Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is this racism?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alyallen



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:58 pm    Post subject: Is this racism? Reply with quote

I don't think so. Especially when you consider that 2 robbers are dead and the home owner's 19 year old stepson suffered brain damage and can't even feed himself. The NAACP will definitely be losing some support between this and the Jena Six fiasco...

Rare robbery case brings cries of racism

By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

He is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 27.

"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."

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."

http://tinyurl.com/2lyvao
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Is this racism? Reply with quote

Alyallen wrote:


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.

...brutally beat his stepson


A homeowner has the privilege of self-defense when assailants come into his home; especially if armed. Additionally, a homeowner has the privilege of defense of others. This privilege is more limited, but its widely recognized as holding for a) a homeowner defending his household from attack by deadly force and b) a family member protecting another family member from deadly force.

If the jury finds that the assailants 'brutally' beat his stepson, its a pretty clear case of defense of others.

That's why the homeowner wasn't charged.

Quote:
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.


Okay, here we might have some genuine grounds for racism. It would be interesting to know when this Act has been invoked in California. The question is, why invoke it now? The article doesn't help us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the use of that particular doctrine in this particular case is
extreme, even in the other case that was mentioned I think it is extreme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mistermasan



Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

but if ther assailants were the same color as the shooter this never would of made it past the local paper. so, is the very fact that this story is getting wide distribution racist?

pretend you are an editor. remove all reference to skin pigmentation. what is left? 3 guys beat up some folks in some other folks house. the three guys get stopped and two of them are dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO, the homeowner very likely would have responded in exactly the same way regardless of the ethnicity of the invaders. In this case, the charge of racism is just a distraction from the facts of the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loose_ends



Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mistermasan wrote:
but if ther assailants were the same color as the shooter this never would of made it past the local paper. so, is the very fact that this story is getting wide distribution racist?

pretend you are an editor. remove all reference to skin pigmentation. what is left? 3 guys beat up some folks in some other folks house. the three guys get stopped and two of them are dead.


you missed the important part.

lone survivor charged with the murders of his accomplices.

the racist part is that this wierd law is being used to charge him. is it becuase of race?

that is the question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leslie Cheswyck



Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Is this racism? Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:

A homeowner has the privilege of self-defense when assailants come into his home; especially if armed. Additionally, a homeowner has the privilege of defense of others. This privilege...


Sorry, Kuros, I'm just having a problem with your use of the word privelege here. Not to nitpick but why do you use that word instead of the word right? OK I am nitpicking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Is this racism? Reply with quote

Leslie Cheswyck wrote:
Kuros wrote:

A homeowner has the privilege of self-defense when assailants come into his home; especially if armed. Additionally, a homeowner has the privilege of defense of others. This privilege...


Sorry, Kuros, I'm just having a problem with your use of the word privelege here. Not to nitpick but why do you use that word instead of the word right? OK I am nitpicking.


As far as I know, privilege and right are largely interchangeable in the legal context. My torts book classifies 'self-defense' under the chapter 'Privileges.' So I call it a privilege. Privilege just implies any legal principle that may be used to justify what would otherwise be a wrong. The legal force of it is the same whether you call it a right to self-defense, privilege for self-defense, or defense of self-defense. The use of the word privilege does not in anyway diminish its force as being a sort of right.

They may call it 'right of self-defense' in crimlaw. I don't know, because this is only first semester, and we don't start crimlaw until 2nd semester.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Once again a case of after-the-fact race baiting by the ever-in-search-of-mud NAACP. There was a time when I respected this organization; not anymore. It's become a mouthpiece for black victimization and opportunistic legal settlements, not to mention promotion and prolongation of the political aspirations of its leaders, including some pastors (as evidenced here).

The law, however extreme it might indeed be, doesn't stipulate that the perpetrator must be black or the victim white. It describes a situation, a salient point obviously lost on Reverend Brown.

Ya know what, you break into my home at 4 in the morning and you forfeit your right to contest any grievous outcome, in my opinion.

Of course this guy would have shot anyone who acted the same way.

Look forward to the day that the NAACP expend its energies and limited resources on real issues, like out-of-wedlock births, gang violence, and low educational performance. Then they might once again "advance" the interests of "colored people."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leslie Cheswyck



Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Is this racism? Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Leslie Cheswyck wrote:
Kuros wrote:

A homeowner has the privilege of self-defense when assailants come into his home; especially if armed. Additionally, a homeowner has the privilege of defense of others. This privilege...


Sorry, Kuros, I'm just having a problem with your use of the word privelege here. Not to nitpick but why do you use that word instead of the word right? OK I am nitpicking.


As far as I know, privilege and right are largely interchangeable in the legal context. My torts book classifies 'self-defense' under the chapter 'Privileges.' So I call it a privilege. Privilege just implies any legal principle that may be used to justify what would otherwise be a wrong. The legal force of it is the same whether you call it a right to self-defense, privilege for self-defense, or defense of self-defense. The use of the word privilege does not in anyway diminish its force as being a sort of right.

They may call it 'right of self-defense' in crimlaw. I don't know, because this is only first semester, and we don't start crimlaw until 2nd semester.


Very well, just a case of lawschool-itis. I'm just an old Hobbes reader myself. So it's same-same, then. OK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International