O.K. people, time to play "The Race Card" game

O.K. What do you guys make of this?

Little Bastards break into the mans home, beats the hell out of his stepson.. and now they're the one's that end up being the victims


Now you tell me... WTF's wrong with this picture

Neither of them should be facing murder charges, imo. The surviving robber should be facing assault and robbery charges, but not murder. That's just silly.

Little bastards break into my home with hostile intent and starts trashing the place and attacking my relatives, I'd have shot their asses too. The one that survived should have his ass taken out of society for at least the next 20 years or more.

Agreed. He should go to jail for the crimes he committed. But he should have to serve extra time over a bullshit murder charge.

I agree. And I don't think that the homeowner should be charged with anything. You break into someones home, you deserve to be shot, especially when you beat someone.

As I see it, the two dead criminals committed suicide.

Unless the surviving one was the ringleader of something.

Those "boys" had no business in that man's house to begin with.

It's racist that justice is being carried out without regards to color or creed?

"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."

This is not true. States do this all the time.

If you are committing a crime and someone dies then you are going to be charged with murder even if you were not the one to kill the person. Even if the person who dies was your partner in the crime.

Irrelevant.

It matters not what his position in the gang of three was. What matters under the law is that a crime was committed and two people died as a result of that crime.

He is now charged with their murders. Had he and the other two not decided to commit this crime then they would all be alive.

I speak not of the law. I understand what the law is, I just don't agree with it.

Speaking of this:

In Florida a car thief jumped into a pond while being chased by police. The pond had two alligators in it who proceeded to dish out some justice of their own.

The thief of course is dead and his partner who was captured may face murder charges.

http://www.local10.com/news/14597377/detail.html

The two deaths should be ruled as "suicide" instead. They knew perfectly well what could happen, so you can't blame the 3rd guy for their deaths. He didn't commit murder, they committed suicide.

What? It's their own logic I'm using...

It seems kind of arbitrary that the rarely invoked statute is being applied in this instance, butOK...

Count me in with 14thDoctor... Assault and Robbery, but no murder. The Homeowner should not be charged with anything.

That's a fucked up law and it should be repealed then.

Aw shit. Here I thought this was going to be a mid-season prime time game show because of the writer's strike:

[camera pans across an excited studio audience]
ANNOUNCER: Hello America! It's that time again!
STUDIO AUDIENCE: TIME. TO PLAY. THE RACE CARD!

Would it be hosted by Chevy Chase?

Cuz man, if he's as good at hosting gameshows as he is at hosting late night talk shows, we're talking molten gold in a dixie cup.

It would have to be 35 year old Chevy Chase. Is Monty Hall still alive? Because I think he'd be good. Otherwise I'd say Al Sharpton.

That's dumb. By that token, a person whose jaywalking (illegal act) led, somewhat improbably, to a death (say a car came round the corner rather fast, swerved to avoid jaywalker, hit mother and baby) could theoretically find himself on death row!

I dare anyone to defend that theoretically possible scenario and call it justice!

As a general rule, these laws (contrary to what the article says, not only do lots of states have them but they are used very regularly) are more carefully worded than that. You have to be committing a felony (jaywalking is not a felony in any state I know of) and the deaths have to be a direct (not indirect, as in "he swerved to avoid me and hit someone else"), reasonably predictable result of that felony.

Originally, if I understand correctly, the reason for these laws was so that anyone committing a felony that led to someone's death could be held responsible for any murders that were committed. Otherwise, two or more people could commit armed robbery and murder, for example, and even though it is known with certainty that one of them shot the shopkeeper, no one could be convicted because they could both claim the other one did it. I agree with that logic. If you are going to commit crimes where someone could be murdered, you are a partner to the murder even if you personally don't do it.

These laws have often been used (again, this is not a rare incident, and playing the race card by pretending the law is being invoked her merely because the criminals are black is just a lawyer's trick here) in cases like this, where the deaths involved are among those committing the felony. To me, this logic is more debatable. You are still responsible for a felony that could be known to lead to death, but there are no innocent victims since the "victims" are hardly innocent. If it was up to me, the laws could be worded differently to take that into account.

​

Three people break into my house, no matter what race they are, are going to take the dirt nap. No survivors.

I was under the impression that this is what always happens, regardless of race.

Call me King Solomon, for I have a wise and just solution:

Since the stepson suffered brain damage from being beaten with a baseball bat......drop the murder charges in exchange for the homeowner beating this thug into the middle of next week with a baseball bat right in front of his own "my boy doesn't deserve this" mother.
Then, serve cake and ice cream (through a straw for the now toothless thug). Discuss

Richard Dawson should be at the top of the list.

the survivor obviously didn't murder anyone so why should he pay time for it? the homeowner was defending his house, and i'm guessing he probably didn't know if the robbers were armed or not so he made the educated decision that they might be. i'm pretty sure any man in here would have done the same to defend his family. i agree with alpha and doctor.

they had the free choice on whether to walk in that house or not. maybe if he held them at gunpoint it would make a difference, but they walked in that house knowing that someone might get very pissed about it.

Or Gene Rayburn.

No doofus.

Jaywalking is not a felony. And even if it was a felony the most that the "jaywalker" could be charged with would be Second Degree Murder which carries a 15 year penalty and up to $10000 in fines.

However a person jaywalking may possibly be charged with manslaughter for culpable negligence because of their reckless disregard of the safety of others.