[gtate]

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 school teacher 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."

--------------------------

i hate thieves and violent thief's i hate even more. it's sad because evil criminals like this end up giving peaceful herb like pot a bad name by mixing it w/ violence and crime...very sad imo. and as far as the NAACP playing the race card here, that is also sad and pathetic imo.

hopefully his son recovers from the beating and is not rendered a vegetable the rest of his life.

[Medpatient]

Originally Posted by gtate

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 school teacher 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."

--------------------------

i hate thieves and violent thief's i hate even more. it's sad because evil criminals like this end up giving peaceful herb like pot a bad name by mixing it w/ violence and crime...very sad imo. and as far as the NAACP playing the race card here, that is also sad and pathetic imo.

hopefully his son recovers from the beating and is not rendered a vegetable the rest of his life.

This Reverand is a fucking idiot. He states that the homeowner had no right to kill those guys. Lets see they broke into his house, brutally beat his son. Oh I say he had every right to show those fucks in the back and kill them.

But then again the NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the prime examples of reverse racism in my opinion anyways. Everytime a black is killed by a white it is racist and they come a running but everytime a black kills a white, mexican, asian or any other race they never say anything.

[jimichunga]

Originally Posted by gtate

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

k, you're a fucking idiot.

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.

I think this is a good thing. I don't feel that he should be charged with murder given the fact that the deceased willingly participated in the debacle.

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.

This is an example where the Provacative Act should be enforced. INNOCENT loss of life.

Hughes' mother, San Francisco school teacher 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."

Ya, i often bought marijuana from people before i had my rec by beating their stepsons' head in with a baseball bat. 'nother fucking idiot.

[Sonny Bono]

I have to agree. It's sickening... Now if it was white people who broke in and got killed, would the NAACP be there to back them up too??? That organization is such bullshit, I'm so tired of them... And I totally agree with the Provacative Law act or whatever... You break into somebody's home beat there child and threaten to rob them and think that the homeowner isn't packing or that you could get killed, just shows you're a fucking idiot... If they would have never broke in, they never would have been killed. Simple as that, story over with, put the asshole in jail for killing his friends, beating the kid to retardation and breaking and entering and whatever else they got in the book to throw at this asshole...

Peace - NAACP hater for life!!!!

[BrattonBasher]

I have yet to meet a pot smoker who needed meds so bad at 4:00am that they would break into a house and beat people. These were robbers and killers. I too am tired of the race card being played in these type of situations. As far as murder charges against the survivor, I do have a slight problem with that. But when you think about it, keeping thugs like that off the street who make choices like that is good for our civilized society. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And it's good they are not seeking the death penalty.

[gtate]

Originally Posted by Herbal Solutions

what is CA law on shooting someone in the back when they are on your property?

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

not sure but it probably depends on the circumstances. was it dark? was the scene totally chaotic? did the homeowner shoot while his son was being beaten?

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by Herbal Solutions

what is CA law on shooting someone in the back when they are on your property?

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

Inside your house it is OK to shoot. If they are fleeing in your back or front yard, not OK.

[weed feen]

Jesse Jackson is a big sellout.

well what gos around comes around,beat someone in my home chances are your going home hurt or wel.... sorry that this hole thing ended up the way it did!!untimly death sucks!!

[savage]

"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."

the guy had every right to shoot.

[stanley]

Originally Posted by gtate

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 school teacher 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."

--------------------------

i hate thieves and violent thief's i hate even more. it's sad because evil criminals like this end up giving peaceful herb like pot a bad name by mixing it w/ violence and crime...very sad imo. and as far as the NAACP playing the race card here, that is also sad and pathetic imo.

hopefully his son recovers from the beating and is not rendered a vegetable the rest of his life.

Lots of separate issues here...

It is too bad that the homeowner was forced to meet violence with violence. He will relive that night in his nightmares for YEARS to come.

As to the deaths of the two attackers, well, in my mind, good riddance to bad trash.

How DO you feel about a homeowner defending his family in his own home against a violent attack?

Is the person who initiated a crime responsible for the results of that crime? Should he be held responsible for the deaths that resulted from his choice to commit a crime in the first place?

I personally feel that he is responsible for their deaths, HE is the one who decided to commit the crime, HE is responsible for what happens as a result of that crime. I would NOT support the death penalty for his crimes, but I would support 30 years in jail, no parole.

I dont care if the criminal is white as the snow, black as night or green with polka dots, he is responsible for his actions, and the results of those actions. He made the choices, no one else did. He should pay for his poor decisions.

