November 15, 2007
-
Murder and Racism
Renato Hughes has been charged with murder.
Renato and two of his friends broke into a house in California. The homeowner shot his two friends to death. Now Renato is charged with murder. California has a Provocative Act doctrine.
“The Provocative Act doctrine does not require prosecutors to prove the accused intended to kill. They have to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner.”
One of the residents in the home was beaten with a baseball bat and suffered brain damage. He can no longer feed himself.
But the issue of controversy is Renato being charged with the murder of his two friends who were assisting him in the crime. Here is the link: Link
Do you think Renato should be charged with the murder of his two friends?
Comments (87)
NO WAY!
I think he should be jailed, NOT convicted for murder! He did not shoot his friends, did he?
Seeing as how he wasn’t the one who shot his friends, I think that’s a bit ridiculous.
no but this is a highly contested law so it’s going to be interesting to see what happens.
Not for murder. For something else like breaking & entering the premise and add other crimes what he have done like assault to the homeowner if he did that.
No.
Not for his friends – that’s silly. They chose to be morons.
No.
Unless, of course, someone takes a time machine and alters events.
Why not, had he been driving drunk or recklessly with them he could and likely would be charged with involuntary manslaughter. There is a difference I know but it could be argued somewhat the same way, especially if he was the ringleader. Very interesting case. Might make scumbags think twice.
Only if he forced them to break into the house with him. Otherwise, they acted of their own free will and are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I don’t think he should be charged with murder. Committing involuntary manslaughter, maybe. Along with b&e charges, and assault charges.
it is a good law and in this case these guys were shotting people and beating them with a bat.
Yes he is a murderer. He damn well knew that someone was going to die that night. He had planed on it being the other guys and not his friends. But that is so irrelevant, he set the all a rolling and now hopefully it will take him out.
In California which is where I live and where the crime took place, in order to be charged with murder you have to met one of 5 man endangering states of mind.
1. intent to kill
2. Intent to cause serious bodily injury
3. intent to do an act extremely likely to cause serious bodily injury with a reckless disregard for the consequences
4. intent to commit a felony
5. forcibly resisting a lawful arrest
Hughes meets man endangering state of mind numbers 2,3, and 4 He was with a group that carried baseball bats into a home robbery so the idea was there to cause injury with someone and they beat a young man into serious health problems. so that gets him state of mind #2. State of mind #3 comes in with the fact he was conducting an armed robbery and it is not unheard of for people likely to resist getting robed and watching their son beat. #4 is the robbery and assault.
He only has to meet 1 man endangering state of mind to be charged with murder. he could possibly meet 3 out of 5. Therefore according to the law as it stands now, he is elligble for not only murder but murder 1 which is a death penalty eligible offense. If people don’t like this law they can sign up voters and get a referenda on the ballot to overturn the law. until then he is legally charged and the charges should stand.
‘ “This man had no business killing these boys,” Brown said. “They were shot in the back. They had fled.” ‘
They brutally beat his stepson.. they essentially ruined his life because they wanted weed?
I think rebe1186 brings up a good point if it was drunk driving and he was behind the wheel he would be charged. This wasn’t some gentle break-in gone wrong.. it was a violent home invasion and if they can prove he was the one who planned it out I’m kind of inclined to say he does deserve that charge. At the very least, I hope he gets a heavy sentence for beating that kid so brutally and so senselessly.
No
No. That’s ridiculous
No.
What? No. He didn’t kill anyone, accidental or otherwise. Charge him for the crimes he did commit, they seem plenty bad enough as it is.
What a strange application of the concept.
I’d say that there’s enough to charge Renato with that they don’t need to take on the extra risk/publicity of invoking Provocative Act doctrine. Seems like a bad idea to go that route.
I think he should have been shot dead by the homeowner.
Wow, my first response was to say “NO”, then I read rebe1186‘s comment and that makes a lot of sense too.
If the law says he can be charged, I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
How sad the “race card” is being played though.
Btw, thanks for your sweet and encouraging comments in regards to Steven’s death.
Much appreciated.
In the end, it went quicker then anticipated.
The fact that I am a widow, at this “young” age, still blows me away!
Here’s wishing you a wonderful friday, dearie.
Hugs,
Lelo
No…the story is twisting.
