Started By
Message

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

Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:21 pm to
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:21 pm to
quote:

but it's possible noticing it more because my opinion has been called ignorant several times by the WS camp


You don't know the law, and you think Hayes should walk absolutely free after all the evidence presented. How else would you characterize that?

Would you prefer it be sugarcoated?
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:21 pm to
quote:

So as long as he feels he was scared he can kill a man that no evidence has shown was a threat to him? No, I don't think that should be possible
honest question, what's the law if someone is threatening to you and you actually fear for your life, if you defend yourself you have to have evidence somehow showing that you were actually scared for your life? What if you drop a deuce in your drawz? Would that be evidence enough?
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:22 pm to
quote:

Personally I think he's guilty but it's gonna e hard to get the jury to convict... 10 out of 12 seems tough in a hazy case like this


Well, this board seems pretty well evenly split.....

Based on that he should walk due to hung jury.
Posted by Festus
With Skillet
Member since Nov 2009
86128 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:22 pm to
The standard is "reasonable" SS. Even if you feel it, if it's not deemed reasonable, then you're guilty.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:23 pm to
quote:

honest question, what's the law if someone is threatening to you and you actually fear for your life, if you defend yourself you have to have evidence somehow showing that you were actually scared for your life? What if you drop a deuce in your drawz? Would that be evidence enough?


If you don't have reasonable fear, i.e. fear that can be shown to be reasonable to others, you're not justified. It's not a hard concept.
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:23 pm to
quote:

You don't know the law,
awe man Mr LNCH, 4 days ago you were spouting off all kinds of shite garbage but now after reading a couple statues you're ready to take the bar exam huh?
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:24 pm to
You yourself admit you don't even know the charge Hayes is facing. But yea, attack me.
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:24 pm to
quote:

honest question, what's the law if someone is threatening to you and you actually fear for your life, if you defend yourself you have to have evidence somehow showing that you were actually scared for your life?


You have to convince at least 3 of 12 that your "fear of death or great bodily harm" was reasonable.

To me, that would require corroborating evidence. I guess each person interprets that differently.
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:24 pm to
quote:

If you don't have reasonable fear, i.e. fear that can be shown to be reasonable to others, you're not justified. It's not a hard concept.
did you even read my post you quoted? I said if you had 'fear for your life', I think one would assume fear for life is reasonable enough right?
Posted by tiger91
In my own little world
Member since Nov 2005
40230 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:26 pm to
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:26 pm to
No, I don't assume that just because you have fear that anyone else finds it reasonable.
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

I think one would assume fear for life is reasonable enough right


Absolutely not. People fire through doors at noises all the time. If they kill the milkman, was that reasonable?

ETA: Maybe and maybe not, depends on the circumstances.
This post was edited on 12/11/16 at 6:28 pm
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

You yourself admit you don't even know the charge Hayes is facing. But yea, attack me.
please don't be so obtuse, I'm seriously just trying to have a discussion I don't want to be in the back and forth bickering bullshite that you end up in in a lot of the threads you enter. Go find someone else for that.


And yes I know exactly what charges he is facing. Where did I admit that I don't? Serious question
Posted by Janky
Team Primo
Member since Jun 2011
35957 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:27 pm to
I don't know that I think he should walk, but a part of me hopes he does.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:29 pm to
You keep saying stone cold killer. That's not what Hayes is charged as being.

You say you aren't interested in the back and forth, yet you won't even educate yourself at all. And then you just talk shite to me when I correctly call your uninformed opinion that Hayes should walk free ignorant. Hayes should walk free based on the evidence presented. You seem to be the only person that doesn't agree with that.
Posted by tiger91
In my own little world
Member since Nov 2005
40230 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:30 pm to
I hate that this happened. I truly do for everyone involved. I'm no lawyer but it seems that CHs lawyer didn't do a great job ... why would he let his client lie (if he did) on the stand?? Evidence (assuming it wasn't tampered with) shows that there was ONE GUN, right???

Also, I really just want at the end of the day for the man to get a fair trial. And despite it being a former Saints player that was killed, how in the hell does a juror remember EVERYTHING without taking notes?? That alone to me makes nothing a fair trial.

Am I crazy??
Posted by PillPusher
Gulf Coast
Member since Oct 2009
5947 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:32 pm to
You don't get a fair trial when you kill a saints player IN New Orleans. The man was guilty by public opinion the minute he was arrested.
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

honest question, what's the law if someone is threatening to you (by physically making contact with you while someone is trying to hold them back and tell them to stop and then turning around and reaching for a gun) and you actually fear for your life, if you defend yourself you have to have evidence somehow showing that you were actually scared for your life? What if you drop a deuce in your drawz? Would that be evidence enough?


Fixed it to make it where I guess a reaonable person would possibly fear for ones life, but not sure what everyone feels is reasonable
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150355 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:34 pm to
quote:

Sid in Lakeshore
thanks for being reasonable
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89130 posts
Posted on 12/11/16 at 6:35 pm to
That's not what happens here. Nothing has shown Hayes to have any reasonable fear for his life. Certainly not from Smith. Had he shot Hernandez, there could be an argument. But the Smiths are who ended up shot and killed.
Jump to page
Page First 208 209 210 211 212 ... 248
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 210 of 248Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram