3 Men Beat Stepson in Coma. Man kills 2. NAACP cries "murderer"

[Bazooka Joe71]

Where are you reading this? The law is seeking to prosecute the surviving home invader for the deaths of the other two.

PLEASE READ THE STORY BEFORE YOU COMMENT!

This has been rehashed 3 or 4 times now...Maybe we need it in big bold letters?

 

[Snapping Twig]

Oh, I don't know...

""When you shoot someone who is fleeing, it's not self-defense," Stephen Carter said. "It's an execution."

In court papers, he argued that the provocative act theory shouldn't be invoked.

"The ruthless, ill-motivated pursuit and killing of Mr. Williams and Mr. Foster by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales while under the influence of mood-altering drugs cannot be said to be a proximate, foreseeable and/or natural consequence of any acts allegedly engaged in by Mr. Hughes," Carter wrote.
"

 

[CannibalCrowley]

It doesn't matter which side of the drug legalization debate you are on, 5 pounds is a bit much to claim it was for personal consumption.

Not necessarily. First off, how many months of prescription medication do you believe a person should keep on hand? We don't know what dosage the victim was receiving; but IIRC federal medicinal marijuana patients get 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound per month.

As for the legal aspect, I believe California lets each county set a limit to the amount that a person can store.

 

[Jeff White]

"The ruthless, ill-motivated pursuit and killing of Mr. Williams and Mr. Foster by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales while under the influence of mood-altering drugs cannot be said to be a proximate, foreseeable and/or natural consequence of any acts allegedly engaged in by Mr. Hughes," Carter wrote.

I don't know about that. I can think of several instances that have been discussed here at THR where perfectly normal people with no criminal record pursued and shot fleeing people. Sorry counselor, you're wrong. In fact, I think that your odds of being pursued and shot by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales and under the influence of mood altering drugs is probably more of a proximate, foreseeable and/or natural consequence. Someone who is already engaged in criminal activity probably doesn't care about the fact he could be prosecuted for shooting the attackers as they were fleeing.

Not necessarily. First off, how many months of prescription medication do you believe a person should keep on hand? We don't know what dosage the victim was receiving; but IIRC federal medicinal marijuana patients get 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound per month.

There is no federal allowance for medicinal marijuana. The feds have been in court to defend their right to prosecute people for possession of marijuana in every state that has legalized medicinal marijuana. The federal government doesn't recognize any medical use of marijuana.

As for the legal aspect, I believe California lets each county set a limit to the amount that a person can store.

Why did the police seize it if it was legal under state law?

Jeff

 

[silverlance]

I don't think anyone here (except for one poster) believes that the stepfather is being charged - although from the way the articles are written, it sounds like they are only "currently" not choosing to charge him with murder. as in, "we don't feel like charging you right now.. but maybe later."

I can go on about how it is SHAMEFUL that you have to be able to prove that you got f***ed (stepson now is brain damaged) in order to not have to worry about getting charged with murder.

This is basically like saying, "Girls, let the guy get his jollies and DNA in you first.. then you can shoot him for raping you, because if you shoot him first you just killed a good 'ol boy who made a bad decision."

I'm not worried about the homeowner.. what I find OUTRAGEOUS is that the NAACP is "surprised that he is still walking free" and that they can say things like "he had no reason to shoot those boys in the back".

Like hell he had no reason. I challenge any decent father in this world who would willingly allow the guys who just beat out the brains of his son (stepson or no) walk away simply because as they dropped the bat they said, "my bad, we're leaving now".

--------------

And while I usually agree with White on most counts, here I must disagree with him.

I think the theory is based on the 5 pounds of marijuana the police seized at the victims residence.

So? The guy has doctor's notes, a prescription, and it is 100% legal in the state of CA. It -may- not be legal Federally, but the Fed doesn't even want to enforce the constitution's 2A in CA.

So five pounds is a lot? What about 5,000 rounds of ammunition? That sure sounds like a lot to me too. Or 50,000? How about 50,000 rounds and 100 rifles? Good lord, that man is an arms dealer! That's basically the same mentality when one says that 5 lbs of pot makes a man a drug dealer.

