- 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: Smith Shooter's Lawyer "My Client Was Not The Aggressor"
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:41 am to TitleistProV1X
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:41 am to TitleistProV1X
Hayes has never been convicted of a felony
Will Smith, fwiw, broke 2 traffic laws in :30 seconds by hitting and running, and then running a red light. Not to mention it will likely come out that he was driving under the influence.
Will Smith, fwiw, broke 2 traffic laws in :30 seconds by hitting and running, and then running a red light. Not to mention it will likely come out that he was driving under the influence.
1
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:51 am to Lester Earl
I understand the want of people to take in both sides of an event to try and be impartial, but it surprises me (with the facts as we know them) that so many in this thread have taken Hayes' side when his defense is entirely based on speculation.
He shot and killed someone. Unless Smith pulled a gun on him, this act is indefensible.
It's sad that America has become so callous to shooting deaths. This isn't the Wild West.
He shot and killed someone. Unless Smith pulled a gun on him, this act is indefensible.
It's sad that America has become so callous to shooting deaths. This isn't the Wild West.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:54 am to Salamander_Wilson
quote:
I understand the want of people to take in both sides of an event to try and be impartial, but it surprises me (with the facts as we know them) that so many in this thread have taken Hayes' side when his defense is entirely based on speculation.
He shot and killed someone. Unless Smith pulled a gun on him, this act is indefensible.
It's sad that America has become so callous to shooting deaths. This isn't the Wild West.
I haven't seen anyone take Hayes's side. Has anyone said "Hayes is innocent"? We have very limited information at this point, so anyone claiming absolute guilt or absolute innocence is basing that off of speculation.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:59 am to Salamander_Wilson
quote:
I understand the want of people to take in both sides of an event to try and be impartial, but it surprises me (with the facts as we know them) that so many in this thread have taken Hayes' side when his defense is entirely based on speculation.
i dont even think its defending hayes as much as just not liking made up or harshly skewed stuff just for the sake of creating a narrative.
odds are hayes was very much in the wrong, but theres a bunch to come out and no reason to rush to create a narrative of one guy being perfect and the other the worst human ever
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:03 pm to NoSaint
Last two posts hits the nail on the head
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:04 pm to TitleistProV1X
quote:
bviously since Hayes is a convicted criminal he had the gun illegally. Does this not have any impact on this case? Some
There is nothing obvious about this. I am curious as to know at which point did Haynes produce a weapon and if he was carrying it.
I don't know the LA laws on carrying a fire arm. I know Haynes was charged with illegal possession of a fire arm previously. But the fact he was in possession codien is what triggered the weapons charge. You can have all the licenses in the world but still catch a weapons charge if you are in possums of drugs illegally.
So,If Haynes wasn't getting his lean on again, he may have been well with-in his rights to carry a gun.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:11 pm to Rebel
So much unknown. When did he pull his is the question. Could smith have pulled his and then put it back because his wife told him to. It's possible
I posted early on what if someone put Smiths gun back in console or wherever it was before shooting. Was laughed at. Now it's a possibility that could have happened
I posted early on what if someone put Smiths gun back in console or wherever it was before shooting. Was laughed at. Now it's a possibility that could have happened
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:13 pm to NoSaint
quote:
no reason to rush to create a narrative of one guy being perfect and the other the worst human ever
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:21 pm to Nado Jenkins83
We'll have to see if fhere were fingerprints on smith's gun. His prints or a passengers.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:23 pm to cahoots
Unless a dirty ex cop wiped it down. What a shitty city
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:32 pm to GeauxTime9
quote:
Smith for sure ran into the back of Hayes vehicle. There is a video of debris falling of Hayes hummer.
I call bullshite. The video was grainy and it wasn't that close.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:32 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
You didn't stop when you ran into me
POW POW POW POW...