As I understand California law, the only time a civilian has the legal right to use lethal force is when he fears for his life, or the lives of folks he is responsible for (family for instance). Inside a home, it has been upheld many times that even shooting someone in the back is legally justifiable, on the thought that they may turn and attack again. Once outside the home, it is NOT legally defensible to shoot a fleeing attacker. In many other states, it IS but not California.

The police are not able to protect you in a situation like this. They cannot be everywhere, and they cannot be at your house in 15 seconds. I doubt that the homeowner HAD 15 seconds to make the decisions needed to defend himself, the situation was described as chaotic, and I can only imagine that is a weak word to describe the pressures under this situation. Anyone who has ever faced combat knows that.

In MY OPINION you must be ready to defend your home from thugs like this. If more people took the responsibility of learning how to PROPERLY and LEGALLY use a firearm to fend off assholes like these, there would be a WHOLE lot fewer of these "home invasion" style crimes...

Expect to meet a 12 gauge, and a man trained in its proper, safe, and legal use should you decide to crash through my doors. If I can prevent it, I will not be a victim of this kind of crime.

I know that may sound a bit bloodthirsty to some of you... ask the victim of the baseball bat beating in this crime how bloodthirsty it sounds to him, if he is capable of answering you.

If these thugs thought there was a strong chance of getting their punk asses killed, they probably wouldnt have gone out "to buy marijuana" at 4:00 AM with a baseball bat.

[Medpatient]

Originally Posted by stanley

Lots of separate issues here...

It is too bad that the homeowner was forced to meet violence with violence. He will relive that night in his nightmares for YEARS to come.

As to the deaths of the two attackers, well, in my mind, good riddance to bad trash.

How DO you feel about a homeowner defending his family in his own home against a violent attack?

Is the person who initiated a crime responsible for the results of that crime? Should he be held responsible for the deaths that resulted in his choice to commit a crime in the first place?

I personally feel that he is responsible for their deaths, HE is the one who decided to commit the crime, HE is responsible for what happens as a result of that crime. I would NOT support the death penalty for his crimes, but I would support 30 years in jail, no parole.

I dont care if the criminal is white as the snow, black as night or green with polka dots, he is responsible for his actions, and the results of those actions. He made the choices, no one else did. He should pay for his poor decisions.

As I understand California law, the only time a civilian has the legal right to use lethal force is when he fears for his life, or the lives of folks he is responsible for (family for instance). Inside a home, it has been upheld many times that even shooting someone in the back is legally justifiable, on the thought that they may turn and attack again. Once outside the home, it is NOT legally defensible to shoot a fleeing attacker. In many other states, it IS but not California.

The police are not able to protect you in a situation like this. They cannot be everywhere, and they cannot be at your house in 15 seconds. I doubt that the homeowner HAD 15 seconds to make the decisions needed to defend himself, the situation was described as chaotic, and I can only imagine that is a weak word to describe the pressures under this situation. Anyone who has ever faced combat knows that.

In MY OPINION you must be ready to defend your home from thugs like this. If more people took the responsibility of learning how to PROPERLY and LEGALLY use a firearm to fend off assholes like these, there would be a WHOLE lot fewer of these "home invasion" style crimes...

Expect to meet a 12 gauge, and a man trained in its proper, safe, and legal use should you decide to crash through my doors. If I can prevent it, I will not be a victim of this kind of crime.

I know that may sound a bit bloodthirsty to some of you... ask the victim of the baseball bat beating in this crime how bloodthirsty it sounds to him, if he is capable of answering you.

If these thugs thought there was a strong chance of getting their punk asses killed, they probably wouldnt have gone out "to buy marijuana" at 4:00 AM with a baseball bat.

Very well said and agree with all of it.

[organicali]

Sucks that people gotta get shot up for weed.But they get what they ask for,another thing is how did they find out that the victim was growing weed.

[Mindfury]

I like he he says how they were shot in the back..they were fleeing. I guess thet fact that they were running away totally negates the fact they broke into some1s house, assualted innocent residants.Not to mention the fact that the 3 CONSIPRED to commit the crime. lets this be a lesson...Use a shotgun with 00 buck, the hole will so big they wont be able to tell direction, unless they go CSI, but do you think they would persue it that far? The right to defend ourselves is mearly a statement on a piece of paper anymore. Look at what happens to thieves in other countries who steal/rape etc.This whole thing saddens me actually, 1 got away alive which is unfortunate..I have no tolerance for thieves, you try to steal soemthing, you deserve a massive amount of pain. One of my friends lost a buisness partner over the price of a tatoo, the murderer got 10 years only, with those kind of punishments, it's no wonder shit is so crazy today.Kill some1 get 10 years, grow some weed get 5-10yrs,
WHY? Because it's America.
Peace




ps, the shots that missed, are ones my girl shot, lol

[Justonevoice]

I say "Justice Served"! As far as the other guy being tried for the deaths, What does it really matter he is already going todo lots of time for robbery etc. I dont care either what color their skin is because shit comes in many colors and shapes.