 

[silverlance]

shot by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales and under the influence of mood altering drugs

I hope you're not presuming that the guy is a faded drug dealer. First of all, I doubt that a guy faded on pot is going to be able to fight back very much. Secondly, where is the proof that he was a dealer?

 

[silverlance]

Here's the latest on that story. Today the case got moved to a more "ethnically diverse city" because Clearlake is 94% "white".

Robbery Suspect Charged With Murder After Alleged Accomplices Killed by Homeowner
Thursday , November 15, 2007

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.

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 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."

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 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."

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

the guys grow operation is not legal sorry and growing and keeping that much poyt and apparently not keeping it a secret can get you hurtthats anywhere from 15 k to 30 k depending how good the weed is and if you grow indoors you can grow good weed or so i've heard

 

[Jeff White]

I hope you're not presuming that the guy is a faded drug dealer. First of all, I doubt that a guy faded on pot is going to be able to fight back very much.

Not everyone stoned on marijuana is as harmless and gentle as Cheech and Chong in one of their classic stoner movies. But I never said he was stoned. I was just parroting back what Carter wrote in the first article.

Secondly, where is the proof that he was a dealer?

The five pounds of marijuana seized by the police. If it was legal for him to have it, why was it seized?

Jeff

 

[BAT1]

Naacp

They should be sued for slandering a man defending his family. Just think if he hadn't been armed they would all be dead. If he has a legitimate script, or not or how much he had in the house, [he might of not used all of it every month and it built up] we don't know. He legally defended his castle, I just wish his gun would of been in his hand so he could of taken them out quicker, he would of had a 44 magnum and the other guy who got away would of been nailed too. Sounds like he did good for being woke up in the night. He has a pair, and I hope the Judge has a pair too. That's what the 2 nd is all about. That's a MAN.

 

[ilcylic]

It doesn't matter which side of the drug legalization debate you are on, 5 pounds is a bit much to claim it was for personal consumption.

Wherefore thus? 5 pounds is about a year's consumption at recreational levels. I would imagine that with tolerance and regulation, reasonable doses might be somewhere between 4 and 10 times the recreational dose. Which makes it somewhere between a 3 month and 36 day supply. I have prescriptions which fill at monthly intervals.

So, Mr. White, unless you've grown marijuana for medical purposes, and can give us a personal example of what the quantities involved are, I tender that you might have an inaccurate estimation of the situation. As opposed to simply an LEOs view on what constitutes "reasonable" marijuana possession.

Edit:

The five pounds of marijuana seized by the police. If it was legal for him to have it, why was it seized?

Same reason the police size a firearm every time it's used in a shooting, no matter how legal, or how sympathetic the state?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

um i grew pot and smoked a bunch back in the day 5 pounds is too much sorry 80 ounces i got high 10 times a day and would have a hard time going through that in a year

 

[Jeff White]

So, Mr. White, unless you've grown marijuana for medical purposes, and can give us a personal example of what the quantities involved are, I tender that you might have an inaccurate estimation of the situation. As opposed to simply an LEOs view on what constitutes "reasonable" marijuana possession.

I can give you what California Law says the quantities are:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11362.7-11362.83

11362.77. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess
no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient.
In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also
maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per
qualified patient.
(b) If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's
recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient'
s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may
possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs.
(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana
guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to
exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).
(d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis
plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining
allowable quantities of marijuana under this section.
(e) The Attorney General may recommend modifications to the
possession or cultivation limits set forth in this section. These
recommendations, if any, shall be made to the Legislature no later
than December 1, 2005, and may be made only after public comment and
consultation with interested organizations, including, but not
limited to, patients, health care professionals, researchers, law
enforcement, and local governments. Any recommended modification
shall be consistent with the intent of this article and shall be
based on currently available scientific research.
(f) A qualified patient or a person holding a valid identification
card, or the designated primary caregiver of that qualified patient
or person, may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this
article.

5 pounds is a bit more then 8 oz. California Law allows lessor units of government to set differing amounts and the patient must have a higher amount prescribed for him. Lake County where this occurred permits:

http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm#420
Lake: 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND 8 ounces of bud

That's a far cry from 5 pounds.

If he wasn't dealing why did the mother of one of the dead assailants say this?

Hughes' mother, San Francisco schoolteacher Judy Hughes, said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana.