I see the point and it makes sense…however…I don’t think he should be charged with murder…I am usually the first to be nailing up the bad guy but he was in partnership with his buddies doing bad things…the homeowner had every right to do what he did and I commend him for doing so…but Renato didn’t want to happen to his buddies…it wasnt the intent..which I think is the flaw here…they aren’t looking at intent and I think intent is where all crimes should be looked at…just like I dont think the trucker should be charged with manslaughter for swerving to not hit the deer and loses control and hits another car killing those inside…
I have to disagree. There should be punishment, but not a murder wrap.
They could just as easily say that the two friends commited suicide by entering a situation that could “trigger a fatal response from the homeowner”. What the guy did was wrong , but I don’t think it’s a good law.
i dunno why people act like he’s innocent. him and his pals did cause severe enough brain damage to the kid that he can’t even eat himself anymore. murder charges are a bit weird, but their acts were almost as heinous.
I think Adam and Eve should be charged, since clearly everything is just a product of circumstances and there is no such thing as personal responsibility.
i was looking for how this had anything to do with racism…
Absolutely, he should
No, that seems a bit backwards. He should be held responsible for the homeowner who got beat up with a bat, though.
Am I the only one who says Yes?
Don’t break in and expect to get away with it.
Considering the kid that they beat nearly to death is so brain damaged that he cant even feed himself, I think that he should be charged with murder. The law was created for a reason. It wasnt like he went into this families house selling girl scout cookies. It wasnt like they were on their way home from church and decided to go buy some weed. They beat that kid with the intention of killing him! That kid will never have a life now. His life was taken, all his potential.
I also think that people should get kicked in the face every time they play the race card. This is not about race, this is about some evil hoodlum and his evil friends breaking into someones house, intent on serious bodily harm to everyone inside. If someone breaks into my house, I am not going to be all, “oh! you are vietnamese! i’m not going to shoot you, be thankful you are not black!” I am going to fire at ANYONE that breaks into my house, (especially you, Mr. IRS auditor).
If they were stupid enough to go with him, then they should be considered suicides instead of him having murdered him.
I think a lot of people are misreading the question: Dan asked if he should be charged with the murder of his two friends, not whether he was just innocent about the break in, and the attack of the boy who can’t feed himself anymore.
If the homeowner shot them as they were fleeing, regardless of what they did in the home, it is no longer self-defense because his life was not in immediate danger, it is revenge. the homeowner is responsible for their deaths as well
It sounds reasonable, but no, I don’t think so.
woah. brutal. but no, I don’t think that he should be charged with murder.
Yes. Someone should be held responsible and it shouldn’t be the person defending their home. Who would be charged then, the guy that shot them? I’ll feel real safe at my home if I’d be charged with killing the person trying to kill ME in my own home.
There ought to be enough other charges to put Hughes away for a LONG time. Is he guilty for killing his friends? No… They are already paying for their mistake.
Something else to add- Maybe the reason prosecuters are beng so harsh with him is NOT because he’s black, but because he has committed several other robberies in the area…
A lot of states call it the felony murder law. If while you are in the comission of a dangerous felony (robery, rape, home invasion, etc) and someone dies, you can and will be charged with 1st degree murder. Florida has such a law.
I say lock him up!!!
It ain’t about race.
I can see why they would charge him with that–they can say he led them into the venture, therefore he is just as responsible because he put them in the way of the bullets. However, they were breaking and entering and the homeowner can claim justifiable homicide, not murder. At this point, I’d say Renato can be accessory to that charge.
I see where they’re going with that, and its a pretty convincing story. But I have a buddy who’s a real fat ass, and we go out to eat all the time. If he has a heartattack and dies, potentially, under that law, I could be convicted of murder, and that’s why California is fucking retarded.
He did not murder. Period.
and for christsake, Paige, “he damn well knew that someone was going to die that night”?
I damn well know that I am probably going to get drunk and maybe do some driving, but that’s no reason for a couple of boys in blue to come in my office and arrest me…
I’ve heard of several ways of being charges with murder including actual murder, negligence, inaction and that death could reasonably be forseen. I can’t imagine how this is the case. The death of his “partners in crime” could hardly be reasonably forseen could it? As much as this man deserves to be punished, the interest of justice require that he be charged fairly. Attempted murder for the baseball bat beating maybe.
Wow, what a complex topic for discussion. Apparently some people in California think he should be charged with murder, or the law wouldn’t be on the books. Without delving into it, I lean towards frying him. Yes, I feel he should be held accountable for the outcome of his actions.
So should we charge Bush for murder for sending troops to iraq? I mean, technically that could “trigger a fatal response from the homeowner,” right?
