a classic application. The doctrine says that someone who provokes another person to kill can be charged with murder.

If that's the case, and it's not simply felony murder, they may be wrong to charge him with. I don't know the specifics; they could argue the surviving criminal provoked the homeowner into killing for self defense.

CR

[Geoffrey S]

Sure we do. But I've barely seen any, so I have no need to worry about them.
I've never seen a terrorist or a nuclear bomb, so I guess I don't need to worry about them.

[Whacker]

A couple of thoughts after reading the article and some other posts.

1. I agree w/Seamus completely, re: home defense. In that kind of situation, where you come in to see a family member bleeding to death or unconcious, no "verbal warning" is required, you are within your rights to pull the trigger as I would 100% call that "mortal danger" to yourself and esp. your unconcious/bleeding family member.

2. Them fleeing. Mmmm, maybe a bit torn here. If no violence has taken place, then I'd say shooting them as they flee is out of bounds. If you have already been assaulted or witness them assaulting someone in your house, then I think all bets are off, because at that point, it's clear that they intend more than just "robbing" the house, because a simple robber would flee immediately, or put up a token struggle in their bid to get away (my thoughts aren't exactly this simple, but will leave it at that for now). In this case, given what I've read, even though they were running, who's to say that they wouldn't stop, turn around, and resume the attack if the gun misfired, as they had already clearly demonstrated hostile/dangerous intent. Taking a shot at them as they are halfway down the street is getting out of bounds also, so long as they are on the property, it's still fair game IMO.

3. The race card. Honestly am really sick of this. As Seamus also pointed out, people are way, way, way to quick to trot out the race card. This, along with quite a few other fiascos and involvements, is why I have 0 respect for the NAACP and view them as nothing more than a "legal" version of a hate group, almost a "terrorist" group. Perhaps that org once had some true worthwhile aims and goals, perhaps it still does, but getting involved too often in high profile nonsense like this just to make a statement will go miles to ruin any credibility.

[KrooK]

Criminals should be shot. I'm only sad that one of them survived.

[Strike For The South]

The Jena 6 were completly different PJ :thumbsdown:

[CountArach]

Equality industry should just come clear and admit that they are anti-white.
Yes, I am anti-white. I just hate myself that much... :rolleyes:

[Devastatin Dave]

The Jena 6 were completly different PJ :thumbsdown:
You're right, instead of 3 criminal blacks beating up a white person, you had six criminal blacks beating up a white guy. Its a simple mathematical difference but with a common denominator.:yes:

[Fragony]

Yes, I am anti-white. I just hate myself that much... :rolleyes:

You can speak for the casus-nostra? They are kinda $elctive in their outrage don't you think? I mean I didn't hear them when a white couple wa$ raped and tortured to death by 5 black$, an obviou$ hate anger crime, it ju$t doe$n't exist for them, I gue$$ there is nothing to gain there.

[HoreTore]

Criminals often will get shot, run out and die a ways away. Even five shots won't instantly kill you. I've seen video of a guy shot in the gut with a .45 who continues wrestling with the police as though he was unharmed.

Though even if he shot the criminals as they were on his lawn running away I would have no problem with it. The 'no longer a threat' is bogus - they remain large threats. If they're a block down and running, that's different. And as to the idea that they stopped attacking - well tough ****, scum. You started the game, but you don't get to decide when to finish it.

The surviving criminal should be sued to pay for the teen victim's treatment for the rest of his life.

As to the idea that an ideal police department will mean no more need for self defense - when the crooks are at your door, the best police department in the world means nothing. Whatever deterrent power they had is over, and they can only get to the scene after the event has happened.

How you're able to have such a disregard for human life, is quite beyond me. And I have to say, it's sickening.

[Fragony]

How you're able to have such a disregard for human life, is quite beyond me. And I have to say, it's sickening.

Personally I think it is you who has a disregard for human life, these people are victims, especially the son.

[HoreTore]

Personally I think it is you who has a disregard for human life, these people are victims, especially the son.

Have I said otherwise?

However, I will also say that those two killed are also victims. I find the death penalty horrible no matter what their crime, even more so when performed without a trial and administered by civilians.

[HoreTore]

I've never seen a terrorist or a nuclear bomb, so I guess I don't need to worry about them.

I don't see why you should, really. The odds of you dying of a terrorist attack, or even being exposed to them are slim at best. And since no state is willing to face the hell that will come from a nuclear attack, there's little need to worry about that either.

[Fragony]

Have I said otherwise?

However, I will also say that those two killed are also victims. I find the death penalty horrible no matter what their crime, even more so when performed without a trial and administered by civilians.

That is not a death sentence that is the risk of the job. Something entirily different. Thet are not victims they are criminals who miscalculated, have a nice death au revoir vaarwel auf wiedersehen bye.

[HoreTore]

That is not a death sentence that is the risk of the job. Something entirily different. Thet are not victims they are criminals who miscalculated, have a nice death au revoir vaarwel auf wiedersehen bye.

No, in the context that you've laid out, he punished them for their crimes. Since he is not a court official, he has no right to do that. He can interfere, yes, but he can't chase after them and "deliver justice". That's for the cops and courts to do.

[Fragony]

No, in the context that you've laid out, he punished them for their crimes. Since he is not a court official, he has no right to do that. He can interfere, yes, but he can't chase after them and "deliver justice". That's for the cops and courts to do.

He saw his son being beaten up by tree burglars and he flipped, this is why we (well some) have judges, to protect people from random prosecution when their reaction is most understandable. The equality industry naturally wants his head anyway.

[HoreTore]

He saw his son being beaten up by tree burglars and he flipped, this is why we (well some) have judges, to protect people from random prosecution when their reaction is most understandable. The equality industry naturally wants his head anyway.

That would depend on whether he was criminally liable(come on, someone give me the english term here:dizzy2:) for his actions. That is a matter for the courts to decide.

[Tribesman]

The more you look at this case the more it stinks .
A mentally unstable drug dealer with a history of violence shoots dead two of his customers with an illegal firearm during an arguement , he has since changed his version of events 5 times .
The son who was injured was injured with a baseball bat that he was using to attack his step-dads customers , the only weapons found that are positively linked to the events all belonged to the household .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That would depend on whether he was criminally liable(come on, someone give me the english term here:dizzy2:) for his actions. That is a matter for the courts to decide.

"criminally liable" is good usage HT. Our courts tend to use "liable" in suits over money more than in criminal cases, but you are communicating clearly here -- no worries mate.

A grand jury will indict a suspect if they deem the evidence is sufficient to "bind over" that suspect for trial, as in the grand jury believes that the state has enough evidence to make legitimate allegations against a suspect. Note, however, that grand juries in the USA are traditionally pretty willing to follow the lead of a district attorney who presents anything resembling evidence against a suspect -- legal wits suggest that a DA can usually get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, much less a possible criminal.


Tribes:

As you rightly note, the "aroma" around this particular case sours every minute. While I think Panzer has a point about Civil Rights leaders being too free in playing the "race card," and while I am a strong proponent of an individual's right to protect themselves, this particular case appears more and more to be just what some of the Civil Rights leaders are suggesting -- a drug deal gone bad. Of course, in that case, there really were NO innocent parties involved....

[Don Corleone]

I would agree with Tribes and Seamus except on the firmarm. It wasn't an illegal firearm, it was licensed. But yes, the guy has a couple of distribution charges outstanding against him. But even if he was a drug dealer, that doesn't give the three the right to invade his house and beat his step son into a coma. I do find the position taken by the police & local prosecutor as odd, but I'm not going to white-wash the case. I still don't know if the guys were shot while engaged in the attack (which is perfectly reasonable IMHO) or if they were shot afterwards, while fleeing (no good in my book). I don't think anybody has that answer yet, correct?

[HoreTore]

I still don't know if the guys were shot while engaged in the attack (which is perfectly reasonable IMHO) or if they were shot afterwards, while fleeing (no good in my book).

I'm agreeing more and more with you lately, Don. Am I turning into a rabid conservative, or are you turning into a flower-smelling hippie?

[Husar]

The more you look at this case the more it stinks .
A mentally unstable drug dealer with a history of violence shoots dead two of his customers with an illegal firearm during an arguement , he has since changed his version of events 5 times .
The son who was injured was injured with a baseball bat that he was using to attack his step-dads customers , the only weapons found that are positively linked to the events all belonged to the household .
Interesting development. :inquisitive:

Of course if that's true, he might deserve to be jailed for a long time.