Let's face up to the reality here. Edmunds was most likely using his medical marijuana card as a front to earn his living selling marijuana. Hughes, Williams and Foster likely went there to buy marijuana and the deal went bad, words were exchanged and the fight was on. Either that, or they went to buy marijuana from Edmunds on credit, Edmunds wouldn't give them credit and the fight was on. Or maybe they did intend to rob him. It really doesn't matter their intent. I refuse to absolve Edmunds from all fault. He's not the innocent disabled guy who smokes marijuana legally to deal with his disability. Not with 5 pounds on hand. He played the game and payed the price, now his stepson is possibly crippled for life. His shooting of Williams and Foster may have been legally self defense. And it probably is Hughes fault they are dead for starting the fight.

There are more people killed in self defense when both parties are involved in criminal activity then there are killed by honest citizens who are attacked. The fact that Edmunds may (and in my opinion was) involved in criminal activity at the time, doesn't make his use of deadly force in self defense illegal, if it would have been legal if he hadn't been involved in criminal activity.

Jeff

 

[silverlance]

point taken. it is quite possible that he was dealing. however, the earlier article does say that the family was asleep at 4am.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Well, there's the law, in black-and-white. He's a dealer (although the comparison to the ammo and rifle cache was a good one!) and was not without fault in brining trouble into his home.

However, his son didn't deserve to get his head bashed in because his daddy sold pot. F*** those three kids. The third deserves the same fate, and it sounds like his momma does too, for trying to play the race card when they come for "her baby" and it's his time to pay. She doens't need to be teaching - hell, her own kid turned out to be a POS.

 

[ilcylic]

So, Mr. White, unless you've grown marijuana for medical purposes, and can give us a personal example of what the quantities involved are, I tender that you might have an inaccurate estimation of the situation. As opposed to simply an LEOs view on what constitutes "reasonable" marijuana possession.

I can give you what California Law says the quantities are:

Am I the only one seeing the humor in this exchange?

----

So, that's just ducky, and it explains perfectly why the police saw fit to confiscate the man's marijuana, but it does not clearly define that he was actually selling marijuana.

Given that most states and the federal government define any possession as illegal, and remarkably small quantities as proof of "intent to distribute", the California definition of what constitutes "reasonable quantities" means about as much to me as a bucket of lukewarm spit in terms of proving that the guy was actually selling marijuana, in the absence, of, y'know, actual evidence that he was engaging in commerce.

 

[Euclidean]

Mr. White, I own more than one handgun which fulfill the same purpose. Am I clearly in the business of illegally trafficking handguns? Obviously I might need a handgun and handguns are legal for me to own, but since I own such a large quantity I obviously have something shady going on.

It's a good thing there's people out there with the good sense to tell me what I do and don't need. I'm incapable of deciding that for myself apparently.

Why the police seized it seems obvious to me: the three were trying to steal it, so it's evidence.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

What Mr. White is saying is that Shannon Edmond's stepson may still be living today if he hadn't had the five pounds of reefer so attractive to the three scumbags to murder over(which by no means excuses the atrocity they committed). The doctor who gave him the prescription is also partially responsible. It's possible that he may have sold to some people he knew and refused to sell to these three. It still doesn't matter because these three scumbags are/were murderous thugs that murdered an innocent person and wanted to kill more until Mr. Edmond put a stop to it with his Hi Power. The surviving scum should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Mr. Edmond's alleged illegal activity does not appear to be under investigation. The marijuana was most likely seized as potential evidence for the investigation/trial of the murder of the stepson and burglary.

 

[silverlance]

Shannon Edmond's stepson may still be living today if he hadn't had the safe full of guns so attractive to the three scumbags to murder over

how does that sound?

White showed that he possessed more than an arbitrary, legal amount. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who knowingly or not have far more than the legal amount of ammuniiton in their home (city and state law).

We as THR members need to educate the public. You prevent crime by preventing the criminal from existing, not the criminal's tools. If you're struggling to take tools away from the criminal you've already got a crime problem.

 

[RyanM]

It doesn't matter which side of the drug legalization debate you are on, 5 pounds is a bit much to claim it was for personal consumption. If you are going to live a criminal lifestyle and produce or sell drugs, people breaking in to steal them is a normal hazard of the business you are in and the lifestyle you lead.

