Rare Robbery Case Brings Cries of Racism.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3872293

The Associated Press
By JULIANA BARBASSA Associated Press Writer
LAKEPORT, Calif. Nov 16, 2007 (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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it right to charge this man with murder for the deaths of his companions in this incident? Is he responsible? My feelings are that he is not responsible for the deaths and should not be charged. The two dead men are responsible for their own deaths in this case. The question is, why is the prosecutor invoking this rarely used law in this case?

On the other hand I feel that Mr.Brown from the NAACP is way off base with this statement. Is it possible they only fled why the rounds started flying?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also really have to question this statement from Mr. Hughes' mother;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are engaging in a felony, and someone else gets killed in the process, then you are legally responsible as if you had done it. The idea is to discourage people entering into conspiracies to commit felonies. Felonies, especially involving more than one person, cause dangerous situations, so by engaging in one you are assuming the risk that someone might get killed in the course of it.

This applies to any race and would have been applied to this individual in this fact pattern no matter what race he was.

Seems like it's possible that the law is being applied selectively, and for racial reasons. I wouldn't dismiss that possibility out of hand.

... then the law could only be used a maximum of one or two times a year.

We have that law in Arizona, and I support it. Too many violent offenders get off with 3-5 years, while a non-violent offender (caught with drugs, for example) gets more time than that. Violent criminals need to be off the streets, and that is a very useful tool for making it happen.

All I asked was that the reactionary poster to whom I replied not completely dismiss the possibility that this is a racially motivated charge. I didn't say conclusively that it was one or that it wasn't.

... could have done a much better job of defining exactly how "rarely" the statute was invoked.

Here in AZ, it seems like most people who commit a crime that results in a death are subsequently charged with that death. It would be rare for it NOT to be invoked.

I don't completely dismiss the prospect that this was a racially motivated charge, but the media has not done much research here to back up their "rarely invoked" claims.

As I said, if there are only one or two felony murders a year, the most they can use the charge is once or twice a year. Does that constitute rarely invoked, even though it is 100% of the time?

It could also be that the prosecutor doesn't give a damn what race the criminal is, only that he broke into a house with the intention of committing a crime, severely injured the occupants, and lives were lost as a result. Seems like a clear-cut case of a good time to use the statute to me.

Should that be avoided simply because of the color of the violent criminal?

where a non-violent offender could get charged with murder.

But if the non-violent offender is a willing participant in a felony in which someone is killed, I (and the law) see them as equally responsible for the death.

Vastly different than someone who's busted in the parking lot for buying some weed.

I am wondering why it was used in this case. I understand the legal issue but the only people killed in the incident were the other criminals.

And by "rare" I mean in cases where it is ELIGIBLE to be applied. I would suspect, by its very nature, it is a rare set of circumstances that would invoke the application of the felony murder statute.

I'm not a big fan of the law where it is applied when the death is more than "once removed" from the action of the felon. The Arizona "news chopper crash case" is a classic example of prosecutorial overreach using the felony murder laws - A man is being charged with 1st degree murder for the death of news chopper pilots that were filming his car chase. Other cases seem to be on the "iffy" side - there was a story posted, several weeks ago, on DU regarding a man successfully convicted for a trooper killed, in a car crash, ON HIS WAY to a search for a felony suspect.

That said, this sounds like a textbook case for application of the felony murder statute. When those men INVADED someone's home and BEAT HALF TO DEATH another human being during the commission of a FELONY ROBBERY, they/he set in motion a set of circumstances where it was REASONABLE TO BELIEVE someone may get killed. Like I said, I can be a little iffy on these laws but when I read the part about the severe baseball bat beating, I say too fucking bad for Mr. Hughes. Too fucking bad for Mr. Hughes that, by a stroke of luck, the right people got killed - the sad part is there is a 19 year old victim with severe brain damage.

I have lived in California most of my life, and I can recall application of the felony murder rule many times. It's typically used to prosecute fellow gang members who were present at killings for which a gang member is the alleged trigger person. For example, the driver and all other passengers in a car in which one passenger is alleged to have committed a fatal drive-by shooting.

That's a bit of pickle in the idea that I'm going to feel sorry for anyone here.

Should he be charged for the deaths of his two accomplices?

I'm certainly iffy on the law, but I do understand the desire to use those charges both as a deterrent and for the sake of having another arrow in the quiver of the district attorney when prosecuting hooligans (of any color).

I am well aware these laws have gone overboard.

Theoretically in some states you can smoke pot and be charged with murder if your friend falls down the stairs and breaks his neck.

However, this is clearly a case where the law should be applied to the fullest. Apart from burglary, they at least brought in a deadly weapon (not sure if they fired the shotgun) and beat the 19-year-old to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat.

With regular felonies I don't think this law should be applied. But violent felonies, where your victim can no longer feed himself? Let the burglar rot in prison - he's lucky he's not dead.

I wonder, if the homeowner was black and the burglars were white, what the NAACP would say about this.

He should not, however, be charged with the murder of his accomplices.

That paints an entirly different picture from the original post.

See the article linked below

And the evil white drug dealer went berserk.

There is enough evidence of racism in the world and the justice system without inventing it.

Shit like this does more harm than good.

I figured people would look at the link and see the other details.

And they were masked and armed with shotguns.
...was kinda important.

Doncha' think?

Couldn't find space for that in four paragraphs though?

And again there is clear evidence of racism in the justice system. But not in this case.

Just think how nice it would be here in Amerika if everyone was armed and shot at every opportunity.....

people's houses at night, don't you think?

the thought process here is very sad. If you are physically breaking into someones home you run the risk of death. It is a occupational hazard.

PB

Three thugs break into a home, beat a stepson with a bat and people here are going after the guy who shot them...totally fucking pathetic

You'll never know if your victim is more heavily armed than you, until you're lying in a pool of your own blood.

I assume you don't go around burglarizing people's houses and beating their children with baseball bats. Yet you ask us to have sympathy for those who do?

:crazy:

three people break into someone's house and beat him with a bat so badly that he cannot even care for himself anymore, and in the process the owner defends himself, and two of them die?

Yes. They are all three responsible for those deaths. Two of them are dead and that leaves one.

:shrug:

edit: Looks like he was chasing them -from- the house while he was shooting--that's different.

The article says the step-son was beaten. Obviously the owner was in the house, the step-son was in the house. Just because the suspects backs were to the person that shot them, it doesn't mean they were fleeing.

in your home you are not required to fire a warning shot, send off flares, request parlee..etc..

If you are threatened by a person(s) who has broken in you can shoot and kill them.

A careful assessment of the situation would be a better indicator than the example in this case. This case is extreme.

Multiple people armed in my home injuring a family member makes the situation all bets off...

Anyone not related or in uniform is hostile, and any warning to them increases the risk to me or my family. Life is not a movie.

If I could get in behind them (out of their sight line) and shoot them that is to my advantage in that situation. If i could hit them through the drywall or a door that is reasonable in that situation.

Any one of those guys who was still mobile was a threat, he had every right to use force to take them out of the fight.

This homeowner had legal ability to kill these people short of taking them into control and then executing them or dead checking them.

The victim is the son and the man who was forced to defend his life.

Oh, BTW, "life is not a movie?" Thanks for the news. You can discuss this without being patronizing, I trust? So please do.

really. I have read lots of comments on this thread that are out of touch with reality. Frustrating.

The bottom line on this incident is that they were armed, in his home, and injured a family member.

Those things made them corpses when they came into line of sight, three times over.

For example, if I came upon a person (i generally do not carry a weapon, but do have a ccw) being assaulted by armed men, I would not issue a verbal warning. If I could do something to stop the attack without being killed I would.

Shooting from cover with no warning is advisable. Generally you would end up with one person dead or injured and another person running.

Shooting the person running depends, to me, on if they are leaving or looking for cover.

In your home there is no question. In the situation described above they are all imminent threats and using force in any position is legal.

The participant not shot dead should face murder charges.

If the participant not shot dead didn't murder anyone, he should not face murder charges. Semantic sophistry may redefine "murder" in the eyes of certain municipalities' laws, but calling it so doesn't make it so. The murderer is the trigger-puller. If the killings are justifiable through mitigating circumstances, then that's well and good, there certainly *are* circumstances that can mitigate such killings - you described many - but deflecting the charges like that only serves to pander to and excuse gun nut bloodlust.

Edit: BAD typo

criminal sentences generally. If you are forced to shoot a person in self defense you are not charged with a crime. The circumstance does not need to be mitigated or aggravated.

However due the the horrible situation here the victim (the person forced to shoot) has wide deference

Like as a lawyer, policeman, legislator, anything? The depth of your knowledge of the specifics of this is interesting, I'm getting rather a lot from this exchange, thank you.

These men are inside the house, through the force of breaking a window, and have already demonstrated that they intend harm by beating the guys wife and beating the stepson to the point of brain damage with a steel baseball bat. Your home is your last sanctuary, and it doesn't matter if they turn their backs to you, they already proved intent to harm.

As long as they remained in the home, they can be legally killed as self protection. The homeowner is under no obligation to stand there and hope they turn around.

Just feel like shooting someone?

I just spent a few minutes typing up the reply first. You were typing your response when I was typing mine.


So how about an apology for the asinine remark?

Whether you saw my post or not, you were still piling on. No sorry for you.

Everyone on this board gets corrected occasionally, but most have strength to admit it. You obviously can't own up to it and instead accuse me of piling on.

There's an icon for whiners like that:
:nopity:

I know a good place for that violin, friend.

The posts tell the tale. I posted at the same time as you. There is nothing wrong there. Instead, you took offense and made this remark "Just feel like shooting someone?"


It stands on it own.

I don't *need* to.

Have a nice evening.

His stepson lie there bleeding from a baseball bat beating. How does he know the three aren't just running for cover, and will come back at him from another angle?

I'd have a very hard time not shooting these guys, too. Come in to my house and destroy my family with a bat? Fuck them - restraint is out the window at that point.

The owner might have came up behind them to shoot them. Just because they were shot in the back does not mean they were fleeing.

This just seems so simple to me. People who don't want to get shot and killed should not break in to a family's home with a baseball bat.

In this state the fact someone has broken into your home allows you to kill them in any manner that does not include taking them into custody first. (ie, putting them on their knees at gunpoint and then shooting them). Plainly stated if you wake up to breaking glass in your home and a commotion, enter the room with a weapon and fire at an identified target, you are clear. Common sense place a weapon and flashlight together.

If a person is in your home and you order them, at gunpoint, to stop and not move and they do not you have gone well beyond the minimum requirement for use of deadly force.

Back, side, whatever, at 3am you are not burdened to do anything other than identify the target as a direct threat.

Once they break the law, and entered that home with a deadly weapon intent in destroying a person, they are responsible for everything that happens.

Self defense? you have it twisted.

It's been used successfully as a defense in California. The law provides many potential defenses for a shooter in this kind of case.

Here is the part of the California Penal Code that defines justifiable homicide:

195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

:hi:

Some are felling sorry for the surviving thug, claiming he is the real victim.

got a guy executed in Texas a couple of months back? In the Texas case this guy was the driver of a car wherein one of the passengers ended up killing someone following an argument. I think it was argued that the driver was as much at fault as the killer because he *should have known* that there was a possibility of a crime being committed.

Thankfully his execution was stayed and his sentence may have been reduced to life.

I heard about the Texas case on Democracy Now!

is a poster child for legal use of deadly force and the law holding a participant in a crime responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators.

Well, from the article, the three suspects broke into his home at night and his step-son was beaten to the point he now can't care for himself. Why is the homeowner walking free, indeed?
:eyes:

......AND he should have given them two free swings at his head. THEN and only then should he be allowed to shoot.












:sarcasm:

http://www.metroactive.com/bohemian/06.13.07/lake-county-killings-0724.html

They headed a few blocks away, to the home of Shannon Edmonds, now 33. Edmonds, an alleged drug dealer, holds a medical marijuana card and had three pounds of pot at his home that evening. At home with him that night were his wife, her teenage son and another teen boy.
The prosecution's version of what happened next has been widely publicized and is hugely disputed. What is known is that the scene was chaos. Lake County district attorney Jon Hopkins alleges that instead of transacting an ordinary small-time drug deal with Edmonds, the three young men shattered a glass door at the back of his home, demanded marijuana and entered his bedroom.
The district attorney's office further alleges that they attempted to disguise their identities with bandanas and that one of the youths pointed a shotgun at Edmonds as he lay in his bed. Edmonds then reportedly wrestled for the shotgun while someone began to punch his wife, at which point Edmonds' wife's teenage son and another boy entered the room. One of them had a metal baseball bat that, in the melee, was used on Edmonds' wife's son, resulting in permanent brain damage. Edmonds is then said to have procured a 9mm pistol from the gun safe in his closet, and to have begun firing it as he chased the three young black men from the house.
What is not disputed is that Christian Foster and Rashad Williams died that night from Edmonds' shots. Injured but alive, Renato Hughes was taken into custody later that morning, where he has been held without bail to this day. The man who fired the seven deadly shots walks free.

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

Maybe we should blame "the war on marijuana" for the deaths?

the house, and went in trying to steal it.
One of the suspects was actually armed.
They might have beat not only the owner's step son but also his wife, according to this article.
I am not sure as to what point do you think NAACP has?
That the owner brought it upon his family if he was allegedly selling pot?

I am against the criminalization of marijuana but technically he was a pot dealer (3 pounds on the premises). Why was he not charged? If you really want to get technical about it he used the gun in the commission of a crime (drug dealing). Others have gone to prison for that.

Since the suspects allegedly broke a glass door, and demanded the pot, then how exactly the guy was dealing? It's not like he was trying to sell it to them, according to the articles posted here.
Explain.

Apparently the poster is arguing that because the guy had pot in his house (for which he had a license), then he was actually dealing it even though the suspects allegedly broke a glass door and demanded the pot.

He was a known drug dealer, although he wasn't dealing at the time. The fact is he shouldn't have owned a gun. Why wasn't he charged at least with a gun charge if not for the three pounds of pot?

How so? Do you for a fact know he doesn't have a license for that gun?

http://www.federaldefensecases.com/federal-firearms.php

Prosecutions in federal district courts in the United States (U.S. District Courts) for violations of federal gun laws are prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office, and usually are investigated by the federal investigative agency known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF” or “BATF”). Commonly, these charges include:
1. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon;
2. Possession or use of a firearm in connection with a drug felony or drug trafficking felony;
3. Trafficking in firearms by an unauthorized person (not a registered dealer);
4. Possession of a firearm by a drug user or addict;
5. Possession of a non-registered firearm;
6. Possession of a non-registered automated firearm (“machine gun”);
7. Restricted ammunition;
8. Interstate transportation of firearms;
9. Prohibition of possession or ownership of body armor by violent felons;
10. Possession of firearms in federal facilities.
11. Possession of a firearm by a mentally defective person;
12. Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4525

personally decide he was guilty?
All the articles say is that he had a license for the pot. The articles do not say he was a convicted felon, an illegal alien, or any of the things you listed.
In US, people are innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that you decided the guy should not own the guy because you personally decided he was guilty of some of the things that would prevent someone from owning the gun. If you say the guy wasn't supposed to own a gun, then try to provide a link as to where he actually qualifies, and not because you personally think he is guilty of those things without him actually being convicted of any of it.

You didn't see that one?

This guy actually had a license to use pot.
How was it illegal for him to have a gun on these grounds?

In Lake county, which lakeport is located in has the following guidelines.

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

He was well over the limits set by the state of California.


Now look here Lizzy, I am just saying that the shooter is "questionable". Didn't really want to argue all day about it.

The article said he had a medical pot card.
From www. dictionary. com
License:
3. permission to do or not to do something.
He had a medical permission to actually use pot, so I don't think he qualifies as a drug addict who can't own a gun.

The federal government does not recognize California's medical marijuana laws.

Which is worse, beating a 19-year-old so badly he can't feed himself, or growing pot in your home for personal use with a medical marijuana card?

Seems like a no-brainer. So of course, they'll jail the homeowner for having pot. :eyes:

I am just pointing out that there are some issues with the shooter. I suspect that if he wasn't selling pot these thugs would never had come and kicked his door down.

As a side note I think it is time to do away with marijuana prohibition. The only reason it remains illegal is that the government can't tax it. It is a plant that was placed here by (insert your deity here) for a purpose.

perfect angel in order to act in self-defense.

I just love playing the devils advocate:evilgrin:

and see it if deals with prescribed drugs.

The feds likely feel otherwise, but possession is a state crime, as is felon in possession of a firearm, and he wasn't violating it. As for the three lbs? Out there in the hinterlands grow-your-own is common, as are large gifts to medical users from those who do. Unless it was all divided into baggies and not in the freezer or something, quantity alone isn't an indicator of distribution in a medical user.

Screw these guys.

As a judge, I could max the survivor out without the felony murder charge. I see little redeeming social value here, putting it mildly.

For instance, in Petit family murder, the burglars who broke in both were out on parole despite their previous convictions. Maybe the prosecutor is trying to make sure this particular alleged burglar does not get out on parole any time soon.

In Wisconsin, armed burglary is a maximum of 10 years in prison by itself, and I doubt California is much more leniant.

You also have an attempted first degree intentional homicide for severely beating the guy with the baseball bat.

If a prosecutor and judge wanted to throw the book at this guy, they don't even need the felony murder charges.

serve their whole sentences, they get out on parole, etc.

