Case #1 Renato Hughes
A few weeks ago I heard about a case in California where a man was being charged with murder, after he and two accomplices broke into the home of a man, who subsequently shot and killed the two accomplices. Just to make it clear the home owner was the shooter not the man being charged with murder.
Here’s a summary of the events surrounding this case from an AP article:
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, 2005 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.
There seems to be some contention over exactly what was happening when the two young men were shot; some have suggested they were shot “in the back,” but it is unclear if they were shot in the back while fleeing or while attacking Edmonds’ stepson. From several accounts, Hughes (who is black and Filipino) never entered the home, but he was the get-away driver. Depending on which account you believe, the three men went to the Edmonds’ home to buy or steal marijuana (and there was marijuana in the home). The Edmonds’ might have been selling drugs, but they are claiming the marijuana was for medicinal use. What is also clear is that Edmonds’ stepson was severely injured, and is now in a rehabilitation center because he suffered a brain injury in the beating.
So what do you think? Do you think the shooting was justified, or do you think that the shooter should be charged with a crime? Do you think that it is fair for Hughes to be charged with murder under the Provocation Act doctrine? My personal view is that the shooting appears to be justified, but I think the murder charge is not appropriate, especially given the fact that evidence seems to suggest that Hughes wasn’t even in the house. There was some debate about this over at field negro’s site, and Hughes got very little sympathy from most commenters.
Case #2 John White
John White is a black man and a father, who is being charged with manslaughter in the death of Daniel Cicciaro. Cicciaro and 4 other teenagers came to the White home, angry at Mr. White’s teenage son. Keith Boykin summarizes what happened before and after this confrontation:
One day a black teenager goes to a party where alcohol is served and a white teenage girl asks him to leave because she feels “uncomfortable” around him. He complies and goes home, but the girl then tells a male teenager at the party that the black teen had threatened her once before in an Internet chat room. The white teen then calls the black teen on his cell phone and yells at him using the N-word. Unsatisfied, the white teen then gathers four other white teenagers and they drive to the black teen’s house.
The drunk white teenagers pull up in the driveway of the house and block off the street. One of the teens is carrying an aluminum baseball bat. The black teen and his father then walk outside the house to the driveway. The father is carrying an unlicensed handgun. The black teen follows with a hunting shotgun. Words and threats are exchanged and eventually the father fires one shot into the face of the first white teenager. The white teen dies at a hospital an hour later.
Apparently, a “friend” made a fake Myspace page pretending to be White’s son Aaron.
Michael Longo, 20, told the court that he created a phony MySpace page – filled with insults and threats – and made it look like the work of Aaron White.
Aaron is the son of John White, who is charged with shooting 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro Jr. to death on his lawn in August 2006.
On the bogus Web page, Longo posted messages under Aaron’s name that spewed hatred against a mutual acquaintance named Jenny Martin, he admitted on the witness stand today.
Those phony messages were soon spotted by the girl. One of them, which threatened rape, particularly disturbed her. She then told Cicciaro what she thought Aaron was planning to do.
White’s attorney claims that Mr. White viewed the young men as a “lynch mob,” and racial slurs were recorded when one of Cicciaro’s friend’s made an inadvertent cell phone call to a dispatcher.
Mr. White, who by all accounts is an upstanding citizen, says he accidentally shot Cicciaro when the teen grabbed his gun. Cicciaro’s friends claim he pushed the gun away, and then White shot him. The forensic evidence suggests that Cicciaro was shot at close range.
Initially, the prosecutor’s charged Mr. White with murder, but the grand jury subsequently reduced charges to manslaughter. Prosecutors have suggested that Mr. White should have locked his doors and called 911, rather than confronting the teenagers with a handgun.
So what do you think? Do you think the shooting was justified? What about the manslaughter charge: do you think it was fair? From what I can tell about the evidence presented so far, the manslaughter charge seems too harsh, and initial murder charge was way out of line with the circumstances of the case. I’m sympathetic to Mr. White, and surprisingly many comments on the Newsday links above where also sympathetic to him (I expected less sympathy since I have seen some really racist comments on that site in the past.).
Similarities and Differences in the Cases
One thing I find striking about both cases is that in both cases black men were charged with crimes. In one case, the black man was part of the home invading group, and in the other case the black man was the home owner. The cases also bring up the issues related to self defense, gun rights, and over zealous prosecution.
There are also differences. In the White case, the teenagers never entered the White’s home, unlike Hughes accomplices. The Hughes case seems to rest on an obscure legal principle that is not used in many states or nations, while the law used in the White case is a little more conventional.
What do you think?
End Note: Ann, let me know about a case in Texas that has some of the same dynamics; however, in this case the man shot people breaking into his neighbor’s home. She also has a follow up post with more info. You can go over to her site to comment.
Both of these cases have been argued all over the internet. I have concluded that insufficient information has been provided by the news to make any kind of judgment.
How sad :(
The only conclusion I can really reach given the information, though, is that guns are pretty much never going to come into my house with my permission. Nothing good ever really seems to come of them.
(I’m sure that will bother some pro-gun people, but honestly, yes I’m uncomfortable with the idea of keeping guns in my house. You can keep them all you like though.)
Sarah, the presence of the guns in the first case likely prevented further violence by instigators. In the sense that injury and death were prevented by guns I think they did some good. In the 2nd case they might have made a bad situation worse, or the might not have.
I think the 2nd homeowner made a very poor decision when they went out of the house to talk to the 4 ass hats. I say let the homeowner go. If justice must be done how about ‘discharging a firearm within city limits’ or some sort of noise citation. Based on what I know at this point I wouldn’t want to see the homeowner do a any jail time.
Not sure about the charges in the first case. Would depend on things I don’t know about the accused’s involvement in the plan. Even then I’m reluctant to approve of the charge.
But I definitely think the homeowner was in the right. I’d be willing to change my view with new info. Such as that the father could reasonably be expected to know they were trying to flee, and that no other member of the household were in danger. (e.g. they were shot in the back right next to the get away car) If there were some doubt about the facts I’d be inclined to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt regarding what they did or didn’t know. (e.g. they were running away but the path of retreat took them towards a part of the house with other people in it. Or he was just really confused and scared.) Bottom line, violent people break into your home and hurt your family it’s okay to use deadly force to get them to stop.
AFAIK, charging a participant in a crime where someone was killed with murder is not all that uncommon in CA.
I know of a case, told to me by a CA public defender. Three kids from good families were driving around. One has a toy gun that looked real. They see a middle-aged man getting into his car. One kid gets out, points the toy gun at the man, says give me your car keys. That off duty LAPD officer shot him dead with his service revolver and the kids in the car were charged with murder.
I think it’s a little wacky to charge the getaway driver in case 1 with murder. Burglary would be a much more natural charge. It’s worth remembering, though, that race isn’t the only motivation here for preposterous charges. Prosecutors everywhere like to pick the most impressive charges they can, since unfortunately the public’s perception of their job performance is based on high profile felony convictions. In addition, filing the most aggressive possible charges might be a tactic to induce a plea bargain later on.
I agree with Ferg that there is insufficient information to make a conclusion
But I wonder why do they have to put the “race” into the factor? If all men are created equal, then why does race matter?
Not a Cookie: It’s sad that personal gain of the procecutors come before the actual cases.
So what do you think? Do you think the shooting was justified, or do you think that the shooter should be charged with a crime?
Neither. I can’t say for sure whether the shooting was justified because, as stated, it’s not clear whether the criminals were fleeing or had simply turned their backs and were attacking the stepson. On that basis, however, we now fall into “reasonable doubt’, wherein it is entirely possible that the shooting was self defense or defense of his stepson. So charging him with a crime is not reasonable either.
Do you think that it is fair for Hughes to be charged with murder under the Provocation Act doctrine?
Did he have reason to believe that his acts were helping to lead to a death? If he knew that he was driving armed men into an occupied house in order to commit a crime, then the answer would be “Yes.” But I don’t know if my stipulations are true or not.