[C.C.C.N.]

Originally Posted by gtate

Hughes' mother, San Francisco school teacher 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."

HAHAHAHAHAHA. that line is too funny.
"Buying marajuana", yeah we all break into peoples homes at 4 in the morning and beat someones stepson with a bat to the point the kid cant feed himself.
Yep thats how i get my meds.
legal lynching my ass.

And the only racism im seein in this case is the crap being spewed from the naacp, the rev. brown, and the dudes mom. Its the kind of crap that makes you think of the 2 girls 1 cup video.

And i always thought that a jury of your peers is considered any america citizen that is in your age bracket or older that dont have a biast opinion.
Not a jury of people who are the same color.

Three men broke into somebodys home with the intent to rob them. The owner defended his home and family whom he belived were in real danger. Two of the men were killed because of the actions of all three. They fukt up. Not the Owner. People need to look at the facts of a case not the color of who was involved.

[Sir smokes-A-Lot]

Its sad that the step son was beaten so bad that he now has brain damage and cant feed himself. Those assholes deserved to die for that and I hope they burn in hell. The guy who lived deserves to spend years in jail for being a part of that.

[CannaBandit]

How can suspect 1 be responsible for the deaths of suspect 2 and 3, when the home owner shot them?

Why can't we just charge people for what they actually did, and stop trying to twist the existing laws like The Provocative Act doctrine?

The overzealous prosecution is going to try for murder, so the suspect plays the race card and will win because the charge dosen't make any sense!

Originally Posted by C.C.C.N.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. that line is too funny.
"Buying marajuana", yeah we all break into peoples homes at 4 in the morning and beat someones stepson with a bat to the point the kid cant feed himself.
Yep thats how i get my meds.
legal lynching my ass.

And the only racism im seein in this case is the crap being spewed from the naacp, the rev. brown, and the dudes mom. Its the kind of crap that makes you think of the 2 girls 1 cup video.

And i always thought that a jury of your peers is considered any america citizen that is in your age bracket or older that dont have a biast opinion.
Not a jury of people who are the same color.

Three men broke into somebodys home with the intent to rob them. The owner defended his home and family whom he belived were in real danger. Two of the men were killed because of the actions of all three. They fukt up. Not the Owner. People need to look at the facts of a case not the color of who was involved.

well said!! dont steal and ya wont get shot!! I dont know to many people who in a similar situation and say heck these guy just needs to medicate..beat my family rob me..I am compassionate!! hell take my car..if ya break the law ya never know what you are going to get!!! what would you do if it was your family? I am just saying..love to ya all !!! be safe oh and in my book race is not an issue!! if ya is bad people ya is bad people!!!

[organicali]

Man in asia and india they used to chop your hand off if your got stealing.I guess america lends the theives a hand lol.

[weed feen]

whoever heard of people getting shot for weed? they must've thought they was gonna score some rocks.

[stanley]

Originally Posted by CannaBandit

How can suspect 1 be responsible for the deaths of suspect 2 and 3, when the home owner shot them?

Why can't we just charge people for what they actually did, and stop trying to twist the existing laws like The Provocative Act doctrine?

The overzealous prosecution is going to try for murder, so the suspect plays the race card and will win because the charge dosen't make any sense!

Who caused the homeowner to shoot suspects #2 and #3???

Do you suppose he planned to have them break into his home in the middle of the night, and have them beat his stepson half to death with a baseball bat?

Or do you suppose that suspects #1,#2 and #3 decided together to invade this mans home, and do violence upon his family?

Who the hell else COULD be ultimately responsible for the deaths?

Who set the wheels in motion that ended with them dead?

Who made the decisions that put the whole event in motion?

Who do YOU think is responsible for the deaths?

The kid who cant feed himself anymore?

The Provocative Act Doctrine in varying forms has been part of the legal system since the middle ages, it isnt something new. It typically gets used if a cop kills an innocent bystander while pursuing a fleeing criminal. For example, he hits a car and kills a bystander while chasing a robber... the robber is ultimately responsible for the death, and is chargeable with murder. It has been used MANY times to prosecute a surviving co-conspirator in cases exactly like this.

