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.
Sound like a very reasonable, common sense anti-crime measure, doesn't it? Well, the NAACP doesn't seem to think so:
LAKEPORT, Calif. (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.
The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes, who also faces robbery, burglary and assault charges
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/break_in_murder_18
First the Jena incident, and now this...does the NAACP now exist solely to excuse or trivialize criminal behavior?
2007-11-16
15:02:08
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics