re: Smith Shooter's Lawyer "My Client Was Not The Aggressor"

Wait, so you are saying "seeing the gun is a reasonable threat", but not someone "telling you they have one"

That makes no sense

I haven't seen the police say there definitively isn't a second gun. I've just seen them say they've impounded all the cars and are in the process of searching them.

quote:

---

are you a lawyer?

---

I was sure this would be your response. But I assure you I am correct. The jury won't care about your video. You are knighting so hard for this guy it's quite intriguing.

quote:

---

You are knighting so hard for this guy it's quite intriguing.

---

It really is quite bizarre, and it literally started as soon as it happened. Very odd.

quote:

---

Right. Say Smith claimed he had one while they were talking shite and then ran to his car. Does Hayes have to confirm there is a gun before shooting?

---

I'm no lawyer and this is only from my uneducated viewing of crime shows like "First 48" (so my opinion means nothing but me just talking about the topic at hand)...

but unless he is actually returning fire he is considered the aggressor

if the investigators didn't find a gun in Smith's possession (in car or on his person) then there's no way the defendant isn't guilty of AT LEAST manslaughter or negligent homicide

and as someone else said... how could Smith have had a gun and it not be general knowledge by now? the investigators know everyone's eyes are on this case... and Supt. Harrison was pretty certain that there was no second gun on the scene

I dont have any motive, It's just interesting to me for several reasons

1) I recently went through concealed weapon training so a lot of this is still fresh in my mind. As someone that carries on occasion, I wouldnt want to be vilified if I had to lawfully use my weapon.

2)The way people reacted to the story was mind numbing to me. People automatically assumed Hayes was guilty, and because Will Smith was a Saints player, that he was innocent. Why do people think athletes cannot do wrong? People assumed this was an assassanation type murder and it simply didnt add up to that if you looked the facts.

3)And most importantly, nothing that was being said originally added up. I just wanted to see the facts. And as the facts have started to come out, they have only backed up most of my assertions. I still dont know if Hayes is innocent, Ive never said once he was innocent. Im just not going to sit here and blindly defend Smith because he was Saint. Again, just going off the facts. Hayes seems to have thought he was defending his own life.

I'm a lawyer as well and while there's some truth to what he's saying it's mostly not true.

Juries want you to have seen a gun to make the imminent danger reasonable. It's not necessarily the case. Smith retreating to his car works drastically against him, as does the previous "accident" (I see no evidence of impact) and the subsequent rear collision. Everything I've seen works against Hayes.

quote:

---

Where was the shooter when he fired the gun?


Im not really caught up on the story

---

my point is no one knows.

people keep saying Hayes followed smith back to his car. No one yet knows directly where Hayes was when he fired, nor does anyone know if Smith even left the vicinity of his driver side door.

for all we know, Hayes was near Smith's driver door, and Smith was standing up but inside his door, and turned to reach for his gun.

I just dont get why people keep saying he followed him to his car as if to engage. And people ask why I keep posting "in Hayes defense"....frick, its not that hard to use the facts given

quote:

---

Smith retreating to his car works drastically against him,

---

How so? If smith says I have a gun and then heads to his car, is it not reasonable to think he is on his way to get said gun?

I think if that is proven that helps Hayes

If Smith never actually got out his car then Hayes is screwed and guilty as sin