Again, who do YOU think is responsible for their deaths?

The only reason you even heard about this case is because the thug pulled the race card. Again, do you suppose the kid who was beaten half to death, and can no longer feed himself cared that the guy who did it was black, white or Martian? The color of the thug's skin DOES NOT CHANGE HIS ACTIONS, and should have NO BEARING on the outcome of this case...

If the three that had invaded this guys home had been some strung out white tweakers NO ONE would EVER have blinked and eye. Period. End of Story. And you know this as well as I do.

[CannaBandit]

Originally Posted by stanley

Who caused the homeowner to shoot suspects #2 and #3???

Do you suppose he planned to have them break into his home in the middle of the night, and have them beat his stepson half to death with a baseball bat?

Or do you suppose that suspects #1,#2 and #3 decided together to invade this mans home, and do violence upon his family?

Who the hell else COULD be ultimately responsible for the deaths?

Who set the wheels in motion that ended with them dead?

Who made the decisions that put the whole event in motion?

Who do YOU think is responsible for the deaths?

The kid who cant feed himself anymore?

The Provocative Act Doctrine in varying forms has been part of the legal system since the middle ages, it isnt something new. It typically gets used if a cop kills an innocent bystander while pursuing a fleeing criminal. For example, he hits a car and kills a bystander while chasing a robber... the robber is ultimately responsible for the death, and is chargeable with murder. It has been used MANY times to prosecute a surviving co-conspirator in cases exactly like this.

Again, who do YOU think is responsible for their deaths?

The only reason you even heard about this case is because the thug pulled the race card. Again, do you suppose the kid who was beaten half to death, and can no longer feed himself cared that the guy who did it was black, white or Martian? The color of the thug's skin DOES NOT CHANGE HIS ACTIONS, and should have NO BEARING on the outcome of this case...

If the three that had invaded this guys home had been some strung out white tweakers NO ONE would EVER have blinked and eye. Period. End of Story. And you know this as well as I do.

I'm not advocating the crime against the home owner. The suspect is guilty of a terrible crime, but not murder because the son is still alive.

It was the home owner who pulled the trigger which caused the death. If the suspects were shot in the back when they were no longer a threat to the home owner and his family. The home owner could be charged with murder.

Self-defense is hard to prove when you shoot someone in the back. Unless the home owner and his family were in harms way and still being threatened, the shot to the back was done out of revenge and that is murder.

You can't just transfer the shooters responsibility to the suspect. If you do, you would be advocating revenge and murder just because someone "crosses that line"

[stanley]

Originally Posted by CannaBandit

It was the home owner who pulled the trigger which caused the death. If the suspects were shot in the back when they were no longer a treat to the home owner and his family. The home owner could be charged with murder.

Self-defense is hard to prove when you shoot someone in the back. Unless the home owner and his family were in harms way and still being threatened, the shot to the back was done out of revenge and that is murder.

You can't just transfer the shooters responsibility to the suspect. If you do, you would be advocating revenge and murder just because someone "crosses that line"

answer one question:

If the thugs had not (a) conspired to commit a violent act, then indeed (b) committed a violent act, would the homeowner have shot them?

Yes or No?

[eclecticreason]

I've been searching for an hour for this article, but can't find it.
Does anyone else remember a teenager who was shot and killed last year when he and his brother tried to steal plants out of a patient's shed? In fact, the man who shot the kid in the back time got off if I recall, as did the brother who was accused of murder in this situation, too. I'm for the defense of the home. Enough people are shot committing crimes and the homeowners are told they did the right thing, the better a detterent from crime it will be. Definitely a better deterrent than the lapd maybe showing up 3 hours after anything happened.
More power to this guy. I hope his stepson recovers, and his life can return to semi normal
Oh, yeah, and after hearing the mother's statement about them trying to just buy it at that time... perfect example of when to blame the parents. This is probably due to her being a shitty mother who looked the other way no matter what her son did.


***** Found the article. It was in Bellflower in January of this year, and it was a pellet gun that fired the fatal blow. Wow, a pellet gun. Can you really have the expectation of death when you shoot someone with a pellet gun? If you can, some of my childhood games were really fucked up..... well I knew that anyway. Still, this guy was defending his home, regardless of how anyone was positioned when all was said and done. How did he know they wouldn't turn around with another weapon, or decide to attack someone else. Family is the most important thing, and families in this city or this country should not kowtow to the scummy thugs in lue of pcification.