Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism. California's Provocative Act doctrine

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BREAK_IN_MURDER

    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."


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    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 have never understood this argument. are they saying only other violent criminals can fairly judge him?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    Does this really surprise anybody?

  4. #4
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    molonlabetn wrote:
    Does this really surprise anybody?
    Nope. I love the way the only peoplethe "civil rights" movement can rally aroundthese daysare criminals. (Rodney King, the Jena 6 and this case come to mind.) It goes to show how twisted their "cause" has become.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    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 have never understood this argument. are they saying only other violent criminals can fairly judge him?
    They couldn't really be saying that because if they did, they'd be admitting he done it.

    Since its not a quote, I'd bet the writer or editor screwed it up. The understandable phrasing would be something like "animpartial jury of his peers."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Nothing about the charges seem unreasonable. Someone post the pictures of Jesse Jackson when he gets there.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    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.
    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."
    Denial is a very interesting thing.

    I think it's too bad they aren't seeking the death penalty. If things really went down the way this article makes it sound - and this kid is found to be guilty - then I think we're better off without him.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hidden Valley Lake, California, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I think that any one in there right mind would have done the same for there family and then theguy's mother talking about the kid's just wanted to buy weed OK!! why did they beat the stepson with a baseball bat? I guess that's the new way to buy weed these day's.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    The story wrote:
    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.
    Hmm.. sounds like felony murder rule to me. Is it that rarely used? Or is it media sensationalism attempting to make the felony murder rule sound like a law that bans people from hitching their pet allegator to a light pole?

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    The story wrote:
    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.
    Hmm.. sounds like felony murder rule to me. Is it that rarely used? Or is it media sensationalism attempting to make the felony murder rule sound like a law that bans people from hitching their pet allegator to a light pole?
    In some states, the felony murder rule does not apply to the deaths of co-perpetrators of a crime.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    USAF_MetalChris wrote:
    molonlabetn wrote:
    Does this really surprise anybody?
    Nope. I love the way the only peoplethe "civil rights" movement can rally aroundthese daysare criminals. (Rodney King, the Jena 6 and this case come to mind.) It goes to show how twisted their "cause" has become.
    You cant seriously compare Rodney King and these wackos to the Jena 6... Rodney King WAS a criminalAND an idot. The Jena 6 werent criminals. Im an African American law abiding citizen posessing carry permits in 6 states and 1 pending. and I would have definitely shot these dudes too.And I would've even used my shotgun so the last one wouldn't have gotten away. Although I believe (at least from this story ) that these guysWERE intending to rob AND murder if necessary to get their points across,the surviving felon shouldn't be charged with murder. I believe the deaths (at least from this story) were justifiable homicides on the part of the owner, thesurviving criminalshould go up for robbery, breaking and entering, assault with a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder for beating the son.... ButNOT for the murders of his cohorts... case closed. Annnnd the civil rights movement hasn't become twisted because if you cared to look closer... you would see that in most of these cases (even though Rodney King Was an idiot) the civil rights of these people were being infringed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Yaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Salinas, California
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by ilbob View Post
    I have never understood this argument. are they saying only other violent criminals can fairly judge him?
    Sorry to disappoint you but not all black people are criminals and most believe in prosocuting criminals regardless of their skin color.
    A all white jury is far more likely to convict a person of color. I'm sure you dont have a problem with a mixed jury correct?
    Had i been in the home owner i to would've shot to kill so contrary to your silly comment black people believe in the right to bare arms and the right to protect our family and property..
    Last edited by Yaki; 06-22-2011 at 08:14 AM.

  13. #13
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaki View Post
    Sorry to disappoint you but not all black people are criminals and most believe in prosocuting criminals regardless of their skin color.
    A all white jury is far more likely to convict a person of color. I'm sure you dont have a problem with a mixed jury correct?
    Had i been in the home owner i to would've shot to kill so contrary to your silly comment black people believe in the right to bare arms and the right to protect our family and property..
    Welcome to the Forum!
    Also wanted to let you know you are posting in a 4 year old thread...ummm, I've never done that hahahaha. Welcome again.

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Necropost!

    This topic was laid to rest four years ago... I understand that the thread subject is sensitive, but really?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Yaki, welcome aboard...
    also please notice that yes, this was a 4yo dead thread, with very few posts,
    & the OP is now banned.
    Yes, there are some racist jerks around. But I don't think most people would seriously say "all black people are X", where X = anything other than "generally darker".

    The homeowner shoots two of them to death - but it's the surviving black man who is charged with murder.
    Perfectly correct. Wonder why the law isn't used more often?
    And the only reason it's the surviving black man that's charged with murder is because he's one of the criminals who broke into the house. If he'd been white it would have been the same crime.

    the homeowner opened fire... after three young men rampaged through the house demanding marijuana and brutally beat his stepson. [Two] were shot in the back. Hughes fled.
    The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes, who also faces robbery, burglary and assault charges.
    Because (by the description) he did all of those things, too.
    He participated in the precipitating felony home invasion / burglary / assault / mayhem / attempted murder
    which a reasonable person could have foreseen might lead to a violent defensive response by the homeowner.
    And even in "gun-free" CA, some people have home defense tools.

    NAACP officials are asking why the homeowner is walking free.
    [Pot & other drugs, all prescription, in defender's body]
    "This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."
    They were legally adults.
    I think he'd probably be upset about a white person calling them boys...
    And perhaps their backs were to the homeowner while beating his son?
    (Though that raises questions about "what's behind your target"... is it better he maybe get shot or be definitely bludgeoned to death w/ a baseball bat?)
    If 3 violent people invade my home, I'd do the same thing.

    Hughes' mother... said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana.
    You don't bring a baseball bat to a peaceful transaction, & you don't break into a home & beat someone if all you want is to buy something.

    She called the case against her son a "legal lynching."
    "My son did not murder his childhood friends."
    Yes, he did.
    He participated in the crime that caused their deaths.
    If they hadn't been in the house, attacking the family, I can say with nearly 100% certainty that the homeowner would not have shot them.
    (Anything is possible. Not likely, but possible.)

    According to this: http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/
    He was admitted to Folsom state prison in Sep. 2008.
    But my google-foo is weak tonight
    I can't find any way to find the actual sentence, what he was convicted of & how long he's in for.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    This topic was laid to rest four years ago... I understand that the thread subject is sensitive, but really?
    Agreed. Closed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •