Interesting Burglary/Murder Case

Here is an unusual burglary/murder case, and the question is: is it an attempt to prosecute a crime to the fullest extent of law, or is it an abuse of the law and racism?

LAKEPORT, Calif. (AP) -- 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.

...

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.

Interesting isn't it? I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, but I believe that maybe the DA went a little too far by charging him for murder. But I also don't believe the murder charge is motivated by race either, I think the DA wants to make sure that this kid doesn't get out in five years.

The biggest problem with this case is those that see "racism" everywhere and in every circumstance, they want a criminal to go free because he is black, and the homeowner to be prosecuted because he is white.

Just like in Jena, LA.


Mr Minority