- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Grand Jury Indicts Cardell Hayes
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:35 pm to Nado Jenkins83
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:35 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Nado Jenkins83
It means that if you put up the statements Officer Williams vs a witness.
Plus, who is the witness? If it is the passenger with Hayes than it is taken with a grain of salt. Also if it is an acquaintance of Hayes, same thing. When was this statement given? If by a PI than it was hours but most likely days later.
1
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:36 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
but smith was reaching for something when shot, who was the 2nd "shooter"?????
Until, ballistics says there is a different set of bullets out there, I am gonna say there wasn't a second shooter.
Eye witnesses are wrong a lot. Ask Darren Wilson.
Regardless, I don't see how this is a sure fire self defense case even IF Smith had a gun. IF someone followed me and purposefully slammed into the back of my car I would be worried about MY life. Hayes was clearly armed when he approached Smith's vehicle, and shot him in the back. reasonable fear for ones life is a hard sell given all these facts, even if Smith was armed.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:36 pm to rt3
quote:
"Did you see any officers enter the G-wagon?" Fuller asks
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:36 pm to Throbinhood
quote:
No the difference is Donald said she didn't go in the car. That is not what she said
Did Donald misquote her?
If true that a white male appeared and carried off a gun I wouldn't expect to see anything anyway.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Regardless, I don't see how this is a sure fire self defense case even IF Smith had a gun. IF someone followed me and purposefully slammed into the back of my car I would be worried about MY life. Hayes was clearly armed when he approached Smith's vehicle, and shot him in the back. reasonable fear for ones life is a hard sell given all these facts, even if Smith was armed.
Hence the vehicle charges
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:38 pm to Throbinhood
quote:
It means that if you put up the statements Officer Williams vs a witness.
Plus, who is the witness? If it is the passenger with Hayes than it is taken with a grain of salt. Also if it is an acquaintance of Hayes, same thing. When was this statement given? If by a PI than it was hours but most likely days later.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see for trial when this witness is on the stand.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:38 pm to WhoDat37
Could Ceravalo have been carrying his own gun if he shows up to a scene where his friend was just shot to death and the shooter is 10 ft away still armed?
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:39 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
I guess we'll just have to wait and see for trial
Around here?
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:41 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Could Ceravalo have been carrying his own gun if he shows up to a scene where his friend was just shot to death and the shooter is 10 ft away still armed?
If he did, holy shite what a dumbass.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:42 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Until, ballistics says there is a different set of bullets out there, I am gonna say there wasn't a second shooter.
You think they would even purse the attempted second degree if ballistics showed that the round that hit Racquel was from Will's gun?
There is still a possibility of Will shooting his wife.
So Hayes pulls the gun. Will goes to retrieve his gun. He reaches over to grab the gun and Hayes shoots him. The gun goes off from Will getting shot and flinching from getting shot in the back. It hits Racquel in the legs.
It's still second degree murder
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:44 pm to Throbinhood
quote:
So Hayes pulls the gun. Will goes to retrieve his gun. He reaches over to grab the gun and Hayes shoots him. The gun goes off from Will getting shot and flinching from getting shot in the back. It hits Racquel in the legs.
it was stated that racquel was standing when shot, she was inbetween car and sidewalk i believe, she wasn't in passenger side.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:44 pm to Throbinhood
quote:
So Hayes pulls the gun. Will goes to retrieve his gun. He reaches over to grab the gun and Hayes shoots him. The gun goes off from Will getting shot and flinching from getting shot in the back. It hits Racquel in the legs.
It's still second degree murder
If that's the case then Racquel Smith has lied her arse off.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:45 pm to SammyTiger
quote:given all these facts huh?
F someone followed me and purposefully slammed into the back of my car I would be worried about MY life. Hayes was clearly armed when he approached Smith's vehicle, and shot him in the back. reasonable fear for ones life is a hard sell given all these facts, even if Smith was armed.
The only one of those that is a fact is that Smith was shot in the back.Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:46 pm to Throbinhood
let's remember that the private investigator that Fuller brought in is not admissible in the actual trial
they would have to produce the actual witness who said that they saw someone remove a gun from Smith's vehicle.
until then... that's all dust in the wind and nothing more
they would have to produce the actual witness who said that they saw someone remove a gun from Smith's vehicle.
until then... that's all dust in the wind and nothing more
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:47 pm to rt3
quote:
let's remember that the private investigator that Fuller brought in is not admissible in the actual trial
they would have to produce the actual witness who said that they saw someone remove a gun from Smith's vehicle.
until then... that's all dust in the wind and nothing more
Of course. But goddamn that's a bold fricking statement to make if it's completely fabricated.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:48 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
it was stated that racquel was standing when shot, she was inbetween car and sidewalk i believe, she wasn't in passenger side.
True. I just don't see anyway Will could have shot her like some claim. But there is a lot in this case that doesn't make sense.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:49 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Of course. But goddamn that's a bold fricking statement to make if it's completely fabricated.
if Fuller's paying you a quarter mill (or maybe more... just spitballing here) to make it and there's almost no ramifications against you... would you make it?
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:49 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:
given all these facts huh? The only one of those that is a fact is that Smith was shot in the back.
no they are pretty much all facts.
We know Smith was rear ended.
We know Hayes was armed because he shot Smith. ITs really hard to shoot someone when you are unarmed. DO you think Hayes say Smith's gun, ran back to his car, got a gun ran back to Smith's car and someone shot him in the back?
Now you can argue that he didn't intentionally rear end him, whatever. We know he followed him and rear ended him.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:49 pm to Throbinhood
Since he was charged with attempted 2nd degree murder on her does that mean ballistics matched Hayes' gun?
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:50 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Of course. But goddamn that's a bold fricking statement to make if it's completely fabricated.
Not really, par for the course for this kind of hearing and this kind of defense.
Again, right now, his job is to poison the jury pool as much as possible with every thing he can possibly think of to plant the seeds of reasonable doubt.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News