What do you think of California's Provocative Act doctrine? Is it racist?

Question

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?

EDIT: How this relates to the Jena incident is very clear - a crime occurred and the NAACP decides to complain about the criminal being charged to harshly - not even disputing that the criminal appears guilty!

Answer 1

The answer to your last question (here) is yes! Ask yourself this, had the roles been reversed, would the NAACP say anything? Anytime you put one race 's interests above another's it's racism pure and simple. So why they are allowed to exist is beyond me. Can you just imagine if it were the National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People? sound's pretty racist. Doesn't it? It'd bring out every bigot and fruit cake under the sun.
As for my thoughts on that particular law, I like it! It's called owning responsibility for one's actions -- even the unintended consequences of those actions. We should put that one into effect a lot more often!

Answer 2

The NAACP is a joke. Only neo-cons give them any credence. Most blacks today do not know or care much about the NAACP anymore.

How this relates to the Jena travesty of justice is beyond me. Care to elaborate? Oh, let me guess; A black person and a white person were involved. Great correlation. (not)

edit: Come on Marxist. These two separate events have NO relations to one another. When it comes to Jena, no one asked WHY this poor teen was jumped.

I mean, during all of the tension that had built up in Jena resulting from the nooses and lack of prosecution up to that point, why would anyone care if the "victim" called his "assailants" the "N" word which prompted his beat down? They should have just responded with: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" Right?

I wish people were this vocal during the 4800 illegal lynchings that occurred in the southern plains of this country. Lynchings over looking at someone who happened to be in a bad mood that day.