- 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: Attorney for Smith family / Attorney for Hayes l Press Conference Recap
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:24 am to lsupride87
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:24 am to lsupride87
quote:
And not a single lawyer would agree with you
It's going to depend the specifics of the situation. Not every incident is the same.
quote:
I recently represented a man charged with manslaughter in St. Landry Parish for killing the ex-husband of his new wife. The ex-husband entered the couple’s home on the day of their wedding, and began attacking my client. My client is smaller in height and weight than the ex- husband and had reasonable fear of bodily injury. During the attack, my client shot and killed the ex-husband. To me, and also clearly to the jury that found him not guilty, this was obviously self defense. The intruder was unarmed, but my client’s right to defend himself with “deadly force” is protected under Louisiana’s Justifiable Homicide law. This type of law is commonly known as “stand your ground.”
quote:
“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.The key word here is “reasonably.” If my client had chased the ex-husband into the street and shot him while he was fleeing the scene, the killing would not be considered “reasonable.” In this hypothetical example, the ex-husband was retreating and therefore no longer considered a mortal threat.
Louisiana attorney Thomas Alonzo
1
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:25 am to Keeble9145
quote:
Everyone has proven you wrong on something
One thing, that a video, not a person, made me wrong on. But sweet hyperbole though.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:25 am to lsufan31
I wasn't replying to you idiot. What a tard
This post was edited on 4/14/16 at 9:26 am
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:27 am to lsupride87
quote:
Hayes having the gun on his person does nothing to make him the initial aggressor in itself.
So Hayes having his gun during a heated argument wouldn't place Smith in the position of imminent danger?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:28 am to lsupride87
Hayes became the agressor when he chased after him. Didn't call 911 and then rammed the G Wagon.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:30 am to WhoDat37
I linked the one above already and here is a popular one
LINK
there is nothing in the law that says if you shoot someone in the back it is not in self defense. nothing, nada, zilch.
I do agree that it will be harder to prove it was justified, but I think in the circumstances of this case as long as hayes was not the first person that mentioned gun or brandished his gun he has a chance to get off on self defense as long as it is proven smith was the aggressor and that he brought up the gun.
LINK
there is nothing in the law that says if you shoot someone in the back it is not in self defense. nothing, nada, zilch.
I do agree that it will be harder to prove it was justified, but I think in the circumstances of this case as long as hayes was not the first person that mentioned gun or brandished his gun he has a chance to get off on self defense as long as it is proven smith was the aggressor and that he brought up the gun.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:30 am to BigBrod81
quote:Of course it is. But that isnt what lsufan31 said. He is of the opinion it is impossible to have self defense if you shoot in the back. That is factually wrong in theory and practice
It's going to depend the specifics of the situation
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:32 am to 5Alive
did Hayes get arrested for hemming that chicken head up in the 9th?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:33 am to BigBrod81
quote:In itself no. In that case any person who conceal carries or a fricking cop could never use self defense.
So Hayes having his gun during a heated argument wouldn't place Smith in the position of imminent danger?
You are being an obtuse a-hole in this argument. If Hayes simply had his gun on him during the verbal argument, but Smith was the first to mention using a gun or possible reach for the gun, then Hayes having a gun on his person does not make him the aggressor.
Now, if Hayes took said Gun and brandished it in a threatening way, then yes it matters
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:33 am to BigBrod81
quote:
So Hayes having his gun during a heated argument wouldn't place Smith in the position of imminent danger?
no not unless he knew hayes was carrying a gun or hayes was the first to mention he had a gun or made a threat that he had a gun.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:34 am to diat150
quote:He is being a dickhead with this
no not unless he knew hayes was carrying a gun or hayes was the first to mention he had a gun or made a threat that he had a gun
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:36 am to diat150
I completely agree with the rest of your post
But, the example linked wasn't in the back, although the guy was believed to have been fleeing.
Also, intent seems like it would be important in that case:
But, the example linked wasn't in the back, although the guy was believed to have been fleeing.
Also, intent seems like it would be important in that case:
quote:
Witness statements and other evidence are not definitive on whether Landry knew Coulter was turned away from him.
This post was edited on 4/14/16 at 9:38 am
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:36 am to lsupride87
he is still mad that he didnt even read the case that he linked that was supposed to prove to everyone something that had nothing to do with this one.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:39 am to diat150
Why cant this thread end?
Can everyone agree to this statement?
If Hayes was the first to brandish his gun, if he aggressively slammed into Smiths car, or if Smith never reached for a gun/had a gun, he is guilty of murder
If Smith went for his gun, or had his gun and threatened Hayes with gun, there is a chance Hayes used self defense.
Is there anyone that disagrees?
And if so, how can you possibly disagree?
Can everyone agree to this statement?
If Hayes was the first to brandish his gun, if he aggressively slammed into Smiths car, or if Smith never reached for a gun/had a gun, he is guilty of murder
If Smith went for his gun, or had his gun and threatened Hayes with gun, there is a chance Hayes used self defense.
Is there anyone that disagrees?
And if so, how can you possibly disagree?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:42 am to WhoDat37
quote:
I completely agree with the rest of your post
But, the example linked wasn't in the back, although the guy was believed to have been fleeing.
I dont see a difference between shooting someone in the back or the back of the head. the point was that his reasoning was that smith had turned around so that meant he was removing himself from the conflict.
there was a huge distance between the perps in both of those cases where as in this case these guys were prob 5 feet or even less away from each other in very tight quarters in a heated exchange.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:45 am to diat150
quote:
I dont see a difference between shooting someone in the back or the back of the head
He wasn't shot in the back of the head. He was shot in front of his ear.
quote:
the point was that his reasoning was that smith had turned around so that meant he was removing himself from the conflict.
I agree.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:47 am to lsupride87
quote:
He is being a dickhead with this
Pot calling the kettle black. Don't get mad.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:50 am to lsufan31
quote:
neither one of those were claiming self defense, so.....try again. Stand your ground is different than self defense.
Has the Hayes camp claimed self defense?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:51 am to diat150
quote:
he is still mad that he didnt even read the case that he linked that was supposed to prove to everyone something that had nothing to do with this one.
It everything to do with this situation when posters are implying that Hayes had the right to shoot Smith if he thought Smith was going for gun. The case I posted involved someone getting shot where the shooter could not see the victims hands or did the victim have a fire arm. Sorry you can't handle having a previous situation that debunks some of your points brought to your attention.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:55 am to BigBrod81
I dunno how some of you guys don't have a headache from going round and round with this shite for days.
Page 47 of 69
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News