- 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: Will Smith Murder Trial-Guilty of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:56 pm to LNCHBOX
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:56 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:I am sure the prosecution would make the argument that if Smith was going for a gun, it was for self defense against Hayes.
Guess I didn't realize the dead guy was trying to claim self defense, or was the one on trial for that matter.
Fuller is setting up the fact that Hayes wasnt the aggressor, so he in fact is the one who invoked self defense
Not that hard to follow
2
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:57 pm to SDwhodat
quote:
I don't believe much of anything this O'Neil
The stuff I've read about his direct was devastatingly terrible.
Fuller did a good job of blunting it, it seems, but it was a lot of transparent stuff.
I think Hayes has to consider taking the stand. Its almost always a bad idea but he's fighting for his life here. I think he's really in danger. If he comes across intelligent and genuinely fearful he can do himself some good.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:58 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I am sure the prosecution would make the argument that if Smith was going for a gun, it was for self defense against Hayes.
Fuller is setting up the fact that Hayes wasnt the aggressor, so he in fact is the one who invoked self defense
Not that hard to follow
Without a gun on Smith's hand or actually out of the vehicle, that's an incredible reach IMO.
ETA: Absolutely love that I'm getting blasted with downvotes. Anyone care to explain what is wrong with my opinion, or is it just because it's me saying it?
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:58 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Fuller is setting up the fact that Hayes wasnt the aggressor,
All goes out the window if Hayes threatened with the gun. He becomes the aggressor.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:59 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I believe the same
I think Hayes has to consider taking the stand. Its almost always a bad idea but he's fighting for his life here. I think he's really in danger. If he comes across intelligent and genuinely fearful he can do himself some good.
Unless Fuller has a smoking gun regarding actual evidence, Hayes has to testify,
So far, there is no hard evidence Hayes had any reason to fear for his life
It is simply he said she said
Zimmerman had cuts and bruises to the back of his head, which was hard evidence of a potential reason to fear.
Hayes has nothing, yet.
And if nothing exists, he will have to take the stand to convince the jury he feared for his life IMHO
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:00 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Of course. But nobody has presented that from the prosecution. So I doubt the defense will
All goes out the window if Hayes threatened with the gun. He becomes the aggressor.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:03 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I believe the same
Unless Fuller has a smoking gun regarding actual evidence, Hayes has to testify,
So far, there is no hard evidence Hayes had any reason to fear for his life
It is simply he said she said
Zimmerman had cuts and bruises to the back of his head, which was hard evidence of a potential reason to fear.
Hayes has nothing, yet.
And if nothing exists, he will have to take the stand to convince the jury he feared for his life IMHO
Fair accounting.
I don't think he will though. I think they are going to hope they've created enough chaos to create some reasonable doubt, which is pretty much all Fuller is going. Lots of veiled questions, insinuations about other evidence that has yet to be presented, etc etc.
But so far all we've got is two guys talking shite, another guy with a gun firing in the side and then in back an entire clip, and another person shot in the legs...and the other guy may or may not have said he had a gun.
Hayes has to get up there but I don't think he will.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:06 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I thought you said the statute isnt reasonable doubt?
Fair accounting.
I don't think he will though. I think they are going to hope they've created enough chaos to create some reasonable doubt, which is pretty much all Fuller is going. Lots of veiled questions, insinuations about other evidence that has yet to be presented, etc etc.
But so far all we've got is two guys talking shite, another guy with a gun firing in the side and then in back an entire clip, and another person shot in the legs...and the other guy may or may not have said he had a gun.
Hayes has to get up there but I don't think he will.
If it is reasonable doubt, he walks IMHO. The state hasn't presented a concrete case to me that Hayes didnt fear for his life. I have had multiple witnesses tell me that the smith party was more aggressive. That puts reasonable doubt to me he may have feared
But I thought you said the burden of proof is actually on Hayes? That is why I posted what I did
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:07 pm to Fun Bunch
The thing I'm most interested in is where Fuller was going with the gun powder residue/Will Smith questions.