Prosecutors have suggested that Mr. White should have locked his doors and called 911, rather than confronting the teenagers with a handgun.
I’m no fan of being legally required to retreat when faced with deadly force. I’d have called 911 right away when I saw these kids show up, but remember: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The man clearly thought that the lives of he and his child were in danger, and I’d have to agree that they were. When you threaten someone with deadly force, there are consequences. The consequences are something to avoid if possible, but it’s not always possible. When faced with such a thing it’s not (in my estimation) moral to encourage and be eager to use deadly force, but once you’re there it’s sometimes the only alternative.
Sarah said:
“The only conclusion I can really reach given the information, though, is that guns are pretty much never going to come into my house with my permission.”
Ah – but then what do you do when they come into your house without permission?
The odds are that at least in the first case, the home owner probably saved at least his stepson’s life and possibly his own because he owned and used a gun. Tell me, if you would; what are the negatives of the homeowner’s posession and use of a gun in the first case? What would you have done if you had found yourself in such a situation?
There is in virtually every state the castle doctrine, which is inside your house if you percieve yourself in danger lethal force is allowable. Many states have a murder charge connected to participation in a crime resulting in death. Is it just to charge the get away driver – that would seem to depend on his involvement which is not clear.
In any state shooting someone outside your house is going to raise serious questions. If Mr White advanced on the teens he cut his reasonableness considerably. If they advanced on him you reach the difficulty of showing what retreat was reasonable. Lethal force is a very touchy issue once outside your home. The Hunt shooting in TX is not a good one to speculate on at this point, there is insufficient information so far to know what was going on, for instance whether the burglars were armed. So far, race is the issue. It sure looks like it was the issue in the White case as well. I have a problem feeling sorry for armed thugs in a person’s yard, oh – drunken teens. Armed thugs.
Guns are lethal weapons, anyone losing sight of that makes a serious error. I hunt and shoot targets, I never forget that I have powerful weapons. Owning a firearm without proficiency is a bad idea, as is not knowing the laws surrounding them and their use.
In each case individuals were presented with a potentially lethal threat, a ball bat is serious business, political law enforcement does not like firearms. Beat cops are a bit different, but that’s not the end that gets you charged.
Despite the statments of Chiefs and Prosecutors, beat cops aren’t unhappy with law abiding citizens owning guns. The simple truth is that the police clean up after the damage is done, small consolation to the law abiding person minding their own business and became a victim. It is seldom a good idea to let someone criminally out of control take your destiny in their hands – they really aren’t responsible.
I know the Oregon laws about guns, I am very competent with firearms, and I sincerely hope I never have more use for them than hunting and target shooting. Never ever mistake a firearm for a threat, if it is pointed it is intended to be used, that is a hard and fast rule. You do not shoot someone who lays down on the floor…
No, not at all unusual in that state and not just for murder but also rape and other charges as well. If you participate in someone else committing rape for example, i.e. by restraining the person, you can be charged and convicted of rape without having actually done that crime.
Usually in drive-bys for example, all the people in the car will get charged with murder or attempted murder, for example. Death penalty charges might be filed against the driver in one death of a teenager by driveby even though the shooter was someone else in the car. I guess the argument in these cases that even if one person shoots that the others are acting on behalf of a gang and knew what was going on and could have been the person who shot. I don’t really agree with the Provocative Act or related laws.
In Providence, a White officer shot a Black officer who was plainclothed and maybe off-duty who came trying to help him with a guy who even though he was cooperating and had his hands up was nearly charged with the black officer’s murder. Then the FBI came in and then more federal agencies and the department ended up under consent decree. I don’t think any charges were filed.
I’m not familiar with either case in the posting but regardless of the shooting being justified or not (which would determine whether or not charges would be filed against the one who did the shooting in the first case), I don’t think murder or manslaughter charges should be filed against the driver in Hughes case. Accessory before, during or after the fact (depending on the facts) perhaps to a crime which is different in California than what happened.
I don’t think Mr. White should be charged either though with murder or manslaughter.