How about if it was a well-stocked bar, with more liquor than one person could consume in a short period of time (and assuming this guy was the only drinker in the house)? Criminals drink too, hard booze is expensive enough to be worth stealing, and alcohol is far more of a "gateway drug" than marijuana could ever be.

C'mon, we're not talking crack cocaine, here. Just because a drug is illegal doesn't mean it's in the same category as all other drugs.

 

[Diggers]

Well because we are on the topic ...Pot should be legal in this country, it would solve ALL sorts of problems AND save all sorts of money.

You also have to keep in mind that when cops weigh pot they tend to weigh the whole plant, most of which is stalk and leaves (and roots and dirt BTY )

So 5 pounds of pot.....may not really be 5 pounds of pot. :banghead:

I was a bartender for a number of years and let me tell you all, give me a stoned person over a drunk person ANY day of the week. Its like night and day really, I've never seen a stoned person want to fight a room full of strangers.

Oh!.... and phiiit, 9mm. ( People getting shot multiple times and running off. ) I have never liked the idea of where someone was shot as meaning anything. They could have been going after someone else when he got his gun and shot them. Shot in the back dosn't mean they were running away, it only means they weren't facing him.

And that poor kid they beat, he isn't going to get better.

 

[Jeff White]

White showed that he possessed more than an arbitrary, legal amount. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who knowingly or not have far more than the legal amount of ammuniiton in their home (city and state law).

There is no legal limit on the amount of ammunition one may possess.

We as THR members need to educate the public. You prevent crime by preventing the criminal from existing, not the criminal's tools. If you're struggling to take tools away from the criminal you've already got a crime problem.

You set yourself up to become a victim of violent crime when you live a criminal lifestyle, associate with those who do, hang out in the same places they hang out.

From the first article posted:

According to prosecutor Jon Hopkins, the chief deputy district attorney in Lake County, at some point after 4 a.m., Hughes, Williams and Foster broke into the home where Edmonds was living with his young daughter, fiancee Lori Tyler, her son Dale Lafferty, and an unrelated teen, 16-year-old Justin Sutch. Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.

Your theory that Edmunds had no part in his problems relies on everyone believing that Hughes, Williams and Foster left San Francisco, drove to a secluded residence in rural Lake County and just burst in and started a fight. You would have us believe that Edmunds' residence was randomly selected by these urban thugs who were miles from their own turf and the five pounds of marijuana was just a coincidence.

If it wasn't a coincidence, you need to explain how these thugs from San Fransisco knew that Edmunds had 5 pounds of marijuana for them to steal. Maybe he won a prize for growing it at the Lake County Fair and a San Francisco newspaper carried the story? No, that's not real plausible, I'm not sure those thugs read the paper. I know, one of the San Francisco TV stations did a Lifestyle segment on rural marijuana farming and highlighted Edmunds, the thugs looked him up on property tax records and planned their assault after they located him.

From the original article:

The Lake County district attorney hasn't determined whether Edmonds has any criminal liability

Edmunds himself isn't in the clear yet. The district attorney probably still has plenty of time to bring charges against him, but probably wants to get the capitol case tried first.

Meanwhile the defense is saying that they don't know what happened that night, however they acknowledge the confrontation happened.

co-defense attorney Stephen Carter, said that it's unclear whether Edmonds' place was invaded, whether a robbery occurred, or whether the three were merely hoping to buy marijuana -- and that no evidence indicates Hughes was even in the house.

I find it odd, that no one but members of this forum is denying that Edmunds was selling marijuana. The defense made this claim, and no one, not Edmunds, not the prosecution, no one is denying it.

"The ruthless, ill-motivated pursuit and killing of Mr. Williams and Mr. Foster by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales while under the influence of mood-altering drugs cannot be said to be a proximate, foreseeable and/or natural consequence of any acts allegedly engaged in by Mr. Hughes," Carter wrote.

Then there is this article:
http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/496186.html

Murder case in small NorCal town derails lives of all involved
By JULIANA BARBASSA - Associated Press Writer

Last Updated 7:45 pm PST Thursday, November 15, 2007


CLEARLAKE, Calif. -- Two young men were shot to death in this remote rural town in the middle of a December night, but as attorneys prepare to take the case to trial, it's clear many more lives have been destroyed in the process.

