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

quote:

---

he is. foret was the one who boomed the tweets long ago about riveting detail about the case that Cardell HAYES WILL WALK and i'm pretty sure that meant WITHOUT a trial.

So you should ask yourself, in these 6 months, has Foret been right about shite in the case getting spoon fed crap from fuller camp.

---

Can you admit you are wrong?

Lebron

Hayes charging like an animal

Foret being a hack

My dick not being 11 inches



You are just never right, but cant admit it

Reading O'neal's testimony it seems like the jury will have to decide who to believe Him or Racquel.

quote:

---

wonder if that means the prosecution will try to finish presenting its case today

---

maybe. depends on how fast drew gets lunch delivered

quote:

---

Reading O'neal's testimony it seems like the jury will have to decide who to believe Him or Racquel.

---

I wouldnt believe either of them. Only way I would not convict at this point is if one or more witnesses comes forward and says smith talked bout getting a gun.

quote:

---

Only way I would not convict at this point is if one or more witnesses comes forward and says smith talked bout getting a gun.

---

I tend to agree. It's gonna be interesting to see if Fuller can spin this in the other direction though.

quote:

---

I wouldnt believe either of them. Only way I would not convict at this point is if one or more witnesses comes forward and says smith talked bout getting a gun.

---

which is exactly why we're currently in recess

Fuller knows his ship is sunk unless something huge changes

everyone pay attention. this is why you never talk to the police, or give any statements to anyone at the scene of a crime. anything you say can and will be used against you.

quote:

---

Im not sure if people realize that....

If the prosecution wasnt "winning" at this point, it would be a colossal frickup

---

yeah... but how many times does the prosecution have the defendant's best friend shoot the defense's case to hell?

quote:

---

yeah... but how many times does the prosecution have the defendant's best friend shoot the defense's case to hell?

---

About as often as the prosecutions trashy friend blows part of their case up

quote:

---

you can't take out a gun in an argument and not expect others might then feel the need to protect themselves therefore only you have the legal right to shoot people dead because you showcased your gun first.

---

That's not what I said. The poster incorrectly stated that Hayes must believe "his life was reasonably in danger before he mentioned or took out a gun" which mistakes the issue in 2 ways: what level of threat is perceived (GBH, great bodily harm is also a standard) and to what action does it apply (it doesn't apply to drawing a gun only to using deadly force). My comment was to the implied "requirement" for grabbing a gun. Now once you have armed yourself, that will almost certainly instill that same threat to your attackers, who may seek to arm themselves, which would only elevate your threat level even more.

Pretty tricky stuff in a case like this.

To murk it up even more, is the duty to retreat or lack thereof. It seems that assuming things from Hayes' perspective were true, and he was being attacked, meaning the other party(ies) were acting unlawfully, he would have no duty to retreat, but the attackers, would have that duty even if they felt threatened with death or GBH. Now, if he/they retreated and Hayes went after him/them, that's where it gets even more funky. At what point has Hayes lost his defense due to the retreat removing the threat he initially perceived? Is it measured by distance or time?

From Smith's perspective, even if he and his crew were initially acting unlawfully in going after Hayes (not a fact that I'm aware of btw), once Hayes drew his weapon, Smith would have a duty to retreat, but after doing so, shouldn't he then be justified in using deadly force if Hayes pursued him?