Could be he's just throwing shite out there and hoping it creates some doubt and talk in the jury room.
Could be there is some unexplained gun powder residue on Smith and the police covered it up...
But there's absolutely no testimony or evidence whatsoever that Smith ever reached or fired a weapon.
Could be he's just throwing shite out there and hoping it creates some doubt and talk in the jury room.
Could be there is some unexplained gun powder residue on Smith and the police covered it up...
But there's absolutely no testimony or evidence whatsoever that Smith ever reached or fired a weapon.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:08 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:If they find gun powder residue from a gun other than hayes on smiths hands, it is ballgame for me. That would frick the whole case up for the state.
The thing I'm most interested in is where Fuller was going with the gun powder residue/Will Smith questions.
Could be he's just throwing shite out there and hoping it creates some doubt and talk in the jury room.
Could be there is some unexplained gun powder residue on Smith and the police covered it up...
But there's absolutely no testimony or evidence whatsoever that Smith ever reached or fired a weapon.
But i think that was just fuller dropping doubt seeds
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:08 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But I thought you said the burden of proof is actually on Hayes?
The burden of proof that the shooting was reasonable is absolutely on Hayes. There is no question that he shot Smith. It is up to him to show that it was justified.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:09 pm to Fun Bunch
I'm quite certain fuller brought up the gun powder thing just to get the jury thinking about possible ways that his wife would have been shot. That addresses the attempted murder charge.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:09 pm to lsupride87
quote:
If it is reasonable doubt, he walks IMHO. The state hasn't presented a concrete case to me that Hayes didnt fear for his life. I have had multiple witnesses tell me that the smith party was more aggressive. That puts reasonable doubt to me he may have feared
There's always a reasonable doubt standard in a criminal case.
Its a bit different to describe when we are arguing self-defense. There's no doubt that Hayes shot and killed Smith. I believe the burden is on the prosecution to show that his fear was not reasonable and that he did not act reasonably. I could be wrong on that, its been awhile since I've looked at any of this stuff.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:10 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:If thats the case, guilty so far
The burden of proof that the shooting was reasonable is absolutely on Hayes. There is no question that he shot Smith. It is up to him to show that it was justified.
Neither side has proven anything to me
I havent been proven he didnt fear for his life
and I havent been proven that he did
So if the burden of proof is on Hayes(which seems odd), then he is guilty
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:11 pm to lsupride87
quote:
So if the burden of proof is on Hayes(which seems odd)
What is odd about it? He killed a man. That's a fact. He needs to prove that he was justified in doing so.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:11 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
When defendant asserts self-defense in homicide case, State has affirmative duty of proving beyond reasonable doubt that homicide was not committed in self-defense. State v. Starr
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:12 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:frick
Its a bit different to describe when we are arguing self-defense. There's no doubt that Hayes shot and killed Smith. I believe the burden is on the prosecution to show that his fear was not reasonable and that he did not act reasonably. I could be wrong on that, its been awhile since I've looked at any of this stuff.
Then I dont know which was I am supposed to vote
Put it this way:
If I dont think the state has shown he didnt have reasonable fear, but I also dont think the defense has shown he had reasonable fear, which way would the judge and law instruct me to vote?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:12 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:Seems like lnch was wrong
What is odd about it? He killed a man. That's a fact. He needs to prove that he was justified in doing so.
quote:
When defendant asserts self-defense in homicide case, State has affirmative duty of proving beyond reasonable doubt that homicide was not committed in self-defense.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:13 pm to lsupride87
quote:
So if the burden of proof is on Hayes(which seems odd), then he is guilty
Once a defendant raises that defense, the burden of proof is on the state to show that the killing was not justified.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:13 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I guess my vote would be not guilty then
When defendant asserts self-defense in homicide case, State has affirmative duty of proving beyond reasonable doubt that homicide was not committed in self-defense
Would you agree?(not with my vote, but with my process and application of the law)
Page 97 of 248
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News