It all began either as a home invasion robbery by three armed men, or as a drug deal gone bad, depending on whether the prosecution or the defense is telling the story. What's known is that the homeowner fatally shot two of the alleged robbers, and now the third stands charged with their murders.

Whatever truth emerges from the trial, the crime has unraveled the once-promising lives of three elementary school friends, and broke apart a family in this small, unpretentious town 100 miles north of San Francisco.

Authorities say a fight broke out between three black San Francisco men inside the home of white Clearlake resident Shannon Edmonds at 4 a.m. on Dec. 7, 2005. Edmonds opened fire and killed two of them - Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22 - as the third, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, fled.

Police testified during the case's preliminary hearing that they seized four one-gallon bags of marijuana packaged for sale at Edmonds' home. Officers also testified that Edmonds shot both men in the back - Williams twice and Foster five times.

Their families never thought these boys' lives would end like this.

Foster was a few months from graduating from college when he bled to death on the street in front of Edmonds' home.

And then there is this little allegation from the civil suit that has been filed against Edmunds:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2007/10/29/DrugShooting.pdf

14. On information and belief between at least January 2004 and December 7' 2005'
Edmonds had engaged in the unlawful sale of recreational drugs such as marijuana and* meth '
As part of his network, Edmonds used young men - boys as young as 14 or 15 years of age- to peddle or market his drugs

Here's an article on the shooting itself:
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060118/NEWS/601180306/1130/NEWS1103

Killings of Clearlake suspects: Were they self-defense?
D.A. probes whether homeowner justified in shootings of 2 men

By GLENDA ANDERSON
THE PRESS Democrat

When three men broke into Shannon Edmonds' Clearlake home last month, punched his girlfriend and beat her son over the head with a metal baseball bat, his reaction was worthy of any action movie.

Grabbing a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, the 31-year-old shot two of the intruders dead. A third suspect later was apprehended by police.

But Edmonds' Dirty Harry approach to the men who allegedly broke in to steal his marijuana also raised a legal issue that has been central to American jurisprudence since the country's inception: How far can citizens go to defend themselves from someone trying to do them harm?

Lake County prosecutors have not decided whether Edmonds' actions were legally justified or whether he, like the surviving intruder suspect, should be prosecuted for homicide.

"There's a lot more work to do," said Lake County District Attorney Gary Luck. "We take a look at the entirety of the facts, the circumstances surrounding the use of deadly force and how it was used."

Additional facts about the case are expected to be revealed in court today at a preliminary hearing for the surviving home-invasion suspect, Renato Hughes, 21, of San Francisco.

Hughes is charged with several crimes, including murder, on the theory that someone involved in a felony that is likely to cause a death can be prosecuted for that death.

But it is the law as it relates to self-defense that will decide whether Edmonds also faces charges as the result of the Dec. 7 incident in a run-down neighborhood near the eastern shore of Clear Lake.

Under state law, a person defending himself or his family from an attempted murder or great bodily injury can justifiably use lethal force if it's a reasonable response, Luck said.

Reasonableness is based on how a normal, prudent person would respond in the same situation, he said.

Where and how the suspects were killed also are factors.

Edmonds appears to have killed the two alleged intruders as they fled. They were shot multiple times from behind and collapsed about 30 feet from Edmonds' home.

Eight of 10 bullet casings were found outside the house, but authorities have not concluded whether the fatal shots took place inside the home or outside. Police also have not revealed what the intruders were doing at the precise time they were shot.

Justifiable homicide is presumed when intruders are killed inside the home, although that does not preclude prosecution, Luck said.

But homicide also may be justified if intruders are shot outside the home, depending upon the circumstances, he said.

If a reasonable person, for example, believed the intruders planned to regroup and return or otherwise continued to be an imminent threat, chasing them down and shooting them could be justifiable, Luck said.

In any case, the courts have ruled that the amount of force used must only be what is necessary to repel attackers or intruders. The lethal response cannot be justified if it was spurred by vengeance.

Luck said prosecutors also consider the amount of force used by the intruders before they were killed and whether they were armed.

The intruders allegedly carried a shotgun and a metal baseball bat.

The condition of the teen who was critically injured in the home assault also would be a factor, he said.