Hughes won’t be facing a jury of his peers. I’m not sure about White.
White has two very big problems, the gun was illegal (that’s nonsense, but their law) and he went outside. I’m real sure you could add into his difficulties that he’s black and the thug was white and a teen.
In some respects the thing worked out pretty well, only one was shot. Here’s the true difficulty, everything that involves good judgement and good shooting is gone in this kind of situation. You are frightened, your vision tunnels, you become hyper sensitive and your thinking is interfered with by addrenilin. Breathing is erratic, extemities tremble, it is dark or lighting very poor so a gunshot blinds and deafens the shooter and addrenilin rushes. All bad stuff.
This is nasty stuff, what is justice, what will happen, and what was ethical may all be different things. But that’s usually true.
Now, just to be very unkind to Alas, A Blog, since you asked the question you may as well know the answer, tactically getting cooped up in a house with 4 assailants after you and a possibly burning house isn’t a good move, neither is letting anyone near enough your firearm to touch you or it. Now for the rude part, you shoot everyone that isn’t lying down surrendered or running away. A warning is pretty much silliness, a handgun and a shotgun aren’t play toys. So, do not ever start something you are unwilling to finish. You deal with the cops and DA as a living person that way.
Once things reach the point of weapons, the whole mess has pretty much gone south and the outcome is going to be bad. 1 kid is dead, 3 more should be facing prison sentences, and White has to live with this, and maybe prison, also. Then there is the question of how the ‘comunity’ is going to deal with this.
My gut reaction in the case of Mr. White is that if the races of the people involved had been reversed, White would have found himself on the evening news being hailed as a hero for standing up to vicious thugs and no charges would have filed. I would like to believe I’m wrong, but doubt it.
The California case has plenty of precedent. The most disturbing thing about the guilty by being an accessory cases can be that sometimes the one person in a group of co-defendants who never handled the weapons can be the person who gets the harshest punishment.
Radfem:
I guess the argument in these cases that even if one person shoots that the others are acting on behalf of a gang and knew what was going on and could have been the person who shot.
I’m not so sure that it’s an issue of they could have been the person who had shot; I think the thinking is that they assisted/enabled the person who fired the shot, thus contributing to the murder, and therefore shares in the responsibility.
You need to distinguish charges from convictions. We only convict people using the reasonable doubt standard. But we can charge them on a much more lenient standard–which makes sense, because we often don’t have all the evidence at the time of the charge, and obviously we’ve not had had a trial to look at said evidence and/or testimony.
The bar is lower for charging. So it’s a lot harder to view charges as unreasonable, and lot easier to view convictions as unreasonable.
Anyway.
The Hughes thing is not as obscure as you think. This is actually sort of similar t a charge of conspiracy. If you get (as my mom used to say) “mixed up with” a group of people and you participate in their ruckus, then you get slapped with the results of said ruckus, even if there were things involved that you didn’t personally do.
It’s rarely used based on a crime against the members of the group who raised the ruckus, though. That’s what makes this a bit unusual.
It may help to understand the doctrine a bit better to think of a few scenarios.
1) the innocent gets hurt by the bad guys–say, the stepson gets shot by one of the perps–and then everyone who was involved gets charged with murder. This probably seems familiar to everyone here.
2) an innocent gets hurt by a good guy who is responding to the bad guys. Say, someone attacks a bank guard and he shoots at them, but misses and kills a bystander. The law says that the bank guard isn’t criminally responsible for the bystander’s death. His acts (defending himself) were a predictable result of attacking him. So the attacker gets hit with the murder. 2a) Another variation is that the good guy hurts himself instead of someone else–same result though.
3) finally, a bad guy gets hurt. You can see that this is actually the same as #2 above. The law sees that someone got shot, and it punishes them. That it’s the “bad guy” who got hurt is irrelevant. If the shooting is the fault of the accused, then he doesn’t get a pass just because it happens to have been another criminal who got offed.
That’s the doctrine. Now for the problem:
For criminal defendants, it’s VERY hard to fight the “reasonably foreseeable” claim. This is because everything has 20/20 hindsight.
