Rare robbery case in Northern California brings cries of racism

[celeb_2006]

Rare robbery case brings cries of racism - Yahoo! News

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."

[crumpet]

"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."
He had EVERY business killing these two losers and they deserved every bit of it. The only two tragedies here are that the one victim/son is brain damaged and that the other intruder actually survived. As far as racism goes, let's go ahead and charge this black loser with a hate crime for targeting a white family since that seems to be all the rage these days. More intruders need to be killed and this homeowner had nothing to feel sorry about. If more of these fuckers started getting killed in the commission of their crimes maybe they could be the ones living in fear instead of everybody else. At least there's 2 less losers the taxpayers will have to support.

[Sweetie]

^What she said!!!!
Break in to my house and you will be a dead fucker too.

[zebracakes]

The race card always gets played when they don't have a legal leg to stand on. This isn't some antiquated law we are talking about, not if it's been used in other cases as recently as 1999. If you break into someone's home and beat their kid so bad they have brain damage you can reasonably assume they are going to fight back, no matter what your skin color.

[crumpet]

^^^^Exactly. Are these asswipes suggesting that if 3 white guys had broken in and done the same thing the homeowner would have been like, "Weeeeellllllll........I was gonna kill you, but since you're white, can I make you a drink or fix you a snack?"

[Just Kill Me]

Let's put the race issue aside. There should be charges filed for the beating; I believe it is a misapplication of this law to charge the criminal with the deaths of the other two. I'm surprised the father/homeowner isn't being charged; I know in Texas it is NOT self defense or defending your property when you shoot someone in the back and a grand jury would make the decision to press charges. This entire case is a bunch of bullshit.

[Grimmlok]

Technically speaking, the third intruder didn't shoot the other two. He didn't murder them.

What he DID participate in, is home invasion, assault, and all that other crap.

Charge him for that, and make him pay for the rest of his life, th care costs of the guy he gave brain damage to.

The homeowner shouldn't be charged with anything, i'm glad he blew them away.

[Ravenna]

^^^^Exactly. Are these asswipes suggesting that if 3 white guys had broken in and done the same thing the homeowner would have been like, "Weeeeellllllll........I was gonna kill you, but since you're white, can I make you a drink or fix you a snack?"

I assume the supposed racism is in charging the surviving intruder with murder. I find it absurd in principal, but I can't find the least bit of sympathy in my heart for him, or for the ones who were killed. They beat a young man into severe debilitation and ruined his life. Race has nothing to do with it; it was a heinous crime and it's natural to want to put him behind bars for as long as possible.

[crumpet]

I believe it is a misapplication of this law to charge the criminal with the deaths of the other two. I don't
because if they hadn't broken into the home, none of the violence would have occurred in the first place. Since all 3 collaborated on the crime, the one that's left living can take the heat for what occured during the commission of the crime.

I don't care if he shot them in the back running. Look what they did to his son. That's enough to make anybody snap. Then again, I think you have the right to defend your property, particularly your home (your sanctuary) with deadly force. People could avoid getting killed if they'd learn to keep their hands to themselves.

[nwgirl]

[quote] The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes [quote]

Yeah, that's the problem with this case. The prosecutors are too hard. How about the fucking career criminals who do this kind of shit? But let's just sweep that all under the rug and just focus on the race facet. That'll fix it all and make it all better.

Or better yet, maybe the NAACP would be assuaged if the homeowner was the only one charged. Cause you know, it's all his fault. WTF is he thinking defending himself, his family and his home.

[Just Kill Me]

The line is drawn at defense... he was no longer defending he was seeking revenge?

[yanna]

Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, were shot in the back. Hughes fled.

All that we know about the lowlifes is that they were shot in the back, not necessarily while leaving, he could have shot them while they were beating his stepson.

I'm interested in the marijuana angle. The guy had prescription mj in the house and mj in his system and the intruders were looking for marijuana. I suspect drug dealings gone wrong and not some random break in. Or maybe I've watched too much Weeds.

[crumpet]

The line is drawn at defense... he was no longer defending he was seeking revenge? I think one could argue that the shooter would have been in a compromised state of mind after having intruders break in and nearly beat his son to death with a baseball bat. That's why I give a free pass regardless. Who wouldn't snap? It is hardly a planned out process because these things happen so fast. Then again, just keep your hands to yourself and this won't be an issue.

We had a case in Richmond recently where an ice cream store manager was held up with a bb gun. He chased the perp outside and shot him many times. He wasn't indicted. He argued that he was so fearful for his life and didn't know if the perp would come back. BTW, the dead perp had just been released from prison for armed robbery.

[Butterfly]

I would seek revenge too, if they did that to me and my family! Fuck them they deserve to die. You come into my house you'll have a bullet anywhere I see fit.

[crumpet]

^^^^^And if someone asked me why I shot them so many times I would explain that those were all the bullets I had.