The prosecutor probably figures this thug will be back on the streets in 10 years, beating some other poor kid half to death, and he's probably right.

Some people can't be rehabilitated. Throw away the key.

the law (in most states) allows you great freedom on the use of deadly force in your home.

Aggravating factors here that justify response from the homeowner:

Night time break in.
multiple armed intruders
physical force being used

All of those by themselves justify a person using deadly force in their home.

A many on one assault with or without weapons alone, on the street at lunch time, justify the use of force.

Unless he ordered them to their knees and executed them, the homeowner is well within the law and common sense when it comes to force.

:nopity:

As every defendant deserves.

That's the rule. Most states have something like this. Wisconsin has this exact rule. Here, it sounds like aggrevated battery and armed robbery (using a bat on someone).

The survivor could be charged in this state. Whether he should be when the homeowner goes above and beyond necessary force is an entirely different question, but you CAN charge him.

longer take care of himself, what exactly do you consider above and beyond necessary force in this particular case? Also, one of the burglars was allegedly armed with a shot gun.

Police car strikes and kills someone in pursuit of robbery suspect.

Homeowner (intended victim of armed burglary and robbery) uses deer rifle to shoot fleeing suspect on his front lawn.

Victim of battery/robbery pulls gun and is a bad shot, kills bystander instead of attacker.

Things like that qualify as felony murder under most definitions.

-

Here, the force used is almost certianly reasonable, but the statute doesn't allow exception for "overkill" or "bizzare" results.

Hence, the homeowner's use of lethal force is arguably not "above and beyond necessary force," in this case.

It's important to remember that charging does not require that the prosecutor consider defenses or evidence that conflicts with a view of the evidence supporting guilt. Whether he does or not is a question of his personal practice. So long as there is a single view of the evidence that the shooter's behavior was unreasonable, you can charge him.

In something like this, there's always the inference that there was an execution, i.e.
--- "I give up!"
--- "That's nice MFer!" *BLAM*

Exactly what the circumstances of the fatal shots were is for forensic investigation. Testimony on these matters is never good, even if it's original (not in the newspaper) and isn't self-serving.

However, there's not much point in charging him since there's no way you could prove absence of self-defense and defense of others beyond a reasonable doubt, with one person having been pulverized by the baseball bat.

Even if it factually was an execution, which is very unlikely anyway, you probably still cannot get 12 people to find that killing the victim deserves to be called criminal, not with the brain-damaged son. Call it the "shitbag victim" problem.

they came into his home and beat his son close to death. The fact that anyone is alive means that the father showed great restraint or that one of the "people" got lucky.

The home owner had MORE than enough reason to shoot those men. The fact he chose a shotgun instead of a .22 is not relevant.

Short of placing a person under control and executing them or dead checking the 2 actors he is WELL within a reasonable response.

Shame the third walked out.

Shameful.

I can understand, although I don't agree with, challenging the felony murder type charges,but attacking the homeowner for shooting these violent criminals while they were still in his house is mind boggling to me.

and you're supposed to stand there and watch him die? The attack on the son was an attempt to KILL the son, and it left him apparently crippled for life.

Calling this a "legal lynching" utterly debases the thousands of people who were murdered by lynch mobs. This is a very clear-cut case of self-defense, just as it would be if the attackers were white. The victim in this case is the son, not his would-be murderers, IMHO.

And yes, I support medicinal cannabis use, and think the attempt to use that against the victim's father is pretty damn low.

You break into someone's home armed with shotguns and baseball bats, commit a felony robbery and beat the owner's stepson to within an inch of his life, what do you expect?

He's lucky he doesn't have a face full of buckshot. He ruined an innocent person's life (the 19-year-old stepson can't even feed himself), so while he shouldn't get the death penalty, he should forfeit his own.

The three were committing a felony and their actions allowed for the justifiable use of force by the homeowner.

Hughes' mother needs to realize the full aspect of what her son has done (including the beating of the one guy with a baseball bat), instead of whining about how her son's in trouble.

If I encourage you to come and steal something with me, and you get shot, I can see there might conceivably be a murder case against me.

If you encourage me to do so, or we go into it as equals, and you get shot, I don't think there should be.

I'm inclined to think that this guy should be charged with theft, assualt possibly GBH etc, but probably not murder.

Do you mean held a gun to his head and made him do it? Well, MAYBE that would be a defense.

Come to think of it, that probably WILL be his defense since the other two are dead and can't defend themselves.