re: Fully loaded 9mm found in Smiths car

Jeeze LE, you're putting in some serious time over this shite. You related to this Hayes cat or something?

quote:

---

But please enlighten us with your knowledge of the law.

---

That fact that Hayes was outside of his vehicle (his property) all but removes any defense for stand your ground. Smith would have had to approach Hayes'vehicle in a threatening matter with Hayes still inside for him to have any argument for stand your ground.

quote:

---

The OPD spokesperson pulled from Louisiana Criminal Law (RS 14:19), the section entitled "Use of Force or Violence in Defense."

In Louisiana, the law is specifically written for non-homicide situations. It reads, “A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.”

The subjectivity comes into play with the word “reasonable.” Later, the law clarifies that the shooter is never expected to retreat, provided he or she had a “reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable” to prevent the trespasser’s unlawful entry into his or her home (vehicle).

---

quote:

---

The legal expert clarified that the issue becomes murkier if the shooter kills the perceived intruder. "Basically, if you're inside property (house, business, car), you can use force to stop someone if you know someone is trying to get into the property that you are presently in," said the attorney. Therefore, the defense will likely try to prove that Landry was trying to prevent Coulter from entering his home.

“You can use deadly force if the person making the entry is likely to use force against an occupant OR if the force is necessary to stop the unauthorized entry

---

quote:

---

The shooter must believe that he or she was in “imminent danger” of losing his or her life, that the INTRUDER was planning to use unlawful force to burglarize or rob his or her property, or that deadly force was the only means of removing the INTRUDER from the premises.

---

LINK

I find that a little hard to believe.

quote:

---

Manager at Sake said that none of the Smith party were impaired.

---

It doesn't matter what the manager said. The toxicology report will tell us if Smith was under the influence

so you are saying they wont find any alcohol in his system?

quote:

---

Don't mind LE he stated in a thread that got deleted that he was related to hayes. He's trying to prove his innocence.

---

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Captain Save a Hoe mayne!!!

quote:

---

He was shot in torso and back. There is no scenario in my opinion that justifies both.

---

Ummm... "if" smith had his gun and was turned towards hayes the first shot from hayes enters torso and it spins smith. Hayes continues firing to neutralize the threat from smith.

So there is a "possible" scenario that COULD justify the actions of hayes

Whatever she says, I will expect a video/report in the next few hours that shows the exact opposite

And then when you point it out, she and others will say it doesn't matter and "you must be related to Hayes" for pointing it out

He's going to jail, period. If they don't get murder, for sure his gun wasn't registered and he had no cc permit.

The scenario is Smith grabbed his gun when a mad beast was approaching his car. All 100% legal.

The hit and run DOESN'T MATTER. It was over, although it was a crime, doesn't justify chasing and assaulting people because you're mad. And then walking up to their car with a loaded illegally possessed gun and shoot NINE TIMES!

Here is the thing Lester:

They argued for a day saying Smith didn't hit and run and smith didn't have a gun.

Then, when he did, they say oh well it doesn't matter

If they didn't think it mattered, why did they make shite up and argue so much about it before?