The Provocative Act Doctrine

[Monadnock]

"Rare robbery case brings cries of racism" (of course)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/break_in_murder_6

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.

There aren't many details of what went on inside the house, other than:

"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."

I for one have never heard of this doctrine. Anyone think it goes too far?

 

[michaeledward]

"reasonably foresee"

I don't know that the thought sequence works by that standard ...

Hey Bobby ... wanna go rob that flat screen from that living room
Gee Billy ... somebody might die.
​

Why would a couple of burgalars "reasonably foresee" that death could come about from a robbery?



It does seem rather odd that a man who fired a gun at two people would make the statement "I didn't mean to kill them."

I thought one of the rules of firearms is "Never point a gun at anything unless you plan to destroy it".

Of course, he was stoned when he pulled the trigger. That's always a good, isn't it?

 

[shesulsa]

"reasonably foresee"

I don't know that the thought sequence works by that standard ...

Hey Bobby ... wanna go rob that flat screen from that living room
Gee Billy ... somebody might die.
​

Why would a couple of burgalars "reasonably foresee" that death could come about from a robbery?

Really? You wouldn't think that you may die by entering a house unlawfully and critically wounding one of its residents? Frankly, it would be the very *first* thing on my mind ... a good deterrent for a reasonable person.

It does seem rather odd that a man who fired a gun at two people would make the statement "I didn't mean to kill them."

I thought one of the rules of firearms is "Never point a gun at anything unless you plan to destroy it".

Good point, I'll grant you that ... but perhaps he honestly thought he was a good enough shot to disable them only. It is one of the more passionate points of armed defense.

Of course, he was stoned when he pulled the trigger. That's always a good, isn't it?

He was? Where did I miss that?

 

[Monadnock]

"reasonably foresee"
It does seem rather odd that a man who fired a gun at two people would make the statement "I didn't mean to kill them."

...

Of course, he was stoned when he pulled the trigger. That's always a good, isn't it?

Yes, saying that is a definite "No-no."

As for the other part, in California, wasn't he just "medicated"? Of course, that shouldn't preclude him from defending himself if he thought he was in danger.

It's all a little bizzar, but maybe it wil become clearer.

 

[Empty Hands]

Good point, I'll grant you that ... but perhaps he honestly thought he was a good enough shot to disable them only. It is one of the more passionate points of armed defense.

That's assuming what he said was what he even felt at the time. With the potential of legal action against you for a fatal shoot, I don't think anyone would say they intended to kill them. Only to stop them from hurting you.

 

[Sukerkin]

I find it hard at the best of times to reconcile 'legalism' with 'realism'. This case is even more impentrable than most.

In all honesty, I couldn't care less what happens to a bunch of violent burgulars who beat someones family member with bats, giving him brain damage.

The line that aroused the deepest response from me was that the homeowner had no right to shoot the felons because they were running away! So, they do the crime, start a violent armed assault and then leg it because one of the victims is suddenly revealed to be armed himself - sympathy level = 0.

It's not that I support the fatal shooting of anyone (as I have a profound respect for the ideal that nearly all humans have something worthwhile in them) but this post-action second-guessing is reprehensible.

It's one of the few areas where my right-wingedness comes to the fore so I shall hush now before I get even more soapbox enraged.

 

[kaizasosei]

i agree. the laws are often just loopholes for people to continue the violence in another way.
what's done is done. the blood is on his hands. that in itself is a punishment is a way.
i would expect to get shot or beaten if i broke into someones house.
what do you do when you hear something in the middle of the night-you grab whatever weapon you can find.
the crazyness of no hugging. no defending ones property or family. the laws are really starting to get in the way of nature.

i do feel sorry for anyone fleeing that is fataly shot. ultimately, we do not know all the details to judge accurately.

j

 

[kaizasosei]

violence is known to escalte practically exponentialy. nothing new about that.

j

 

[michaeledward]

Really? You wouldn't think that you may die by entering a house unlawfully and critically wounding one of its residents? Frankly, it would be the very *first* thing on my mind ... a good deterrent for a reasonable person.

Yes. Really. Burgurlars are not killers. If these guys were trying to steal something, they probably wanted to be very quiet, get in, take the goods, get out. Stealing is not a violent crime.

EDIT ... the story doesn't indicate how the assault with a baseball bat took place. ... END EDIT


Of course, the family of the accused man says the three young men were trying to buy pot from the home owner, and it was a drug deal gone bad.

Good point, I'll grant you that ... but perhaps he honestly thought he was a good enough shot to disable them only. It is one of the more passionate points of armed defense.

That is not the argument we usually hear from those who argue against any restriction of gun rights. There is currently a thread about a shooting in NY where everyone is claiming ~ at least two shots center mass and then a head shot ~ and then more if needed.

Nobody is arguing shoot to disable.

He was? Where did I miss that?

Yes, the news story tells us ...

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.

I can find no reason to expect that the test for substances took place before the shootings/beatings.

 

[CoryKS]

Yes. Really. Burgurlars are not killers. If these guys were trying to steal something, they probably wanted to be very quiet, get in, take the goods, get out. Stealing is not a violent crime.

*facepalm*

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.

Some burgurlars are violent. Some burgurlars are rapists. Some burgurlars are murderers. Is it the victims responsibility to take a poll before taking defense measures?

 

[michaeledward]

*facepalm*

Some burgurlars are violent. Some burgurlars are rapists. Some burgurlars are murderers. Is it the victims responsibility to take a poll before taking defense measures?

