• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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."
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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?
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
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. :banghead:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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."
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

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

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

ChinoP94

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
1
Location
Hidden Valley Lake, California, USA
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.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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.
 

Bear-n-arms nGA

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
21
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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. :banghead:
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.
 

Yaki

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
94
Location
Salinas, California
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.. :shocker:
 
Last edited:

OC-moto450r

Guest
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
395
Location
,
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.. :shocker:

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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
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 :uhoh:
I can't find any way to find the actual sentence, what he was convicted of & how long he's in for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top