[ShaiHulud]

In this sordid case there are only three people who KNEW both their purpose and intent, the three who invaded a home at 4AM.

Should the man who shot them be required to conduct some due diligence to determine whether or not they were not merely stepping out to get better weapons or just taking a breather?

Was HE required to accept that the home invasion, which awakened him to find a vicious assault on his family, was over because the invaders were slowing down in their assaut?

Well, we do have the word of three bat-swinging head-bashers that 'all' they wanted was some marijuana. Why would anyone conclude they might become, oh, mass murderers, to hide their identities? That's never happened before, right?

And, after all, their moms and a clergyman are there to vouch for their 'good character'. :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

posted by Shaihulud..........
~:rolleyes: it would certainly appear that someone hasn't looked at the story at all .

[Adrian II]

Don Corleone, you gave us an excellent break-down of the knowns and unknowns of this case. Tribesman has a point when he says the indictment probably stinks. Some painful questions would have to be answered before justice can be served.

Still, I would say that first degree murder is too heavy a charge for Mr Hughes. Not because of what his Mom says, which is neither here nor there. But because it defies the very notion of justice to lay a murder charge on one who 'didna do it'. If Mr Hughes was indeed a burglar and behaved in the manner stated in the original article, he could certainly be held responsible along with the (deceased) other two for a lot of the ensuing mayhem, inlcuding the attack on the son. But that's as far as it should go.

EDIT
On a sidenote, I find it amusing that members who often complain about media bias and 'agendas' turn all gullible when an article like this pops up. All of a sudden they refuse to question, think again or do some research, but rather accept the article at face value. Probably because it fits their mould of anti-PC thinking. Of course the 'other side' is just as guilty when it spots racism anywhere and everywhere, no doubt about that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

On a sidenote, I find it amusing that members who often complain about media bias and 'agendas' turn all gullible when an article like this pops up. All of a sudden they refuse to question, think again or do some research, but rather accept the article at face value. Probably because it fits their mould of anti-PC thinking. Of course the 'other side' is just as guilty when it spots racism anywhere and everywhere, no doubt about that.I think this is not a sidenote, but the very core of this debate.

People immediately assume their standard positions and spout nonsense from there, without critical thinking. It is all a vague story, one can see any bias or preconceived notion confirmed in it. For fun, somebody ought to post an article about 'Three unarmed white kids just buying some dope brutally attacked in black drugdealer dwelling! They managed to fend off one of their attackers while running for their lives, but were shot in the back! Two slaughtered! Son of gunman charged with murders by his accomplice.'

I bet we'd then have seen posts like 'while I agree that these kids should not have bought dope, they didn't need to die for it. We all have tried some in college.
I am happy that the son was charged for murder too. By participating in shady drug deals and an attack on the three unarmed boys, he set them at risk. He must have been aware of the gun his convicted criminal accomplice in crime possesed.
Why is there a deafening silence from the 'Civil Rights' movement over this outrage!?'

[ICantSpellDawg]

We get sent to jail for defending our homes and families from a violent invasion, women in Saudi Arabia are whipped and jailed for being raped. Sounds like everything is in order.

We'd all do the same thing as this guy in his situation. He had no choice. If they were in his home, and fleeing they could have turned around. Kill them all.

[Fragony]

On a sidenote, I find it amusing that members who often complain about media bias and 'agendas' turn all gullible when an article like this pops up. All of a sudden they refuse to question, think again or do some research, but rather accept the article at face value.

Well I'll admit guilty your honour, maybe because I have grown used to having to second-check 'the other side', and this was kinda refreshing.

[Husar]

Does anyone else here think that Adrian's and Louis's view is absolutely disgusting and immoral? :thumbsdown:

[Geoffrey S]

How can something be absolutely disgusting and immoral, those being words that are dependant on being relative to what is not disgusting and is moral? :beam:

[ShaiHulud]

~:rolleyes: it would certainly appear that someone hasn't looked at the story at all .

Actually, having read the entire thread first, I can only conclude that you believe your assumptions/conclusions from the facts given in the various accounts, muddled as they yet are, are superior to my own. I'll refrain from including any demeaning or derogatory 'smilies'.

[Tribesman]

anotheer post from Shaihulud

Hmmmm ...muddled , various accounts .... are you refering to the five different versions of events that the junkie gave to the police as to how and why he shot the people ?
Or are you refering to your very muddled post where you appear to miraculously find the "word" of 3 people even though two are dead and couldn't say a word about it ?

[ShaiHulud]

Ah! You scored a point. Presumably, that was your sole intent since you offered no response to the several questions I posed. Is this, then, the hallmark of your 7000+ posts? Derision?

My assumption that the defense offered by the one would be the same to be offered by those deceased is now the basis for two insulting posts by you. The banality of your comments previous to those does not lead me to expect anything more in depth from you in future. I leave this thread none the wiser for your contributions.

[Strike For The South]

Ah! You scored a point. Presumably, that was your sole intent since you offered no response to the several questions I posed. Is this, then, the hallmark of your 7000+ posts? Derision?

My assumption that the defense offered by the one would be the same to be offered by those deceased is now the basis for two insulting posts by you. The banality of your comments previous to those does not lead me to expect anything more in depth from you in future. I leave this thread none the wiser for your contributions.

I like you

lets be friends.:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

My assumption that the defense offered by the one would be the same to be offered by those deceased is now the basis for two insulting posts by you. The banality of your comments previous to those does not lead me to expect anything more in depth from you in future. I leave this thread none the wiser for your contributions.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
stop it you are killing me :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So then Saihulud you have an assumption that one person with a consistant version of events would have his version repeated by the two deceased , yet for some strange reason you would have it that more belief should be put in the testimony of a drug dealing criminal with serious mental problems who has repeatedly changed his version of events .

Depth eh ? it appears you havn't even scratched the surface of this story so it is not surprising that you will remain none the wiser .

Oh and if you think those two posts you refer to were insulting then you had better grow a thicker skin to match the intellectual quality of the assumptions contained in your two posts in this topic .

[ShaiHulud]

Yet again, a paltry attempt to count coup. Be assured, should I ever require one with all the nuance a pocket dictionary may provide, I shall call upon you.

Thrice replied, yet not one argument have you provided. Dare I wonder how many of your posts consisted of nothing more than 'Bump' or a cute smilie? Were quality the measure your appropriate smiley is, doubtless, :clown: .

To the Emerald Isle, I bid adieu!

(Lest you remain obtuse, here lies the basis for your posts-)

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

It makes use of the law of non-contradiction — a statement cannot be both true and false. In some cases it may also make use of the law of excluded middle — a statement must be either true or false. The phrase is traceable back to the Greek ἡ εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγή (hē eis átopon apagōgḗ), meaning "reduction to the absurd", often used by Aristotle.

Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe an argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. However, this is a weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion. Such arguments can also commonly incorporate the appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy caused when an argument or theory is twisted by the opposing side to appear ridiculous.

[Tribesman]

Thrice replied, yet not one argument have you provided.
Oh now I understand .
wow you almost had me worried there , I thought perhaps something was wrong with you and you had some sort of reading difficulty...

[PanzerJaeger]

wow you almost had me worried there , I thought perhaps something was wrong with you and you had some sort of reading difficulty...

Oh how clever! How do you come up with these?

[Crazed Rabbit]

How you're able to have such a disregard for human life, is quite beyond me. And I have to say, it's sickening.

I have no disregard for human life. I may have less of a regard for criminals who violently break into a home and attack it's occupants. I think you will find that I consistently am on the side of the homeowner if they are attacked, no matter their race or if their attackers happen to be police officers who raid the wrong address and then plant pot after killing the occupant who shot in self defense.


Oh how clever! How do you come up with these?

Well according to the posting time, he was able to concentrate his great intellect on it for half an hour; a mere mortal such as you or I would require days to think of such wit.

tribesy, care to provide some link with proof of your 'five versions' claim, preferably with an explanation as to how the versions differed?

CR

[Tribesman]

tribesy, care to provide some link with proof of your 'five versions' claim, preferably with an explanation as to how the versions differed?

A link , you must be joking , I am sure you can find the information yourself .

