silverthorne (
silverthorne) wrote2007-11-16 11:42 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Snagged from Associate Press through Verizon news
I...just have no words here.
News
11/16/2007 10:20:17 EST /AP Photo
Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism
By JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press Writer
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."
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
First of all, from the way it sounds, someone really had to dig for that particular law, with as rarely as it's used.
Second, sorry, Mr. Edmonds, but I'm not buying it isn't about racism when these words come from your very lips to justify things:
"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."
Not racist at all, huh?
I'm sorry for the son, that was awful and yes the guy should be brought up on charges for that, but the murder thing? No.
News
11/16/2007 10:20:17 EST /AP Photo
Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism
By JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press Writer
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."
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
First of all, from the way it sounds, someone really had to dig for that particular law, with as rarely as it's used.
Second, sorry, Mr. Edmonds, but I'm not buying it isn't about racism when these words come from your very lips to justify things:
"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."
Not racist at all, huh?
I'm sorry for the son, that was awful and yes the guy should be brought up on charges for that, but the murder thing? No.
no subject
There was a case of two (white) men breaking into an old man's house and tying him up while they robbed him - the man had a heart attack and died, and they were charged with manslaughter, I think it was.
There are also other cases where gunmen have broken into stores and police have accidentally shot customers they were holding hostage, and the gunmen have been charged with the murders since they were the ones to initiate the contact.
Not taking a stance on it either way, but... I don't think the article is being particularly truthful about all of the details. It's certainly not an archaic "DON'T WATER YOUR LAWN ON TUESDAY OR YOU'LL BE ARRESTED OH SNAP THAT GUY'S BLACK LET'S GET HIM" thing. The mention of race in the quote IS suspect, but it's not as unheard of as they're making it out to be, especially if you... study criminology and stuff...
EDITED: that last part made no sense, lol.
no subject
Especially looking at it from the part of the law I do know, which in many states does say a home owner can use lethal force within the confines of their own home if they believe themselves or other residents to be in mortal danger (I know it's more precise than that, but that's the general gist as far as whether or not they're likely to be charged with murder for defending themselves). At best, I can look at this and think 'They're trying to avoid a counter-charge on account of the two boys being killed'.
Thing is...is it really necessary? I don't think so if it's as clear cut as it 'seems' to be as to what happened (IE--Stepson getting beaten badly enough to wind up with permanent brain damage). And that's why I'm not as willing to give benefit of the doubt. Add to that all the racial tension that's still going on (and yes, it's cropping up everywhere), and...yeah. Sorry. I still think the added charge is suspect.
But...we'll see. I'm sure there'll be enough media circus around it for more opinions to surface and factor in.
no subject
no subject
It might be law, but it's a damned fishy one to begin with (indicating a law breaker has to be able to determine these things occuring ahead of time), and, in this case (especially since the cases you mentioned still have it where the victim was further victimized by way of dying, rather than a co-defendant getting killed by the victim), a rather convenient way to trump up charges. And that's what bothers me. It seems an unecessary addition to a bunch of charges that can aready be brought up and used, and easily proven.
Like I said, it sounds wrong to me, and add in the racist commentary, and where this situation is located, and I'll call foul. And, although I know you did law, you might also want to take into account that the jury (people like me) are the ones who would be making the decisions based in what they know, what they saw, and what makes sense to them--and if the news reports are any indication, a lot of people aren't going to agree with that law/charge, either.
In short, what was the point of bringing that charge into the situation? And why this situation when other similar cases have no doubt happened before?
no subject
no subject
They beat the stepson badly enough that he's now brain damaged and in a home for essentially the rest of his life.
The home owner, who owns a gun, shot two of the intruders in the back, killing them, and injured the last one.
The last one is up on charges, including for the murder of his co-intruders, because of a law that got drug up that says the perp cna be held responsible for the death of another person during the crime if there had been reasonable belief that he knew his actions could have lead to that death.
Not 'as important' in court, but factors to consider:
White homeowner, black intruders.
90% white population in the county where the trial (and charges) were originally set.
Sounds not quite right, huh?
I agree on the assualt charges...I'd agree on a possible manlsughter/intent to murder charge.
I don't agree that he should be charged for the murder of his friends. I think that's an added charge in order to get as much jailtime/stiffest penalties they can put on this guy, and I'm not convinced that some of he reason for it doesn't lead back to racism.
no subject
no subject
Yeah, it's pretty fucked up.