IOW, let’s imagine that the jury could somehow know only tah the group had entered the house. if you had asked a jury in advance whether it was foreseeable that the father would shoot someone, they’d possibly have said no. But if they know that the father did shoot someone, then the existence of that fact means they’re much more likely to see it as reasonably foreseeable.
So what this means in practice is that people are often held to a harsh standard: They are responsible for the actions of other folks, even when they couldn’t realistically predict them. That makes Hughes problematic, but probably supported by law.
—-
I actually have much less trouble with White. Generally speaking, escalation is bad and is not legally supported. If someone is standing on your lawn threatening you with a baseball bat, approaching them and pointing a gun at them is escalation. And if someone is NOT holding a baseball bat (was the person who got shot holding a bat? I can’t tell) then upgrading the fight to one with lethal weapons is also impermissible escalation.
The basic theory is that people should avoid pointing guns at (and shooting) people so long as it is reasonable to do so. White could have had a better case. He could have stayed in the house–if the mob had broken in and come for him, he’d be clear to shoot them. He also, probably, could have managed to initiate a confrontation–if he was insulting enough to get them to draw a gun, for example, he’d probably have been able to off them with relative impunity. He could have had a better case if he’d fired warning shots.
But as it stands now, on the little that is posted above? I have no problem with White’s charges at all.
You’re probably not.
The problem is that this isn’t just about being an accessory. California has laws for that already. This is being convicted for actually doing the crime. You drive a car for a driveby where your passenger shoots someone. You get charged with PC 187 first-degree as if you pulled the trigger yourself, not as if you merely drove the car and were an accessory. If someone looks at your record without further research, it will show up as you being convicted of first-degree murder. I’m not sure what other states share in having these types of laws.
I’ve heard prosecutors argue these cases and it’s much more than sharing in that responsibility or contributing to the crime. It’s as if they did it themselves without doing it. But it shows up most of the time in gang-related criminal activity including murder, rape and serious violent felonies like armed robbery.
Often, it’s used when the identity of the shooter is not known or it’s believed he or she fled the scene including in a couple death penalty cases here. So maybe it’s used to try to pressure defendants to give up the name of the actual shooter as well.
Joe — in the first case, sure, but only because the opposing side was unarmed. Had there been guns on both sides, I’m not convinced that would have been the case.
RonF — I’m assuming you mean in the event of my home being robbed, because if it were a friend or someone who simply didn’t know better I’d just chase it out again. In that case, I can’t really give you an answer, because it would depend on several other factors; however, I can say that I’m not convinced that my possession of a gun also would make things any better. I’m a decent shot, but I’d rather not risk escalating things.
(Also: How is it that my screen name clearly reads “Sara no H.” but the two dudes who address me still get it wrong?)
RonF — I’m assuming you mean in the event of my home being robbed, because if it were a friend or someone who simply didn’t know better I’d just chase it out again.
Yes; I’m talking about someone entering your house with the intent to use deadly force on you or your family.
In that case, I can’t really give you an answer, because it would depend on several other factors; however, I can say that I’m not convinced that my possession of a gun also would make things any better. I’m a decent shot, but I’d rather not risk escalating things.
Whether or not you’d use the gun would indeed depend on a lot of factors. But if you don’t have the gun, you don’t have the choice at all. The odds are that you are much more likely to be at the mercy of the intruder if you don’t have a gun than if you do. And as far as the risk of escalating things; well, that depends on several other factors, doesn’t it? There’s a point at which the risk of escalating things is outweighed by the risk of getting seriously injured or killed by the intruder. Where that point is depends on a lot of things, but that point does exist and the choice of not having a gun then constrains your choices at that point, with possible grave consequences. Mr. Edmonds certainly reached that point. He had a choice, and it seems quite reasonable to believe that if he had not been able to make the choice he did, his stepson’s may have been killed and possibly himself as well.
Also: How is it that my screen name clearly reads “Sara no H.” but the two dudes who address me still get it wrong?)