Where to start though , was it two men in the bedroom beating his wife , was it an arguement with two men in the kitchen , was it two men in the hallway ...alternately was it five men ?
Did they have a rifle and a shotgun , two shotguns , a shotgun and a baseball bat or a shotgun and a hammer ?
Was it people he didn't know , masked people he coudn't recognise or was it that mother###### who had been causing trouble ?

Now one of those above isn't given in the differing versions by the poor "victim" , can you spot which one ?:inquisitive:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, you see, that directly contradicts the numerous sources I've read, that all dismiss such silly claims about multiple testimonies. These accounts say the criminal admitted to some friends of his that he wanted to steal from the family and beat them up at the same time.

You should be able to find the info for yourself, so I won't bother providing links. Indeed, should you question my claims, I'll throw nasty insults at you and question your intelligence.

CR

[Tribesman]

Well, you see, that directly contradicts the numerous sources I've read, that all dismiss such silly claims about multiple testimonies. These accounts say the criminal admitted to some friends of his that he wanted to steal from the family and beat them up at the same time.

Ah therein lies a problem with the situation , sloppy journalism .
The story was very widely covered wasn't it , from a very small set of information that was just repeated again and again without checking facts .

[seireikhaan]

Eww. Ick. Not too much to like about this story.

I'll start with the homeowner. First of all, the marijuana. According to CR's article, he reportedly had AT LEAST five pounds of marijuana in his home at the time of the attempted armed robbery. Let me echo Don here. Five pounds is A LOT of marijuana. Linkie- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15305579/#storyContinued


An ounce of pot on the street costs upwards of $300, depending on the quality..
Five pounds of marijuana would fetch quite a bundle, frankly, its no wonder the guy was robbed. I hate to say it, but if you're dealing the stuff, and people know it, you're pretty much asking to be robbed. Its basically like you've got $24,000 sitting in your home, illegally, and multiple people who have, shall we say, unscrupuluous histories, know it.


Question 7 allows people 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana in their homes - the same amount allowed under Nevada's medical marijuana law.
Now, I'm not for sure, as I was having trouble finding the amount allowed for medicinal purposes in California, but I think its safe to assume that its roughly near what Nevada was attempting to legalize. Which is no where near five pounds.

Now, believe it or not, I will agree with Don on one of his points. People do have the right to defend themselves against unlawful invasion, especially when it is violent. However, I have severe reservations about throwing my sympathies about for a man who was robbed for having has over 20 grand in illegal money in his home. Another thing I would like to know, but doubt I'll find out, is if the son was involved in selling the weed. I honestly have little sympathy for drug dealers who get robbed for their illegal drugs. I like the concept of defending your property with due force. I don't like the concept of defending property that is illegal for you to have in the first place.

As for the kid who got charged- still, once again, I don't have a ton of sympathy for him. However, charging him with murder is a bit far, since he didn't, in fact, kill anyone. Sure, attempted robbery, burglary, attempt to procure illegal drugs, and perhaps attempted murder as well. Which, when you count in the fact that he's already got quite a rap sheet to begin with, this kid(that is, if our jails worked properly:wall: ), will serve quite a sentence anyways.

One more thing. Once again, I'm agreeing with Don.(go figure:sweatdrop: ). The NAACP does get quite irritating, throwing race out every time an African American is charged with a crime. Frankly, my tolerance of them expired when they defended Michael Vick, despite the fact that he not only was charged with dog fighting, but eventually ADMITTED to doing it, for five years, no less. And I think some might be surprised by how much support they might rally, especially in southern states. I watched the "Michael Vick Round Table Discussion" on ESPN, where basically ESPN brought together various folks who had observed the situation, both from Vick's side, and those who didn't support him. Bear in mind, this was held in a large hall in Atlanta, with a nearly entirely black crowd, and was after Vick had pled guilty. EVERY time a person attempted to say something negative about Vick, they were greeted by resounding "boo's" from the audience, who had apparently swallowed everything the NAACP had fed them, and rabidly vouched their support for a man convicted of torturing and killing animals for five years. Frankly, five years of dog fighting isn't a 'bad choice'. And one more thing that irritated me to no end, was when Jessie Jackson accused Barack Obama of not "acting like a black person". Spewing such nonsensical excrement only serves to add to the racial divide between people, which the NAACP has vowed to eliminate, or so they say.~:rolleyes: