Rachel's Tavern- Shakesville Comment on Whiteness and Racial Awareness
- Arrested for BAHWB (Being at Home While Black)
- John Hope Franklin Has Died
- Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”
- NAACP Class Action Lawsuit on Subprime Loans
- We Have a Future Blogger
- I’m Afraid President Obama, Himself, is a Bit of Coward on the Race Issue
- Highly Skilled US Immigrants are Emigrating: What’s the deal?
- Troll Comments Galore
- Mark’s Spinach Face
Dec
3
Two Cases; Two Fatal Shootings What do you think?
Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized by Rachel
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.
Comments
15 Responses to “Two Cases; Two Fatal Shootings What do you think?”
Leave a Reply
These two cases do not surprise me.
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 sentencing.
In the first case you mentioned there was marijuana in the white mans home. Could it be possible that this was a drug deal gone bad? [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.]
In the case of drugs being involved, who is going to believe the word of a black man against the word of a white man?
Per the news article:
“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 sparsely populated county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black.”
I would definitely say he cannot receive a fair trial by a jury of his peers with the population 91 per cent white and 2 per cent black.
_____________________________________________
In the second case, it still holds that in the eyes of white-run America back citizens are still not to defend themselves even when they are up against possible murder from a lynch mob/posse of whites.
For centuries, America has said to black citizens [via Justice Taneys court] that black citizens have no rights that a white man was bound to respect. That still holds true in 2007 America.
It has long been understood that black citizens had no right whatsoever to defend themselves against murderous lynch mob whites; that mentality still exists in American society. Never mind that white America is the one that has shown the face of brutality and vicious race hatred against black America for 400 years. Anytime it comes down to blacks defending themselves from whites, in the eyes of America, in the eyes of the courts, blacks always will come out on the short end of the shitty stick in this country.
Initially, the prosecutors 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?
Mr. White should not be charged with manslaughter or any charge. He and his son were threatened on their own property. Mr. White had the right to use deadly force. These humans came to HIS home intent on attacking his son. What was he supposed to do? Fall down, beg and plead, No, no, Massa, please, dont hurt me or my son?
Black people are sick and damn tired of white racists who still think they can run rough-shod over black citizens; white racists who still think that the WRITTEN law still states that it is still okay to murder and destroy black citizens, on their own property, such as Mr. White.
Maybe not on paper anymore, but, most definitely still in the minds of racists white supremacists. Obviously 400 years of white rage/hatred against black America always shows its true colors when altercations between black and white occur.
Whites still think they can destroy black life and get off with minimal sentencing.
What the hell, they can, and often do.
Black people can be rest assured that THEY will be painted as the horrible criminals no matter what led up to the incidents, especially in the case of Mr. White.
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 teens house.
On the “words” of this fake website by Longo, on the word of the white girl, these humans went to the young mans house, forming a lynch mob bent on attacking him. Ah, yes, the supposed inviolable purity of the defenseless, virginal, pure white woman. Her word is always right and true. Many a black man AND woman have lost their lives behind the words of white women.
And white males.
Just as white men could lie on many an innocent black man or woman, and be believed, this case is no different.
On her word……alone.
On his word……alone.
Martin could have reacted differently to this supposed threat of rape from Aaron; she could have alerted her parents/the cops to check out this site instead of telling her boyfriend, but, unfortunately she did not. Did Martin really believe that her boyfriend was not going to go wild and not confront and attack Aaron when she told him of the “rape” threats on the fake myspace site?:
“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.”
But, she did not tell an adult/parent, and Ciccario is dead.
And Longo, the liar who created this hell that led to Ciccario’s death.
He is the one who is guilty and responsible for Cicciaro’s death.
HE set into motion the chain of events that led up to this murderous altercation.
The blame for Cicciaro’s death lays squarely at his feet, and no one else’s.
Because of Longo, a black father was put into the crucial situation of defending his son against a murderous lynch-mob gang of bloodthirsty whites.
Oh, I forgot.
The word of a white person is inviolable.
The word of a white person reigns supreme over the word of a black person in the good ‘ol USA.
*******************************************
On my blog, I was viciously attacked by male commentors who considered Joe Horn as justified in killing the two alleged burglars who were OUTSIDE his home. Many of the commentors insulted me and railed against the Texas law on the use of reasonable force and deadly force, showing their utter, complete ignorance of laws that protect BOTH them and the alleged burglars, and that you use deadly force as a last resort, when you are under attack.
I asked one angry commentor if the tables were turned and if Horn was a black man, and the two thieves were UNARMED white males, would he still be calling Mr. Black Horn a hero?
I have yet to receive an answer from this commentor.
In Americas eyes, ALL black citizens (male AND female) are murderous brutes who should be put down by any means necessary. Which is why this little known draconian California law is being applied against the black car driver, and which is why the black homeowner is now charged with manslaughter for defending himself against a pack of savage mob depraved, sadistic whites who still think it is open season on black citizens.
Oops.
Who am I kidding?
America STILL thinks that way towards her black citizens.
She is still intent on wiping us off the face of the earth in whatever way, shape and form she can do it in.
Especially when she gets the law, no matter how racistly it is applied, on her side.
Based ONLY on the information I have read here, I’ll say I think in the Hughes case, the shooting was probably justified, and the murder charges are absolutely not. I’m fine with burglary charges (and assault if he was in the house assisting with the assault on the son. If he was in the car the entire time I’m not sure assault charges are appropriate either).
In the second case, I think that the shooting may have been justified. I think a murder charge is out of line and may be ok with manslaughter depending on the actual circumstances. If they fought over the gun and he accidentally shot the kid I think manslaughter is too much. If he shot the kid as he was approaching… eh, I don’t really know. I’m sympathetic, but admit I was thinking as I read it that they should have locked the doors and called 911. But, if he lived in a neighborhood where police response is highly unexpected in that situation… I have the privilege of knowing that when I call 911 emergency response will be as prompt as humanly possible. I’m white, live in a nice neighborhood, etc. There’s no reason for me to suspect I wouldn’t get help right away. I’m willing to recognize that may not be the case with White, and even if it IS the case, it may be reasonable that White would PERCEIVE that help wouldn’t be coming fast enough. While I don’t know what that means legally, it does alter my symapthies a little.
And, I’m not really one to judge the circumstances - you have 4 young men headed toward your house with a freaking baseball bat yelling threats - I don’t really know what I would have done - it’s a scary situation, people are acting on instinct.
And, if we are going to question people’s motives, why in the hell didn’t those young men high tail it out of there and run for their lives when they saw not ONE gun, but TWO? I don’t care how pissed I am. Someone points a gun at me, that baseball bat would be dropped, I’d put my hands up and start backing away. I think it’s interesting that the young men didn’t back down when faced with that - you know?
Also, I want to know if there are any legal ramifications for the white kid who pretended to be Aaron White and issued threats at the girl. Seems to me if the guy driving the getaway car can be charged with Murder in CA because he was setting up a situation for people to die, then the jackass who issued threats from a black student to a white girl and then didn’t set the girl/other dudes straight should be charged as well - he incited violence, don’t you think?
co-signing Ann’s post to the fullest.
and i’ll add this…Renato Hughes got little love on the field negro blog for this reason: Black folk know that race bias trumps even how criminal behavior/response is perceived; we should know better!! White life has more value; if you’re a malfactor, chances are you’ll receive more leway, if you’re Black the likelyhood of a harsher sentence is pretty much a given…
If you are a white victim, you will be afforded much sympathy…if you are a “perp”…the opportunity for redemption, will always be a possibility…conversely, if you’re a Black victim, you’re ignored at best, at worst, your trauma is viewed as “typical” given our environment…of course if you’re a “perp” who is Black, you’re scum who’s criminality “proves” the collective stereotype.
Ronnie B. is right on. Ann - excellent post. Bottom line is that Black folks need not worry about laws or rules because those things will change when used to Black advantage. That’s what legislative sessions are for. If folks want to make it through this mess, they’ll need to get themselves organized and directly attack these types of issues.
It’s not about what is legal or illegal. That’s an illusion. Sadly, it’s not even about “right” or “wrong.” It’s about a predictable, dynamic pattern of control - and breaking the pattern requires some honest recognition that the framework is wholly bankrupt.
The law is for those subject to the imposition of its dictates - it’s not for everyone.
I know just a little bit about how case law works.
These cases will raise issues and questions on what a reasonable defense is and when or when not it is appropriate to use deadly force. The social and moral dynamics will be at best, immaterial.
The courts will attempt empty these cases of any moral, social, and racial content and rely on previous cases, facts, and precendent.
I am glad to see that White’s attorney asked for a change of venue.
Not that I am cynic (far from it), but I will also add that these cases present opportunities for attorneys on both sides of the aisle to beef up their resumes.
I think it’s impossible to ask whether the shootings were justified. What does that type of speculation get us? Hell, even AFTER the trial we may never know.
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 (which probably means “never” unless you plan to attend the trial) 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 (more easily for Mr. White than for Mr. Hughes) in which the accused would properly be held innocent or relieved of all major charges. but if I’ve learned anything as a lawyer, I’ve learned not to guess.
The Provocative Act doctrine is similar to the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy. If that sounds familiar it should. It is what was used to convict Charles Manson of the murders of Sharon Tate and the others who were with her. It is not at all rare and is used constantly. Dog the bounty hunter was found guilty of murder despite the fact he only drove the car. There are thousands of examples every year where people are found guilty by causing a series of events to occur from their actions. I recall one in which some crooks only wished to rob a brinks truck by threatening the guards. One had a heart attack and died. The fact that he had a weak heart didn’t matter as “You take your victim as you find him .” A passing motorist saw the man go down and shot and killed one of the robbers. The lesson here is that you are responsible for setting off the course of actions when you commit violent crimes.
Robbery is at its very nature a VIOLENT crime. If the person is at home at the time that individual is under extreme stress and fear. Here too the criminal takes his victim as he finds him. The victim does not have to wait to see if the intruder will assault or kill him. Most states have such “castle laws ” Under Dukakis the law was changed to read that one must run out the back door if feasible. This insanity was overturned when a case occurred in which a doctor shot and killed an intruder as he was entering his home. This brings up the matter of individual state laws. In some states the law extends beyond the residence and includes the entire property.
[...] Two Cases; Two Fatal Shootings What do you think? - Rachels Tavern Great post and discussion here, comparing the Renato Hughes and John White cases. “One thing I find striking about both cases is that in both cases black men were charged with crimes.” (tags: race law) [...]
Basically, the Dread Scott Decision is still in effect - a Black man has no rights that a White man is bound to respect!
[...] Francisco. The sparsely populated county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black. http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=834? [...]
[...] http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=834 [...]
Rachel: So, let me get this straight. The people of Clearlake are supposed to apologize because their commuity is predominately white, and we are to assume that they must all be racist because of that fact? That assumption is the very definition of racism!
One of the two thugs that Edmonds killed has a history of multiple bank robberies. Furthermore, you don’t buy weed at 4 a.m. at somebody’s home. Not unless you don’t mind losing that connection and possibly all of your other ones in town. You’d be considered a kook on the streets from there on out! It’s not like it was for meth or heroin in this case. Potheads would have waited until the next day to score, because marijuana isn’t even physically addictive.
I have lived in Lake County since 1986. The Renato Hughes case is a major topic.
What has happened a home invasion robbery a 17 year is bludgeoned with an aluminum baseball bat.
Two young dead and Renato Hughes is having Murder Charges placed against him.
It all stinks.
This is nothing but young lives being destroyed by a drug culture with no accountability.
The people County are considered racist because of the racial makeup of the County.
Now the people of Contra Costa County now have to prove they are not Racist because of their Racial composition of their community.
Either way its a lousy situation.
[...] Hattip to Rachel’s Tavern:? “Two Cases, Two Fatal Shootings: What Do You Think?”:? http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=834 [...]