CoryKS ... are you clear in your understanding about whom it is that is being charged with murder?

 

[CoryKS]

CoryKS ... are you clear in your understanding about whom it is that is being charged with murder?

Quite clear, and I agree with the charge.

 

[michaeledward]

That one can agree with anything at this point, seems a stretch.

There are so few facts presented in that article as to make a 'reasonable' decision.

What is reported is a burglar is being charged with murder.
The victims of the accused murder, were the burglars associates.
The victims of the murder were killed with a firearm, that was apparently never in the possession of, nor fired by the accused.

I wonder if there was not a baseball bat assault in the mix, ~ which apparently has zero effect on the charge ~ if the arguments would be the same.

EDIT - So far in this thread, the phrases 'cricial wounding, violent burglars, violent armed assault' have been used. Of course, none of that is, apparently, relevant at all to the charge. And, we do not know the sequence of events in the house, and how the assault on the young man came about. It would seem that those facts would be needed to consider the events reasonably.- END EDIT

 

[CoryKS]

That one can agree with anything at this point, seems a stretch.

There are so few facts presented in that article as to make a 'reasonable' decision.

What is reported is a burgurlar is being charged with murder.
The victims of the accused murder, were the burgulars associates.
The victims of the murder were killed with a firearm, that was apparently never in the possession of, nor fired by the accused.

I wonder if there was not a baseball bat assault in the mix, ~ which apparently has zero effect on the charge ~ if the arguments would be the same.

I think the facts presented are sufficient: three men committed a crime and, as a result, two people are now dead. The remaining criminal is now charged with murder. That's the doctrine as I understand it, and I agree with it.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Burglars are not violent?? WTF

Its why almost every state in the union legally allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself in the event of a burgulary. Anybody caught in your home is vastly more likely to use violence on you to escape or prevent identification. Someone who knowingly enters an occupied home shows that they dont give a rats *** about another persons rights.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think what Michael's speaking off is the rather strange workings of the law in accusing the surviving felon with the murder of the two that didn't make it. I can understand and concur that that is a twisted legalism.

The rest of us have, I think not surprisingly, focussed on another portion of the story, wherin the chap defending his property and family comes in for criticism.

Okay, so his judgement may have been impaired by recreational substances but I'm not going to second guess him, after the fact, for what is, I'm given to understand, a legitimate use of force.

If it turns out that the 'true' story is one of a drug deal gone bad, well, I'm still not moved to feel any differently on the core matter of home defence (what I then feel about whether the presently innocent homeowner should face some charges related to drug dealing is seperate).

I'm firmly convinced that the removal of the rights of homeowners to use whatever force they deem necessary to deal with an intruder has a role to play in the increase of such crimes. That's a side issue tho' and I'm sure it's one we've gone over before.

 

[Ray]

That one can agree with anything at this point, seems a stretch.

There are so few facts presented in that article as to make a 'reasonable' decision.

What is reported is a burglar is being charged with murder.
The victims of the accused murder, were the burglars associates.
The victims of the murder were killed with a firearm, that was apparently never in the possession of, nor fired by the accused.

I wonder if there was not a baseball bat assault in the mix, ~ which apparently has zero effect on the charge ~ if the arguments would be the same.

EDIT - So far in this thread, the phrases 'cricial wounding, violent burglars, violent armed assault' have been used. Of course, none of that is, apparently, relevant at all to the charge. And, we do not know the sequence of events in the house, and how the assault on the young man came about. It would seem that those facts would be needed to consider the events reasonably.- END EDIT

Thank goodness the cops, the DA, the judge, jury and defense attorneys don't have to rely on a news story to try the case.

The slant on the story is obviously a ploy by the defense to garner public support and sympathy. If the DA said something going the other way in the press, then the defense would say "every one should have their day in court, we shouldn't try people in the press (and or court of public opinion)."

If OJ can get off, then anyone can.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, Ray, it is a good idea that they get to use evidence.

Such as ... 5 pounds of marijuana was siezed from the killer's home (that doesn't seem to be a recreational quantity to me).

Such as ... Mr. Williams was found dead of gunshot wounds in the middle of the street.

Such as ... Mr. Foster died in the bushes outside the house with five gun shot wounds in his body.

And for the record, the events being discussed here, occurred on December 7, 2005. This article is much closer to that time ... 2/7/06

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/07/BAGR2H41LB1.DTL


EDIT - California Law ... (I think this is the current version) ...
11362.77. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess
no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient.
END EDIT

 

[kaizasosei]

i hope i am not misunderstanding the facts of the story.
but didn't the son get really messed up by the baseball bat??
what would you do if someone messed up your son with a baseballbat after trying to steal from you and invade your property.
dealers are not out to hurt anyone either right- are dealers worse than thieves.... i personally would rather trust a marijuana dealer than i would a habitual thief.

for all i know the baseball bat idea was the sons idea. often people without enough experience get ahold of a weapon only to have it used on them.
but violence escalates. if you baseballbat someone and his buddy or even family have a gun, you may well find yourself in a sticky situation.



j

 

[michaeledward]

kaizasosei ...

It was a nephew, and apparently the nephew was struck with a baseball bat. It is unclear who, when, and how that assualt occurred.

Making statements related to the "trust" one might extend toward one criminal over another criminal certainly is an interesting idea.