Sorry; I thought it was redundant since Sarah H was not present in the thread. People have called me “Ron” instead of “RonF” in threads before as it was clear who they meant.
My opinion:
In the first case, the shooter was 100% justified. Charging one of the assailants
with the murder is neither unheard of, nor unjust, if the one charged is the one
who organized the attack, if he knew the house was occupied, and if torturing
the stepson was part of his plan.
In the second case, I would clear the shooter without pausing for thought, as the
armed assholes came to his doorstep, and threatened him. But what he did is
probably illegal. I know that in Cambridge, MA what he did would be a few steps
beyond illegal. So would it be in London.
For those of you not in the bay area Amos Brown is a phony ass “civil rights” leader. I’m sure if he’s involved in this case it’s to pad his bank account. He’s probably thinking that if tosses the racism charge at the rednecks up at Clearlake maybe it’ll stick and he’ll get some gullible white liberals and a few blacks to donate some money.
I think it’s impossible to ask whether the shootings were justified. What does that type of speculation get us?
That sort of determination rests on teeny tiny details that become extremely relevant. Did someone grab at the gun? Did he try to push it away, or take it? Did he have a weapon? how tall is he? What type of footing was everyone on? Exactly what did everyone say, when?
I want to encourage folks not to get invested in a particular outcome before we know all the facts, as these are very fact specific cases.
As to whether the CHARGES were appropriate: Sure. Charges allow us to have a trial and to find out facts, and therefore they allow us to more accurately assess guilt and innocence.
It’s common practice to charge people with the “worst” reasonably possible charge: this makes perfect sense, because while you can LOWER the charge once more facts come out in trial, you can’t raise it. (Constitutionally speaking you can’t raise a defense having been charged only with burglary, and then get convicted of murder.)
I can easily think of many scenarios where the accused would properly be convicted of the full charges. I can also think of other scenarios (easily for Mr. White, less so for Mr. Hughes) in which the accused would properly be held innocent or relieved of all major charges.
I know it’s just how the news works. Real trials are boring, and real cases take time. But there’s a shitload of injustice in the U.S. criminal system worth arguing about–why do we always end up arguing about the things where we don’t even know the facts yet?
If you’re interested in law (and willing to be a bit depressed) I highly recommend Decision Of The Day, which highlights the appellate decision from across the country. most of them are so anti-defendant it’s not even funny, and a large number of them relate to defendants of color.
Actually, for those mods who are reading this thread: There’s a LOT of good stuff that comes off that blog, most of which I don’t have the chance to post on, and some of which is right up your collective alley.
For example, this seems to have ended up under the radar:
http://blogs.enotes.com/decision-blog/2007-11/second-circuit-rejects-muslims-civil-rights-claims/
I don’t know much about either case and have questions. My comments were more on the Provocation Act of California because it came up in the Hughes case. White’s case reminds me of one locally with no gun where the guy was cut up and nearly killed by a White mob of racists (who were Western Hammarskins) that had been drinking. If there hadn’t been another person to help him, he’d probably be dead. But he survived with permanent nerve damage and Tom Metzger showed up in court to support the men who particpated in the incident.
In my area at least, the provocation act is also disproportionately used with men of color than with Whites for similar classifications of crimes.
It’s also popular to arrest high and file lower, i.e. in wobblers for example. In a case like the first one, here, it’d be more likely to file high, offer no plea bargains (which is a reason why cases might be initially filed high) and take it to trial but that’s due to recent changes in the handling of certain violent crime cases by prosecutors. One reason why our court system is backed up to the point where it’s dismissing cases on time, bringing in emergency judges and hasn’t conducted barely any civil trials within the county in nearly two years. In fact, neighboring counties have refused to take any more of my county’s civil trials that were farmed out. A judge just resigned in protest, adding to the drama.
Interesting coincidence — apparently there’s another similar case (not sure about the race of any of the people involved). This time a guy is serving life without parole because he lent his car to his friends, who then went and killed someone during the course of a robbery.
I love this line in the NY Times article as to why the man featured was the only one offered a deal.
But he tried the case as if he was.
