Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Its never lupus
Joined
·
9,169 Posts
Thats such a messed up situation in so many ways.

edit- You don't go somewhere with a baseball bat trying to "buy" marijuana. He was justified, if he shot the two black men in the back it could have been bacause they were bent over his son because they were beating him (not because they were fleeing). But that definitely needs to be explained. These guys had previous charges against them (at least the survivor).

I don't however agree that the surviving black man (hughes I believe) should be charged with murder. He didn't murder them and he probably didn't force them to come.
 

·
teh car guy
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
well, sounds like a fun situation. For one, you cannot use deadly force (i.e. a gun) to protect property. However, you can use deadly force in order to protect a life. His son was beaten, and this was his defense

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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
I'm sick of these so called "rights" groups. The NAACP did some great things in the past but some of the things they do and say make me sick.

"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."

These guys broke into his house and were beating his stepson. He had every right to shoot them, drugged or not.

I don't think the guy should be charged with murder, seeing as he didn't personally kill anyone. But he is at least partially responsible for the deaths of his buddies.
 

·
Its never lupus
Joined
·
9,169 Posts
I'm sick of these so called "rights" groups. The NAACP did some great things in the past but some of the things they do and say make me sick.

"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."

These guys broke into his house and were beating his stepson. He had every right to shoot them, drugged or not.

I don't think the guy should be charged with murder, seeing as he didn't personally kill anyone. But he is at least partially responsible for the deaths of his buddies.
I agree with everything but the last part. Its possible his buddies just dragged him along. Of course he should serve time in jail but he didn't murder anyone, at most it was manslaughter.
 

·
Erect member.
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
I actually agree with the decision. You make the decision to rob a house, and then beat someone, you are asking for trouble. Now if the homeowner had been shot, and the stepson beat to death, wouldn't the third man be accused of murder anyways? His actions (going into the house and beating the boy) caused the homeowner to take action, which lead to his friend's deaths.


Anyone that breaks into anyone's house and beats a guy should be responsible for any ensuing damage. You get what you deserve.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top