Jackson Free Press

This story is so convoluted to me that I don't know what to think. Read this excerpt and tell me what you think:

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...

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....

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."

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."

Previous Commentsshow

Hard to pin racism on this one if whites have been charged with the same thing, but I'm guessing if the guy has a decent lawyer he'll get off. As to the homeowner, if he caught somebody in his house assaulting a family member, use of force can be justified. Home invasion with intent of violence needs to be treated seriously and I think the locals are responding appropriately by "throwing the book" at them. However, if they aren't race neutral in charging they are asking for trouble :P

GLewis

Nov 15 2007

"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." That says it all. The "provocative act" doctrine isn't some "rarely used" piece of law. Do you remember the two helicopters that crashed in midair chasing a car chase suspect? The car chase suspect was charged with 4 deaths, b/c his actions put in motion the other actions that caused the deaths of the 4 helicopter people.

LawClerk

Nov 16 2007

I say let the homeowner go uncharged and charge Hughes with other crimes short of murder. I'd search the books long and hard for enough charges to make sure he was in jail a long time if not forever. If I couldn't do that I'd be tempted to slap murder charges on him if the law allowed it and his personal involvement demanded it, but probably wouldn't unless this law has been used before in similar situations or the statute and facts clearly and unmistakingly called for it.

Ray Carter

Nov 16 2007

I can't imagine those kids didn't seriously foresee someone being angry that they were breaking in, and especially after taking a bat to another poor kid. Sucks to be him, but if ya can't do the time don't do the crime.

Ironghost

Nov 16 2007

Yet i would base everything on proveable facts, not supposition, conjecture or assumptions.

Ray Carter

Nov 16 2007

I was wondering when the legal eagles would fly in. :-) I definitely think the robber should pay for breaking in and the beating of that young man, no question about it. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Provocative Act thing. Is there any sort of Castle Doctrine law in California? I ask this because the homeowner shot the robbers in the back. Also, it is unclear in the article as to whether the homeowner sold marijuana from his home. According to the article, the guys may have come to the house to get marijuana, and the homeowner had marijuana and prescription drugs for depression in his system at the time of the shooting. Could the drug combo have clouded his judgment as to when to shoot? Maybe the guy didn't sell pot at all and the robbers broke into his home just because they knew he had pot. There are just too many variables here. I'm getting a headache.

LatashaWillis

Nov 16 2007

why are they charging him with murder? they've got enough to put him in jail for a long time without it. if the naacp really asked why the homeowner wasn't charged, they're idiots. the guy had every right to do it, intoxicated (legally) or not.

eyerah

Nov 16 2007

I don't think his judgement was clouded by the weed and prescriptions as much as being awoken at 4am by three intruders wielding baseball bats. 4am! That is disorienting enough to say the least. ;-) When in doubt, get you one of these! If hte man was on Ambien he could claim he was "sleep shooting." "Sleep driving," "sleep eating," and "sleep sex" are all the rage right now. Good think is there is a pill to fix these problems.

pikersam

Nov 16 2007

The NAACP cant talk to my knowledge, but representatives can, and I understand why some people name the NAACP instead of representatives. I know why the press does it too! It's not always racial either! In some cases, situations and jurisdictions, it is not alright to shoot someone in the back. In such cases, it looks like they're fleeing and the police should be called rather than the victim taking matters in his own hands. I can't blame the guy for shooting either, and likely wouldn't charge him with anything whatever the law is under those circumstances. I would look specifically to what Hughes did. If he didn't use the bat, bring the bat to the house, or agree that the bat be used, I wouldn't charge him with murder either, but everything else I could charge him legally with.

Ray Carter

Nov 16 2007

I don't think his judgement was clouded by the weed and prescriptions as much as being awoken at 4am by three intruders wielding baseball bats. 4am! That is disorienting enough to say the least. ;-) I thought that too, Pike.

LatashaWillis

Nov 16 2007

The thing about shooting someone in the back: You don't know if he was fleeing. A shot to the back isn't prima facie "The guy was fleeing" evidence. If you were beating my son with a bat, I wouldn't try to get in line for a frontal shot. You'd get hit wherever I could hit you!

LawClerk

Nov 16 2007

I agree, but that's what I always argue as the blind, tunnelled visioned defense attorney when I need or choose to be that way. But with a gun, you can shoot him almost anywhere and do great damage.

Ray Carter

Nov 16 2007