With admittedly only the limited knowledge I’ve gleaned from paragraph summations, my gut instinct is to hope the law decides in favour of both home owners.
That being said, charging an accessory as if they committed the actual crime doesn’t sound right. I understand the procedural reasons behind piling on the charges initially, but I have to wonder if this involves too much pragmatism and not enough principle – what if no plea bargain is made, the trial goes on as (un)intended, and the wrong person is convicted? I’m sure in Hughes’ case, armed breaking and entering into another man’s home to take drugs and torture his stepson is enough to put him away for a long time. But there’s an ocean of separation between Hughes and bean’s car-lender guy.
There are some things about firearms and self-defense that are hugely important.
Understand safe handling
Know the functions, sufficiently to cover the worst possible emotional state
Be competent with the firearm, on going practice is required
Know the law
Know the reality of firearms, hollywood magic is just that – people do not fly through the air , knock down is nonsense
A firearm is never a threat, it is not a negotiation, it is a deadly weapon
Reaction time always puts you behind an instigator , never be within reach
Do not own a firearm if this advice is not for you, if you are afraid of a gun, cannot morally or ethically use one, if you do not trust your judgement, if you are not willing to educate your child about them.
This has been one of the most responsible sets of comments I’ve seen on a touchy subject regarding firearms in a long time, it speaks highly of this blog and its readers.
First, I’d echo what others have said about being cautious about trying to draw too many conclusions without the benefit of the full record. Too many times I’ve seen people complain about legal results who had no real idea what actually happened. I’ve seen this even with reporters.
But assuming that the facts that we have are all of the pertinent facts, I don’t see any big injustice here. In the first case, as others have pointed out, there are all sorts of ways to get nailed for murder if you participate in a felony and someone dies. You can get nailed for conspiracy. You can get nailed for felony murder. You can get nailed as an aider and abetter (which means you get the same penalty as everyone else). None of this is new nor particularly novel. And it is bedrock law that invading someone’s home gives the homeowner the right to blow your brains out and further, in so doing, any accomplices will be on the hook for felony murder (first degree murder) because getting shot by a homeowner when you invade a home to commit a crime is VERY foreseable, and not just with hindsight. If the facts as given were the fact pattern for a Criminal Law 101 class, the ‘A’ students will note that the defendant sitting in the car is guilty of conspiracy, murder as an accomplice, and felony murder.
As for the second case, again as others pointed out, the main problem for the homeowner is that he stepped outside and he also escalated. The escalation is offest somewhat by the number of teens and the bat, but it is still an escalation. If he had been inside the house and they tried to force their way in, he could have shot and killed all three of them and not only would he be not charged, likely the fourth teen would be charged with murder, just like in case one above. But it wasn’t inside. It was outside. The grand jury got it right – if it is anything, it is manslaughter. Maybe further factual details would lead one to conclude that more happened than is apparent and he’ll get off. That is part of what trials are for, assuming there is some conflict on what happened factually (i.e. the teens say he just shot them, he says that someone grabbed the gun – that is a fact question for the jury to sort out). In any case, it likely is not very clear cut. Not like it would have been if he was inside the house and his home was invaded.
In sum, both scenarios sound pretty normal to me with regard to how the law works. One doesn’t need racism to account for either result when mundane law explains it. Is there going to be racism involved as the process goes forward? That is a different question, but one does not need it to get these results. They are the answers I’d expect to see on a Criminal Law exam without mention of any race.
As an aside, I personally think prosecutors have way too much power and, as a result, the system is corrupted by that – but that is a separate issue. One doesn’t need corrupt prosecutors to get these results, either.
