re: Attorney for Smith family / Attorney for Hayes l Press Conference Recap

It is impossible to know if Hayes had road rage. As of now, we know Skyh hit and ran, then Hayes followed

We also know there are skid marks at the second accident, which appear to match that of a hummer

We also know that Smith approached Hayes vehicle

Skid marks can lead one to believe Hayes tried to stop and not hit Smith


Where is this guaranteed road rage Hayes had?

please move this trial to Rapides Parish... please please please

(I'm guessing they'll just pick a jury of out-of-towners and bus them into Orleans Parish for the trial)

Hayes better pray its not from Jena

quote:

---

This is what you clowns can't seem to comprehend. The gun would have had to be visibly in Will's hands for Hayes to see to make this an imminent danger situation. That was the whole point of me posting the facts of the other case. Donald shot Jamison because he thought Jamison was reaching for a weapon under his seat yet Donald shot Jamison before ever seeing his hands. How hard is this to understand? The quotes I posted clearly stated the jury convicted Donald on these facts & not the lame shite you keep bringing up. Everything points to Will's gun still being in a compartment in the vehicle. From the lawyer's statement to the fact a warrant was issued to confiscate it. Had Will's gun been in plan view, no warrant would have been necessary. This is like discussing this topic with a hard headed toddler.

---

you clearly need to reread the case you posted.

again, you clearly dont know what you are talking about. nowhere does it say that someone needs a gun in their hand

quote:

---

§20. Justifiable homicide A. A homicide is justifiable: (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger. (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

---

look up the marshall coulter case. the guy got off with no issue despite no threat, shooting him while his back was turned, and no weapon

LINK

quote:

---

there's no way whatsoever Hayes's attorney can talk away 7 gunshot woulds to the back... none

---

Again, that's just overkill. That's really going out of your way to end a life. And his recklessness to shoot the wife too, whether intentional or not is even more absurd. I don't believe he had any intentions to kill the wife or anyone else.. but I absolutely believe he had intent to take this man's life in at least a moment of rage, if not something more. And if his wife got in the way, he got her out of the way.

It's absolutely absurd. And to have no emotion and be cold blooded about it afterwards? Even if you felt you had to do it, I think you would still acknowledge how unfortunate it was. But we shall see. I look forward to seeing it continue to play out. I am glad that Smith's side is coming out.

Here's the answer to your question as to why Merritt Landry got off you dumbfrick.

quote:

---

Was the single round of a .45-caliber bullet that pierced the skull of then 14-year-old Marshall Coulter the result of justified self defense or attempted second-degree murder?

---

In the Donald case & this one with Hayes, you have multiple shots. One shot is can easily be deemed not extreme by a jury because it can be viewed as an attempt to wound. Donald wasn't trying to wound & Hayes certainly wasn't trying to wound here. The other fact you failed to mention is Coulter's criminal past. Jurors could have easily felt he had what was coming to him for his past actions. Every case is different so you have to piece together similarities. Nothing about this case is similar to this Hayes case.

There was a case of a carjacking attempt just a few years ago in the state where the owner shot a would be jacker multiple times yet he was convicted because the jury thought his force was excessive. I've been trying to locate it all day but I can't find it.

quote:

---

you clearly need to reread the case you posted.

---

My reading & comprehension skills are fine. How about yours? Try reading this again.

quote:

---

Other than this description, Aaron never reported that one of Jamison's arms or his hand appeared or extended to be seen above the door. Any arm motion would have necessarily been hindered and obstructed by the door, the steering wheel and the partially closed window. Jamison's body was found seated, with his legs still below the steering wheel. Despite any abruptness of Jamison's motion, there was no demonstration by Jamison indicating that a weapon was drawn and was beginning to be extended around the steering wheel and above the window or that his body was suddenly turning with the door swinging open. Those movements had not begun, and yet Aaron clearly had his gun drawn and pointed at Jamison's head. Aaron did not testify that he gave any advance warning before shooting, not even by the sound of chambering a shell into his gun.

From the above evidence, the jury could conclude that Aaron was not presented with an imminent danger so as to justify a reasonable belief that the killing of Jamison was necessary to save himself from losing his life or receiving great bodily harm. Aaron had perceived what he believed to be a threat posed by Jamison and had initiated his defense by aiming his gun at Jamison. Jamison did not have "the drop" on Aaron. Aaron had the drop on Jamison and fired at a time when Jamison had not begun a threatening action from the confines of his car in which he was limited from posing a deadly threat.

---

All that was on top of a threat made by Jamison to Donald that, "I will kill you white boy."

quote:

---

Ahhh

So this will be a he said she said type deal? However, autopsy should be able to give details on where Smith was shot.

---

Already done... coroner's statement

quote:

---

A forensic autopsy was conducted on Monday, April 11. Preliminary autopsy results revealed the presence of eight gunshot wound tracks. There were no other traumatic injuries observed.

Seven of these wounds were penetrating in nature, with projectiles recovered and no corresponding exit wounds. These bullet tracks had entrance into the left upper back (1), left mid-back (2), left lower back (3), and left lateral chest wall (1). Many of these bullets perforated vital organs, including the lungs and heart.

One of these wounds was a perforating wound, with both an entrance and an exit wound. This bullet entered the left upper back, traversed soft tissue, and exited from the right shoulder area.

---

ETA: 7 in the back, 1 in the side

Fuller just said a bystander witness viewed a cover up but he will not make it public at this point due to safety