Oh good grief. People should be charged with what they DO. In this case, breaking and entering. And perhaps being an accomplis, if he stood and watched one of his buddies beat someone with a bat. He should be in jail for a long time. It’s not THAT complicated.
Whoever actually beat the kid with the bat (with his own hands) should be charged with attempted murder, by the way.
“A lot of states call it the felony murder law. If while you are in the comission of a dangerous felony (robery, rape, home invasion, etc) and someone dies, you can and will be charged with 1st degree murder. Florida has such a law.”
i come accross a LOT of stupid comments on this site. thank you, max for being at least ONE voice of reason. you took the words right out of my mouth(and you have no idea how relieved i am that at least one other person knows about this.) of all the “intellectuals” and armchair philosophers that comment here, im surprised…. ok, i cant say surprised, but dissapointed no one knows about or understands the reasons for, this law.
“if the homeowner shot them as they were fleeing, regardless of what they did in the home, it is no longer self-defense because his life was not in immediate danger, it is revenge. the homeowner is responsible for their deaths as well”
my friends neighbor had his house broken into. the people who did it told him if he went to the police or anything like that they would come back and burn down his house and kill him and his family(calling him from his daughters cell phone which they stole). the police told him to turn off the phone. no, if you break into my house and threaten me, you die. thats it, end of story. i dont care if you are “fleeing”. you have proven you will come to my home to harm me once, who is to say you wont wait till im sleeping and come back to finish the job? the grave, thats who. if you are six feet under you are no longer a threat.i came to this conclusion after a man in my neighborhood stood at my back fence at about midnight, i go out to investigate the prowler, and he starts threatening to kill me and my dog. when the police show up, they threaten to arrest ME because i was armed.(i had two escrima sticks..ooooh scarry) they had no comment as to why they would take his word even though you could smell the alchohol on his breath 15 feet away and i was sobor and cooperative. but, i learned then and there, the police, at least in this area are not a viable option.
“I see where they’re going with that, and its a pretty convincing story. But I have a buddy who’s a real fat ass, and we go out to eat all the time. If he has a heartattack and dies, potentially, under that law, I could be convicted of murder, and that’s why California is fucking retarded.”
how, in the name of all that is sane and rational would you come to one of the stupidest conclusions on earth like this? how is going out to eat a felony or require any kind of heinous intent? are you poisoning his food? more than at least 80% of those who said “no” this abortion of logic takes the cake.
“He did not murder. Period.
and for christsake, Paige, “he damn well knew that someone was going to die that night”?
I damn well know that I am probably going to get drunk and maybe do some driving, but that’s no reason for a couple of boys in blue to come in my office and arrest me…”
having had friends killed by drunk drivers, i would agree to a point. i say they wait till you hop in the car though and charge you with attempted murder since it is forseeable that the outcome of drinking and driving could be someone dying. otherwise i say let me fire a gun randomly in town.. i mean why not? i like firing guns and maybe i will hit someone maybe not… im just having a good time, its not like im trying to hurt someone.
Well, never thought about a senerio like that, but I would say if HE is the one who talked his friends into helping him with the breakin, then yes I would say he should be held accountable.But then how to prove that is another story since they are dead and you know Hughes isn’t going to tell them he talked them into it.So I don’t know. Guess we’ll see huh. People that have know reguard for others and just take something from them or try to harm them in anyway, need everything thrown at them to the max for that crime.
ionekoa YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!
I gotta agree with Xtian Fruitcake’s post in that number 2, 3, and 4 are what he is responsible for. Hell, he could even be charged with attempted murder for the poor kid he did in with the bat. TOo bad the owners aim wasn’t good enough, we wouldn’t even be responding, there would be three no goods in the ground.
“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.”"
and i love this one… “yeah, we broke in with baseball bats and beat the kid brain dead because that’s a negotiation tool, we just wanted to get a good price” i’ll have to remember that if i ever want to “buy” something… i have been needing a high def TV, and i’d like to move into a nicer house… time to get my baseball bat and go “shopping”..
but seriously, the more things like this i see, the more faith i lose in humanity… and i dont have much to begin with.
I know this goes against the grain, but the guy should have the book thrown at him for what he and his friends did. Now if that means he gets murder 1 heaped on there by all means pile it on. I wish for the homeowners peace of mind that he had shot all three of them, it is going to be a difficult trial for his family. My heart goes out to them, not the ***hole that did this to them.
Racist arrest! ……….cr y me a river ball bat boy!