Dale Lafferty, 17, spent weeks in a coma after the attack, family members said.

He's now in a rehabilitation facility but cannot walk on his own and is only beginning to talk, they said.

Collecting all of the facts of the case and sorting through all of the complicating factors will take months, Luck said.

Proponents of keeping guns for protection, however, say it appears to be a clear case of self-defense.

"They bust into your home, intending to rob you with a gun and a baseball bat. I think it's a perfectly justified shooting," said Ray Higbee, a retired police officer who has taught gun safety in Lake and Mendocino counties.

"It doesn't make any difference if they're shot in the back," he added.

Gun control advocates were reluctant to take a stand on self-defense shooting.

"In that situation, it is difficult," said Karen Michail Shah, executive director of Women Against Gun Violence.

"We don't take a position on guns used for self-defense. But we do take a position on guns in the home, and it's that we strongly discourage it," she said.

Higbee said he doubted a Lake County jury would convict Edmonds if he's charged.

County Supervisor Gary Lewis agreed.

"Knowing a little about the jurors in this county, I think they would probably acquit," he said.

He said he also thinks the shootings appear justified.

But Supervisor Jeff Smith isn't as convinced jurors would find Edmonds innocent.

"From what I've heard, it could easily be split," he said. "It's a real tough one."

Williams, a track star at 15, had been catapulted into national prominence when he used his running to raise $40,000 for a victim of the Columbine massacre. But his life had taken a downturn in recent years, with convictions for two unarmed bank robberies in Contra Costa County.

Hughes was a student at San Jose State University while making money as a supermarket cashier when his involvement in the crime led to accusations that might waylay his hopes of finishing school forever.

He was charged with first-degree murder of his friends under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed. California's 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.

Invocation of the unusual doctrine in an overwhelmingly white county has brought allegations of racism from civil rights groups. Activists claim Hughes' involvement in the crime doesn't justify the seriousness of the charges against him.

On Thursday, a judge granted the defense's motion for a change of venue. Hughes' lawyers argued that he would not be able to get a fair trial because of extensive local media coverage and the unlikelihood that he could get a jury of his peers in a county that's 91 percent white and 2 percent black. A new location for the trial will be selected Dec. 14.

Hughes' mother, San Francisco school teacher Judy Hughes, has been making the five-hour round trip from San Francisco to Clearlake to stand by her son in what she called a legal lynching.

"This is a mother's worst nightmare," she said Thursday. "This community here has a good old boys regime."

She acknowledges her son and his friends may have been out "partying" and looking for marijuana - but that's very different from being involved in murder.

"Only God knows what happened in that house," she said. "But this I know: My son did not murder his childhood friends."

Meanwhile, homeowner Shannon Edmonds is trying to hold his life together as it disintegrates under the pressure of a high-profile criminal case.

Edmonds has not been charged, and claims he shot only in self-defense as three men rampaged through his house demanding marijuana, attacking his then-fiancee and brutally beating her son.

But the unemployed car mechanic said since the shootings, he's been ostracized in the small town, abandoned by his fiancee and is about to lose his home, which he can't afford on his own.

His fiancee's son, Dale Lafferty, 19, suffered brain damage from the baseball bat beating he took during the melee. Lafferty 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. But this has destroyed my life."

And this story right after it happened almost 2 years ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561655/posts

Clearlake robbers shot from behind
Press Democrat ^ | 12 Jan | GLENDA ANDERSON

Posted on 01/20/2006 9:14:01 AM PST by barj

Police testimony at hearing for surviving suspect describes home invasion By GLENDA ANDERSON THE PRESS Democrat

CLEARLAKE - Two men killed during a home-invasion robbery last month were shot from behind, police testified Wednesday during a preliminary hearing for the lone surviving suspect.

Shannon Edmonds of Clearlake, who police say shot the two men seven times, hasn't been charged with a crime.

Investigators say Edmonds opened fire with a 9mm handgun after three men smashed a glass door, entered his home, punched his girlfriend and hit her 17-year-old son on the head with a metal baseball bat.

Police believe the robbers were looking for marijuana.

Edmonds said he was protecting his family but the mother of Rashad Williams of Pittsburg, one of the men shot to death, said she wasn't convinced.

