“Our country has a disgraceful history of denigrating, prosecuting, and lynching Black men for talking to white women,” Hummel told KTVZ. “Over the last week, literally hundreds of people called and emailed me to remind me of this history.”
But Hummel told KTVZ that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Hummel with a hate crime.
When asked what kind of evidence would be needed to charge Cranston with a hate crime, Hummel told Insider that “Oregon’s bias-crime law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cranston’s decision to shoot Barry Washington was based in part on his perception of Mr. Washington’s race.”
Cranston’s attorney, Kevin Sali, told KTVZ that Washington assaulted Cranston “without provocation, resulting in head injuries that required the police to take Mr. Cranston to the hospital, where a brain scan and other procedures had to be performed.”
“Indisputable video evidence also demonstrates that, in direct contrast to the district attorney’s public statements, that unprovoked assault was still actively in progress when the single shot was fired,” Sali said.
Sali’s comments indicated that he believed his client was justified in shooting Washington, but Hummel said in another interview that he didn’t think the case cleared the high bar for using a gun in self-defense under Oregon law.
“You can only use deadly physical force if you or someone else is about to be killed or about to be seriously physically injured,” Hummel told Central Oregon Daily. “There is no allegation here that Mr. Washington was trying to kill anyone, or trying to seriously physically injure anyone. There are allegations that there was some pushing and shoving going on, but that does not come anywhere near the level that must be shown by someone before you can legally take a gun out and kill them.”
“If Mr. Cranston thinks that what he did was appropriate, he’s sadly mistaken,” he continued.