- 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: Will Smith Murder Trial-Guilty of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:08 am to Nado Jenkins83
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:08 am to Nado Jenkins83
no but based on how he took off after the G-wagon it is easier to infer that it was intentional than that it wasn't.
But either way we are forming opinions, not stating facts.
But either way we are forming opinions, not stating facts.
2
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:10 am to Napoleon
quote:
But either way we are forming opinions, not stating facts.
he may have "rammed" it. but nobody can prove that.
nobody.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:12 am to Napoleon
quote:I disagree. I would say it is the most probable he was tailing them to get a license plate
no but based on how he took off after the G-wagon it is easier to infer that it was intentional than that it wasn't.
But either way we are forming opinions, not stating facts.
That is the most probable outcome of the reasons he was following after an alleged hit and run
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:17 am to lsupride87
quote:
I disagree. I would say it is the most probable he was tailing them to get a license plate
That is the most probable outcome of the reasons he was following after an alleged hit and run
That's opinion and not fact.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:18 am to TigerFred
quote:I think the probability is a fact
That's opinion and not fact
However, it is my opinion that I believe the most likely provability is what was occurring
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:19 am to Chad504boy
Is there a site I can read trial testimony? Reading Lawyers trying to out lawyer each other is not what I signed up for.
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 11:20 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:26 am to rt3
Ramon Antonio Vargas' tweets have been very good.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:27 am to Rocky4LSU
You lawyers try batting this around...If hayes was a good enough shot to hit RS twice in the legs, why didn't he just cap WS twice in the legs while he was walking to the doorside if he was in fear for his life? 2 hits with a .45 is enough to negate the threat and his progress to retrieve his weapon, trust me.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:39 am to Rocky4LSU
quote:
why didn't he just cap WS twice in the legs while he was walking to the doorside if he was in fear for his life? 2 hits with a .45 is enough to negate the threat and his progress to retrieve his weapon, trust me.
because most people that have never fired at another human don't think about much at all.
they panic. hence why most keep firing until out of ammo
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:42 am to TigerFred
quote:
Twitter Different people to follow:
Thanks for posting that.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:44 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Except that's not what happened because Hayes isn't a cop
Doesnt matter. You have just as much right to open carry a firearm as a LEO does in this State.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:49 am to nola000
looks like fuller is killing it right now
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:55 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
quote:
Next time a cop Slams into the back of your vehicle on purpose so hard it blows out your back window
FIFY
That hasnt been established in court. By "that" I dont mean that he rear-ended him. Thats understood. It hasnt been established why he rear-ended him.
1. Accident by C. Hayes - May have been an honest accident because he was following too close trying to get the license plate number. After all, C. Hayes was chasing him because W. Smith allegedly damaged his vehicle. Why would he purposely add to that damage himself?
2. Intent by C. Hayes - C. Hayes was angry and vindictive. Although it seems to have been established that he was the calmest individual on the scene so this scenario seems unlikely. Plus, above.
3. Intent/Accident by W. Smith - W. Smith brake-checked him on purpose because he was following him. Maybe wasnt expecting an actual accident but was trying to scare him off his tail. W. Smith was highly intoxicated so maybe he underestimated his own rate of speed and/or deceleration.
4. Accident by W. Smith - W. Smith was highly intoxicated and didnt notice the vehicle in front of him slowing and starting braking too late and got rear-ended by C. Hayes who was following too closely.
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 11:56 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:02 pm to nola000
How does the DA not object to this question?
quote:
Ramon Antonio Vargas Verified account
?@RVargasAdvocate
J. Fuller: If facts were same but roles were reversed, would Will Smith be sitting at the defense table today? K. O'Neal: I doubt it.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:04 pm to TigerFred
I think that's allowed during a cross examination.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:04 pm to nola000
Reading about the testimony of this O'Neil character and also Hernandez yesterday, why couldn't they have just shot each other 
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:05 pm to reddman
quote:
I think that's allowed during a cross examination.
yeah... Foret now saying the State calling O'Neal may have been a mistake b/c leading questions can be asked on cross
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:06 pm to TigerFred
Sounds like pure speculation
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:08 pm to SDwhodat
quote:What was O'Neils problem?
Reading about the testimony of this O'Neil character and also Hernandez yesterday, why couldn't they have just shot each other
It isn't his fault the Mexican maniac wanted to fight him
Page 94 of 248
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News