Cali shootings and self defence

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
In another thread we talked of this before: The last paragraph is the same circumstances as that news copter crash that was covering a high speed chase we discussed about who should be charged.
So there ya go Leo the law is on the books making your wish possible.

Prosecutors said homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire Dec. 7, 2005 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.

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.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
But still... that has nothing to do with the helicopter case. The case you sited had a cop (persuer) killing a lady. The helicopter was getting the news. Big difference.

As for the dope house... I can understand the law, but still don't agree with it. Protecting yourself, your family, and your property (even dope is property) is what the 2nd amendment is all about. Even if you don't agree with me saying dope is property, then the first two come into play.

-True independence can only be gained if you're trully independant.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Hawk...In a far stretch it could be connected: both the cop and the TV crews were doing their jobs.

On the other hand if the homeowner was a known drug dealer it could be construed that "HE" instigated the situation by "HIS" illegal act.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
We've already been round n round in the first scenario.

Second one... like I said, I understand the charge, just don't agree with it.

-True independence can only be gained if you're trully independant.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
both the cop and the TV crews were doing their jobs.

OVM,
The presses job has nothing to do with law enforcement and they are there as a choice they made. Most of the time they hinder the LEO's work and even put some of us in danger. There can't be a comparison, nor the reporters who died are heroes to anyone.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I had a thought... Regardless of that person being a drug dealer, doesn't he have a right to defend himself? According to CA, he and his family should just take a beating or be killed? It flies in the face of the constitution.

-A bore is a person who opens his mouth and puts his feats in it. - Henry Ford
 
Top