re: Will Smith Murder Trial-Guilty of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying the state has or hasn't met anything. I've been saying for days that you'll never find me riding these waves of declarations of victory that seem to change literally based upon the most recent question and answer asked to every witness. People really need to wait until the state rests to form an opinion on what has/hasn't been proven.

And again, in all honesty, this is absolutely going to come down to argument.

quote:

---

would say 7 shots in the back is specific intent to kill.

---

In a vacuum, yea.

What happened before is important. If Hayes was set out to kill Smith he would had done so off the bat. The eyewitness testimony of Hayes being distraught after the fact, and wondering how it got to that point illustrates that he wasn't out that night to inflict great bodily harm, rather he felt he needed to as the ordeal escalated.

Why did he key in on Smith & not anyone else? I think we all know the reason.

quote:

---

Disagree. I think it needs to be a little more than just "shite talking" for a weapon that wasnt already present to present itself. If you were already carrying your firearm openly on a hip holster then the presence of the firearm is immaterial. If, after the heat has been turned up you then expose your firearm in response, it could be a problem in most jurors minds. Assuming the verbal threats included threats of a physical nature.

---

That's a good nuance and makes a lot of sense, however, I'd think the fact of more than one aggressor, making threats and approaching, would be a pretty reasonable threat to great bodily harm; however context is everything. At a church picnic or PTA fundraiser - probably not as threatening as a dark deserted street, dangerous area and following a fender bender, where you hit their car. But again, context is key and even those examples could be skewed by other facts.

And it's confusing because the law speaks to justifiable homicide, but it's not clear at all about the distinction between drawing a dangerous weapon and using. Of course, pointing a weapon at someone without justification is a criminal act and civil tort, so there's that too.

We (all) should also try to be clear to differentiate our opinions between the law, the likely real-world effect (juries, prosecutors) and personal level advice.

But if he always had a gun on him why didn't he blast Hernandez? In your opinion

quote:

---

Like I previously said, I just don't think there's a way to illustrate a reasonable fear at this point without him getting up there.

---

I stand corrected from earlier. After reading what the state did to Hayes's boy today, it looks like he has to testify.

quote:

---

What happened before is important. If Hayes was set out to kill Smith he would had done so off the bat. The eyewitness testimony of Hayes being distraught after the fact, and wondering how it got to that point illustrates that he wasn't out that night to inflict great bodily harm, rather he felt he needed to as the ordeal escalated.

---

None of that is relevant to the statute as it is currently written.

All that is required is 1) a killing and 2) specific intent to kill.

it has caused a lot of confusion with the manslaughter standard but the truth is they overlap now and many many cases are interchangeable.

Many states require premeditation or planning or "a cool head" for Man 2 but not the case in La.

quote:

---

Wait what?

I feel like you are putting the burden on the defense again


The state has not shown me anything that tells me he did not reasonably fear for his life

---

You're overthinking. You are approaching it like the prosecution has to get up there and ask specific questions etc etc.

They can establish through testimony that his fear wasn't reasonable.

Then in closing they can talk about WHY his fear wasn't reasonable, because of this this and this.

The state hasn't even rested yet.

quote:

---

Absolutely. I just dont feel like they have

---

Ok. You're also not there. And the state hasn't rested.

What is reasonable about Hayes's fear, based on the testimony?

quote:

---

Ok. You're also not there.

---

That is crucial to this thread. We are not there listening to all the questions, seeing the witnesses and hearing their words. Trial by twitter is what we are getting.

quote:

---

It is one or the other, it can't be both.

---

I never said it is both.


I am telling you, based on what I have heard, I do not know whether his fear was reasonale or unreasonable

And somehow, you are telling me I am wrong for not knowing?