I'm not really sure how this differs from the felony murder doctrine (what the statute says notwithstanding), or why this is being used instead of felony murder. The felony murder doctrine just says that if you commit a felony and someone dies as the result of your committing that felony, you're guilty of murder. So if your accomplice gets shot and killed by the police while committing a felony, you're guilty of murder. Or, in this case, gets killed by a homeowner in defense of another.
There's not enough info in the article for me to judge the self-defense thing. It just says they were shot in the back, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. What if they were in the process of taking the baseball bat to that guy and Edmonds shot them from behind? Big difference between that and their running away.
This is one of those things that seems crazy to most people, but then ask a lawyer and they won't even bat an eyelash (looking at you, Thalia :P). It's something not a lot of people know about (I guess there hasn't been enough Law & Order episodes to feature it or something), so it's easy to misinterpret. Still, calling it racist goes way out there. Furthermore, what charges could the NAACP actually try to bring? They can't charge Edmonds with murder; are they going to try to sue for civil rights violations or something? Good luck with that; Edmonds's lawyer would just have to stick the DA who refused to press charges on the stand and that's all she wrote.
Just because these guys were drug dealers or whatever doesn't mean they deserved what they got or shouldn't be defended if wrong was done to them, but it doesn't really sound like that's what happened here.
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
Hughes and the two accomplices were blacks from San Francisco and the Edmonds family is white. Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP says that's all he needs to know that the charges against Hughes were racially motivated.
There's no actual quote involved with this, so it's hard to judge whether the summary above is an accurate representation of what Amos Brown might have said, but if we assume that it was then the NAACP would do well to have a round-the-clock squad of volunteers stationed around Brown seven days a week to prevent him from getting anywhere near a microphone at any time.
Recently I read a story about atheists complaining about memorial crosses on the highway - I thought to myself: You guys are doing it wrong.
Same thing applies here.
- Self-defense on the part of Edmonds seems clearly apparent. On only one occasion have I 'gone for' my gun while in my home, and thankfully I shot no one, however I was fully prepared to shoot any intruder - back turned to me or no..leaving the property or no. I'm a firm believer in the castle doctrine. Why is the issue of charges against Edmonds even a possibility? If I shoot at someone my intent is not to cause a flesh wound or scare them away, its to kill them.
- Any useful defense lawyer should be able to get the murder charge dismissed on the grounds that the person shot was not an innocent bystander. I'm a bit surprised that this charge was allowed to stick.
- Why do I suspect the stepson was involved in drugs somehow?
- As for the NAACP -- these are the guys you choose to defend? Really? I can't believe America has gotten to the point where a cogent argument can be made to sympathize with KKK/aryan nation types.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
2
 1
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:30:17 PM EST
|
Why do I suspect the stepson was involved in drugs somehow?
Stands to reason. If Hughes, et al., were actually trying to steal pot, then there's a likely some reason why they targeted Edmonds' house. Of course, the most certain way for us to know would be if Hughes cut a deal with the police to turn evidence against Edmonds' son. Whether that is likely to happen after the beating-induced brain damage... well, let's just say that might be pretty long odds.
As for the NAACP -- these are the guys you choose to defend? Really?
Seems to be a trend, though, doesn't it? Hughes, the Jena Six, Rep. William Jefferson -- makes you wonder exactly what standard of evidence is sufficient for the NAACP to consider a crime more likely than racism to have occurred.
4
2
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 05:03:23 PM EST
|
f Hughes, et al., were actually trying to steal pot, then there's a likely some reason why they targeted Edmonds' house
According to the news story, Shannon Edmunds had a prescription for marijuana. That doesn't prove that his stepson wasn't involved with drugs, but it's alternative reason why that particular home was targeted.
7
4
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:17:23 AM EST
|
You're right, zyx. I missed that.
8
1
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:28:52 PM EST
|
Self-defense on the part of Edmonds seems clearly apparent. On only one occasion have I 'gone for' my gun while in my home, and thankfully I shot no one, however I was fully prepared to shoot any intruder - back turned to me or no..leaving the property or no. I'm a firm believer in the castle doctrine. Why is the issue of charges against Edmonds even a possibility? If I shoot at someone my intent is not to cause a flesh wound or scare them away, its to kill them.
Have fun in jail. I don't know what state you're in, but I'm not aware of any that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. You may be a believer in the castle doctrine, but that doesn't mean your state is. The general rule is you have to fear imminent death or severe bodily harm (I know that's how Virginia does it), so if you shoot someone in the back if they're leaving your house you're looking at manslaughter at least (and could easily be convicted of murder).
I actually don't think Edmonds should be charged, I think that is self-defense pretty clearly. So it's good then that no charges have been filed against Edmonds according to the article.
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
20
8
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:21:11 AM EST
5.00 (astute)
|
You may be a believer in the castle doctrine, but that doesn't mean your state is.
Of course, it's not what the state's laws say which matters so much as what your jury believes.
9
8
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:31:31 PM EST
|
Of course, Texas and Florida have their "Looking at you cross-eyed" laws so you're pretty much free to shoot whenever you want.
Defendant: He were lookin' at me funny.
Judge: Case dismissed!
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
11
9
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:08:48 PM EST
|
Yes and no. You've finally given me an excuse to look this stuff up.
While Texas's self-defense statute (specifically §9.32 of the Texas Penal Code dealing with deadly force) does say you can use deadly force to prevent a robbery, a robbery (per §29.02) requires the perpetrator either "(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause[] bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threaten[] or place[] another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death." So if someone's leaving your house with your TV I don't think you can shoot them.
Florida, on the other hand, is even less restrictive: you are presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if it's against someone who broke into your house (Title XLVI §776.03) (unless of course they have a right to be there).
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
12
8
|
deadly force private property
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:21:00 PM EST
|
I think Florida recently explicitly passed a law allowing deadly force to protect property.
I also know that in Texas if you look out your window at night (it has to be at night) and see someone stealing your car (or horse) you can legally blow them away. Seriously, look it up, it's crazy.
14
8
|
Re: Provocative Act Evokes Provocative Cries Of Ra
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:25:34 PM EST
|
...if you shoot someone in the back if they're leaving your house you're looking at manslaughter at least...
You may be narrowly and technically correct about that, but the practical details of that render it almost irrelevant. All that the law requires is that the homeowner feels that his life or health (or the life or health of someone in the house) is in danger from the intruder(s). That's usually not a difficult standard to achieve, and that an intruder turned his back is not especially relevant.
17
14
|
depends
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:58:17 AM EST
|
It depends on what the standard is in your state. In a lot of states (I know this is how mine works), the threat has to me imminent, so if someone's fleeing from you you could easily be charged (and convicted). Just because they're in your house does not generally (unless you're in Florida, it would appear) give you the automatic right to kill someone.
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
18
17
|
Re: depends
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:23:46 AM EST
|
Just because they're in your house does not generally (unless you're in Florida, it would appear) give you the automatic right to kill someone
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about "castle doctrine" laws.* These laws do not give anyone a right they do not otherwise have, not even in Florida. The laws,
- Create a presumption of reasonableness to the belief that one's life is in jeopardy when an intruder breaks into a home.
- Clarify or remove the "duty of retreat" that exists in most situations where one is attacked.
- Remove any right for the intruder (or the intruder's family in the case that an intruder is killed) to sue the homeowner for damages.
As far as the situation where an intruder was attempting to flee the premises and is shot in the back, I realize that shooting would be illegal in many jurisdictions. I was only challenging the practical aspects of prosecuting a homeowner under those circumstances. Unless there were witnesses who testified that the intruder was in fact attempting to leave and truly posed no further threat, then it would be difficult to get a conviction against the shooter.
* The confusion is, perhaps, unsurprising given the shrill accounts by bed-wetting liberal bloggers and commentators: "OMG! Teh NRA! The streets will run with the blood of the innocent!"
"Rev. Brown wants to know why Edmonds isn't being charged with anything"
Because he's white. How can anyone continue to deny how racist blacks are? Do you ever see whites defending white criminals, regardless of the race of the victim? No. Do you see blacks defending black criminals when the victims are black? No, you don't see that either. Pure racism.
See also yesterday's Sharpton led hate crimes rally, demanding whites be charged with federal offense for putting up a noose while the perpetrators of a gang assault against a white teenager are celebrated as "the real victims".