"This man shot my son in cold blood," Sheila Burton said Wednesday during a break in the hearing, noting that Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, of San Francisco were shot from behind.

Police confirmed her statement in their testimony.

The hearing, which continues today, will determine whether Renato Hughes Jr., 21, of San Francisco is held for trial. He was arrested a few hours after the shooting at the nearby home of Williams' grandmother.

Hughes, who wasn't injured, is charged with murder, attempted murder, home invasion robbery and other felonies. Under state law, he can be held liable for the deaths of Foster and Williams if they were killed while committing a crime.

Police testified that Williams was shot twice in the back and Foster was shot five times, three times in the leg and twice in the torso. The men fell about 30 feet from Edmonds' home.

Hughes has been tied to the robbery by blood-spattered jeans and a shirt found at the home of Williams' grandmother. His wallet was found inside a car belonging to Foster's father, which was parked near Edmonds' home.

Edmonds, 31, was questioned after the Dec. 7 shooting and prosecutors say they haven't decided whether he will be charged with a crime.

Hughes' attorney is seeking to compel him to testify during the preliminary hearing.

Police testified that there were five, gallon-sized bags of processed marijuana in Edmonds' house, along with a half-bucket of freshly picked pot.

Edmonds has said that he is a certified user of marijuana for medical purposes.

According to autopsy reports, Foster and Williams had THC, a component of marijuana, in their systems, Lake County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Russ Perdock said.

Police say the men were armed with a shotgun and a baseball bat when they entered Edmonds' home.

The shotgun hasn't been found though the bat was recovered at Edmonds' home.

Dale Lafferty, the son of Edmonds' girlfriend, was in a coma for weeks after the baseball bat attack, relatives said.

He now appears to be conscious but is unable to walk or communicate, according to grandparents Frank and Debbie Kester, who attended Wednesday's hearing.

Edmonds' girlfriend, Lorie Tyler, told police she was awakened by a crash, then screamed to awaken Edmonds as two men entered their bedroom.

One man threw her on the floor and punched her in the face several times while Edmonds tried to wrestle the shotgun away from the other man, according to police testimony.

Tyler got free and ran to the living room for the phone. While she was there, one of the robbers reportedly demanded: "Where's the weed?"

Hughes' mother, Judy Hughes, said there's no proof her son was at Edmonds' home, a contention being pursued by defense attorney Stephen Carter.

"We believe in my brother's innocence," said Hughes' sister, Eleva Hughes, who teaches seventh grade in San Francisco.

Like Williams and Foster, she said, Hughes went to good schools, was brought up with good family values and was set to succeed in life.

He was active in several youth and community groups in San Francisco, she said.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Well I don't have buckets of reefer around but had I watched my child beaten I'd shot them all and reloaded to do it some more. The only problem I have is one got away to testify.

.02

 

[2Lman]

The point of what "I" would do in this instance is irrelevant. I do not grow, use, or sell illegal drugs. I do not think that it is moral to use them. So, these thugs would not have came into my house to buy them, with an argument turning bad.

Jeff is right... nobody is denying that the shooter was selling drugs, except for here. We all talk about situational awareness. Come on, people, what is your gut telling you about this situation? Something does not smell right.

Does the fact that the stepfather sells drugs give these thugs the right to beat his stepson? No! Did he have the right to defend his stepson? It appears that he did. He has not been charged yet, so this case is not completely cut and dried.

One thing here that really bothers me, and I am surprised that it has not been brought up:

If you read nothing else of this post, please note the following:

How is is promoting the "advancement of colored people" to defend someone who has either in the worst case committed murder, and in the best case buying drugs? This is the same group that will not speak about the "advancement" of people such as Sec. of State Rice, General Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas. No, they would much rather advance drug using murderous thugs.

Black people should be sick about this organization!

 

[CannibalCrowley]

There is no federal allowance for medicinal marijuana. The feds have been in court to defend their right to prosecute people for possession of marijuana in every state that has legalized medicinal marijuana. The federal government doesn't recognize any medical use of marijuana.

You're wrong. Irv Rosenfeld is one of a handful of people who receives weed from the federal government, and he's been doing so for over 20 years. You can even see him smoking up outside the Whitehouse on Penn & Teller's show BS.

Irvin Rosenfeld HB 5470 Michigan Medical Marijuana Testimony