He should do jail time for armed break and entry, but not murder. The homeowners also should not be charged with murder since had the right to protect his home.
If he does get charged that may make other criminals think twice about who they hang out with.
I am so stinking sick of liberals ruining the nation with the left wing bleeding heart lack of right and wrong.
Do bleeding heart liberals ever bleed to death?
No right to ptotect his home? His kid was beaten brain dead for God’s sake! AAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
Yes. If it was not for his actions, those deaths arguably would never have occurred.
In Texas at least it makes no difference if they were shot in the back as long as they were still in the home, had they been outside it would be different you have to allow them the chance to flee. Inside the home it does not matter.
If his two friends were willing accomplices in the crime, then Renato should not be responsible for their deaths. They are responsible for their own deaths, I think. This is a dumb idea to charge him for their deaths.
Now if he somehow was forcing them to take part, that would be different.
I am sure he will face the penalty for the beating, though. He is definitely part of that.
Dear God, why do people do such stupid, terrible things?
Rebe1186 makes a very good point. Before I clicked over here to see what everyone else said before commenting, that was the direction I was thinking. I think he should be charged with murder if they can prove without reasonable doubt that he orchestrated the break-in.
HELL YEAH!!!
That’s a really stupid law; those friends of his are responsible for their own lives – their deaths should only be blamed on him if he coerced them with force to commit the robbery.
Fascinating case. I would say, “no,” because those people were adults and could decide for themselves.
YES! Only if he was the master mind behind the plot. If my son died because his friend encouraged them to hit up a house, I (as a parent) would want that friend be held accoutable.
I dont think so….
Weird law. I don’t know if he should be charged with the murder of his partners in the crime…but he should definitely get punished for beating the boy!
well, the home owner certainly shouldn’t be blamed, it was his god damned house. In Nevada, if someone even steps foot on your lawn to threaten you, can you shoot them and not be accused of murder because it’s defending your home.
no. he didn’;t have the gun. what he should be tried for is assault, battery and trespassing
No way, that’s ridiculous!
In Texas at least it makes no difference if they were shot in the back as long as they were still in the home, had they been outside it would be different you have to allow them the chance to flee. Inside the home it does not matter.11/16/2007 10:27 AM rebe1186 (message)
You gotta love Texas!!!!
no
And what the hell happened to his ears?
Not first degree. Not even second degree. Maybe not even third degree, but manslaughter. He should definitely be in jail for contributing to a murder.
He didn’t pull the trigger. But according to California’s laws he’s guilty of it.
I wonder how many would change their minds if the person who’s head got beaten in with the baseball bat was a loved one. I say hanging is too good for the guy. Act like an animal, expect to be treated like one. Don’t like that law, repeal it.
Uh, no. Roberry and assault, yes. But not murder.
I love how our judicial system constantly switches blame around.
err did he kill them? no.
therefore how can u charge someone of murder if they didn’t kill anyone…?
god the american system is fucked up >_>
hell yeah! he should be charged for being ugly too!
>… a long time ago, in a galaxy far,far away….. I studied police law, with the intent of becoming a law enforcement officer. There is a law concept out there, well documented in the courts, called ‘fruits of the crime’, which basically states that the outfall of a crime or fruits, which can include the death of a victim or perpetrator, would be the responsibility of the original offender,participant/s, if caught…. To bad, so sad he got caught at major stupid! Besides, where is the justice for the ballbat victim? No sympathy for ol’ Renato from this here corner of the ‘net….
Peace to you, but not him
I’m not even going to comment on the law. The only thing that I DO want to say about this is that I’m just plain tired of having such-and-such reverend go stand up for the accused black criminal and cry RACISM!! WHEN OH WHEN are they ever going to face the facts, stop making excuses for them, take in the truth, and acknowledge that Joe-criminal committed a heinous act (then grieve and lament over it)? I am just so tired of people not willing acknowledge or to take responsibility for their wrong doing. The mother’s response is really just astonishing. She shows no remorse to the family for what her son & his friends did to them…and she excuses all that they’ve done by saying they didn’t go there to rob the family but to buy marijuana. wow…what kind of mother thinks nothing of going over to someone’s house at 4:00 AM to buy marijuana?
Yes, I agree. It’s just like he cut the brake lines to someone elses car — you could just as easily say that was suicide because the person could’ve chosen not to drive.
Hmm…not really, no.
No, no, no, no!
no, because he was not the one who pulled the trigger