Probably the man who shot the two boys will–well, I don’t know, but it just doesn’t seem right that you can shoot two people, for whatever reasons, and get away with it. We don’t even know if the two boys were armed or not, or if they were even really beating his stepson. That could all be a farce–it could have been a killing of race. I don’t deny that they robbed his home, trespassed on his property, and sort of took the risk that the home-owner might be armed. But it does not make sense to me to go on to somebody’s property to demand “marijuana”, when a the normal items of value, such as a stolen TV, DVD player, Wii/XBox/Playstation etc, would probably buy you a lot more drugs. It also makes no sense that they would “rampage into the house demanding marijuana” and beat his stepson, especially if they were local boys. Why make yourself recognizable–just for marijuana? It doesn’t make any sense, but then again, some people are really that dumb. The son could very well be bruised/beaten, but that could be from any number of things–like being thrown out of the line of fire, maybe. It just does not add up, IMO.
We need more information and each person’s story. I would trust any clever, unbiased judge or lawyer with that case.
There isn’t a lot of information available. The Hughes case involved people inside someone’s house which considerably lowers the bar on self-defense. Police and presecutors don’t like shootings and they will look pretty hard at them. I live in a very rural, very white area where guns are very common. Shootings are extremely rare and I can assure you that there would be questions if anything looked the least out of line. I don’t think that one got messed up.
The White case is going to be a lawyer fest. The gun wasn’t registered – that’s pretty big oops in that place. White was outside, that can be trouble. Armed people apparently under the influence were creating a threat. Nothing is said to indicate that White was intoxicated, in which case his is almost automatically the most credible account. White being armed is not a crime. If an immediate threat to his well-being occured, a drunk hostile grabbing for the gun or him, the shooting moves into another arena. Consider the argument that White escalatated, he went out to what? Demand that they leave his property? Things are not real clear. If he simply shot one of them for being on his property, he’s got a problem.
If I hear someone breaking into my car and go out with a gun to investigate and find someone, I can tell them to stop and stay where they are. If they run away and I shoot them, I’m in real serious trouble. If they come after me and I shoot them, things are very different, provided I can show reasonably that I feared for my life. If I just shot the car breaker in the car, I’m in real trouble. I am allowed to try to protect my property, but not with lethal force; only myself or another if faced with sufficient danger. I have a right and a reason to believe that someone committing a car theft may be dangerous. The difference is between protecting property and protecting life, property does not rise to the level, life does.
Radfem, sidebar – WTF are “Western Hammarskins”? Some kind of gang I imagine, but if it’s not too much of a thread hijack could you give me a bit of detail?
To the main point, I’ll readily agree that the 2nd case is a lot more problematical than the first. I’m not overall real big on “Let’s make some charges and then see what we can find out” – that’s what detectives are for, isn’t it? But given that deaths are involved it might be well to get people under oath and cross-examination. There are people who think that deadly force is justified to protect property, but I’m not one of them (and as mentioned above, I’m pretty sure it’s not justified under the law).
Brandy V. said:
Probably the man who shot the two boys will–well, I don’t know, but it just doesn’t seem right that you can shoot two people, for whatever reasons, and get away with it.
Why not? That would seem to exclude the right to self-defense. I can kill you with a baseball bat quite readily. For the sake of argument, let’s say that I’ve declared that intent, I am a great deal bigger and stronger than you and that you have no avenue of retreat. Do you not have the right to shoot me to stop me? I’ll reject a “shoot to wound” option; that takes a great deal more shooting skill and aiming time than most people understand. Try it and you’ll almost certainly miss entirely or else still inflict a fatal wound.
http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2007/12/sean-taylor-lineup.html
discusses felony murder rule, via froomkin
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/12/legal_issue_in_next_years_big_local_trial.html
There are some similarities between the two cases. Based on the information Mr. White should have felt threatened. Should he have gone outside with his son? Maybe and then again maybe not. Should he have been charged with a crime ? I do not think so as he felt personally threatened on his own property. In the California case I think that Mr. Hughes should have been charged with Felony Murder. He should have realized something could go terribly wrong when you break into someone elses home. I do not advocate guns as I am Canadian but I understand them and am very conversant in their use. All laws should be enacted the same whatever your race. Race should have no bearing whatsoever on the cases in question.
There should be an appeal of White’s conviction and sentence. I’m surprised that the NY Post hasn’t lionized White as this generation’s Bernhard Goetz.
Oh. Black guy shooting white thugs? Unheard of!