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:33 pm to cahoots
quote:
We'll have to see if fhere were fingerprints on smith's gun. His prints or a passengers.
it's his gun so his prints are going to be all over it (any CCL carrier should keep trained in the use of their firearm... so Smith would've been a regular at the range firing that weapon)
but yes... another person's fingerprints may play key to any kind of potential cover-up
Posted on 4/14/16 at 12:35 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Unless a dirty ex cop wiped it down. What a shitty city
I think it's well understood that Ceravolo wasn't at the scene at the time of the incident
I saw somewhere that PT23 texted him and that's when he returned... more than likely after NOPD got there
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:09 pm to rt3
quote:
think it's well understood that Ceravolo wasn't at the scene at the time of the incident
i feel like we have seen about a half dozen different speculations but no confirmation on the passengers in the back or who was in the impala. have i missed that? im not saying he was there, im just feeling like ive read different reports, shared them, and then had to go back on what they said later.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:14 pm to NoSaint
yep. only people we know names of that were there are hayes, his passenger, smith, and smiths wife.
we have also heard that the people in the impala were smiths friends, but according to the photos at the crime scene it was some gutter punk looking dude and his girl. it was also said that the people in the impala got out with their shirts off, whatever that means. I have a hard time believing that this 5'5" guy was being aggressive toward a 300lb black guy.
we have also heard that the people in the impala were smiths friends, but according to the photos at the crime scene it was some gutter punk looking dude and his girl. it was also said that the people in the impala got out with their shirts off, whatever that means. I have a hard time believing that this 5'5" guy was being aggressive toward a 300lb black guy.
This post was edited on 4/14/16 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:25 pm to diat150
i think its crazy that the NOPD originally stated "No other visible weapons were present at the scene" then shortly after that, Smiths weapon was retrieved from the Mercedes, after it pretty much became clear that smith had a gun with him. then fuller states that evidence tampering may have happened at the scene.
thats a crazy time line of events
-----PURE SPECULATION BELOW-----
i could easily see the NOPD or someone putting that gun back in the console after arriving at the scene, and i only say that, bc the wording used during the presser was odd enough to note at the time "NO visible weapon at the scene." sounds fishy and more specifically covering themselves and really getting out in front and saying smiths weapon was never brandished. almost sounds like a fall back for when they did find the (unknown but known) gun in the G63.
thats a crazy time line of events
-----PURE SPECULATION BELOW-----
i could easily see the NOPD or someone putting that gun back in the console after arriving at the scene, and i only say that, bc the wording used during the presser was odd enough to note at the time "NO visible weapon at the scene." sounds fishy and more specifically covering themselves and really getting out in front and saying smiths weapon was never brandished. almost sounds like a fall back for when they did find the (unknown but known) gun in the G63.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:26 pm to NoSaint
Ceravolo interview w/ WWL-TV
quote:
LY:How did you find out? What happened in the aftermath?
BC: I was in front of them, I was a few minutes in front. Pierre called me and told me what happened, and I went back to the scene, and that's where I ended up staying. I still couldn't believe it. Seeing him sit there, I kept waiting for him to stand up and pretend it was a joke, and it's not really happening. And it just was, real.
This post was edited on 4/14/16 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:26 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
That's not the standard. Damage or not, you pull the frick over.
quote:
Seriously? This is a really really weak argument.
Wasn't trying to argue for it or against it. I have watched all the videos and the Hummer really didn't pull over much. He didn't pull out of the way of cars following him and did not go into the parking lane by the parking meters.
It's like he started to and didn't. I would like to know why?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 1:28 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
i think its crazy that the NOPD originally stated "No other visible weapons were present at the scene" then shortly after that, Smiths weapon was retrieved from the Mercedes, after it pretty much became clear that smith had a gun with him. then fuller states that evidence tampering may have happened at the scene.
thats a crazy time line of events
-----PURE SPECULATION BELOW-----
i could easily see the NOPD or someone putting that gun back in the console after arriving at the scene, and i only say that, bc the wording used during the presser was odd enough to note at the time "NO visible weapon at the scene." sounds fishy and more specifically covering themselves and really getting out in front and saying smiths weapon was never brandished. almost sounds like a fall back for when they did find the (unknown but known) gun in the G63.
ORRRRR... and this is me spitballing here...
Smith's gun was in the center console/glove compartment... investigators had to wait for a search warrant to be signed to go into those areas to look for more weapons
thus... the officers are correct b/c only 1 weapon was truly confiscated at the scene... the murder weapon
Page 101 of 108
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News