It sucks because it's crime that will be used against the whole gun rights thing.
Clinton drug deal leaves man dead; three arrested.
- Thread starter charlie12
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It sucks because it's crime that will be used against the whole gun rights thing.
If I got butt stroked in the face, I'd be worried my life was in danger too, illegal or not. IMO, he was defending himself, but he recklessly put himself in a situation where there could be a bad outcome.
Legally though, he is probably screwed. I'm glad I don't do that kind of stuff.
True then again remember how the anti's reacted last week on the reciprocity bill that failed. They were worried about people carrying Concealed Weapons into other states concealed. So they were happy it failed
No access at work. Is it riddled with Gangsta OG junk?
What's his full name?
You are 100% correct, SPEEDING is far more dangerous inherently and deaths caused by speeding should be prosecuted to the highest rational ability...that is, a Person consciously engages in speeding which they KNOW is dangerous and could possibly add to the chances of a Fatal accident...thus making is a Pre-Meditated event.
Buying drugs is inherently -harmless- until people add factors of violence or danger to them! It is no different than buying a Snickers bar from Circle K, except that the drugs are illegal and the buyer and seller do not pay taxes. So yes, I agree 100% but probably not how you expected or believe.
You, as a police officer, probably see the exception to the rule. For every 1 violent drug dealer that you arrest there are hundreds, or thousands, of non-violent drug dealers that you have no idea exist...many of them are college students, professors, laborers, parents, POLICE OFFICERS, lawyers...I have known and seen all of them in my less responsible days. You may have not.
-Every- speeder knows that the danger is increased, and -every- speeder make a conscious decision to speed. Not every drug buyer or dealer, or illegal drug transaction, is violent or has any risk of violence or killing innocent people...I would argue that the vast majority are completely harmless in nature and activity. They make a conscious decision to break the law, but that decision in most cases does not lead to violence or harm of any human being. If drug deals were violent by nature drug use wouldnt be so prevalent in our society.
Last edited:
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
I understand and agree with your argument in THEORY. It just does not work out well in life.
dats some tyte trax rite dere ya herrd
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
Nothing crazy or OMGish.
He be laying dem beats. You kinda have to hear dem dope assss beats.
Kinda funny he was around dsrug dealers. I find that so hard to believe in his chosen occupation.
"Get at me for dat price"
This is the part where the jury holds the guy to the standard of what a group of his peers would see as reasonable, i.e. it is reasonable to conclude that in shooting a person with a gun one had specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm as a reasonable person would expect that to be the outcome of such action.
Actually it does, every day millions of drug deals happen without violence. You see the exception because it is your job to, but you probably do not do drugs, probably havent ever been a drug user or buyer, and you have probably never been part of, though you may have seen, those peaceful drug deals going down.
You do, however, see people every day making rational decisions to speed and put innocent lives at risk. You also probably speed because you can get away with it, where as non-Leos may speed regardless of being able to get away with it or not. You also see a lot of dead people in accidents, speeders and not, because of those rational decisions that people make.
The difference, neither party in a drug deal is innocent yet it is not harmful in most cases. Speeding may be harmless in most cases but in the vast majority of cases with accidents there is one party who is not innocent and another party who is innocent.
Which of those two events is more unjust? Which person pays more for their crimes? It is not Justice.
It is not Justice to prosecute someone defending their life, in abnormal circumstances, with First Degree Murder.
I'm not standing up for Anty, I dont know him...Wiggers **** me off so I probably wouldnt even enjoy his company, but I still care about him as a human being.
This whole thing may turn out to be incredibly interesting. Here you have a kid that's posted a lot of stuff on the internet and now he's accused of a crime.
How many times have people speculated about this scenario.
How much of what he's posted on any forum is going to be used for or against him if this case turns against him.
I'm waiting on more details before I make a "decision" on him personally.
How many times have people speculated about this scenario.
How much of what he's posted on any forum is going to be used for or against him if this case turns against him.
I'm waiting on more details before I make a "decision" on him personally.
Last edited:
Huh?
That's after the fact.
BEFORE the gun was produced he did not intent to kill this specific individual.
Simply carrying a weapon does not make us guilty of intending to kill. That horse has been dead.
Although everyday we do indeed intend to kill ANYONE who threatens our own life or the lives of our own, even though the situation might not ever come up.
That brings up the whole expression of a right cannot be deemed illegal debacle.
Nothing crazy or OMGish.
Is he grabbing his junk?
He might just be an excessive crotch grabber.
Excessive Crotch Grabbing Disease or ECGD is a degenerative condition where a person places his or her hand on their genitalia in order to stimulate cognitive thinking. Though generally the conditions are mild, in some cases, a person with ECGD may grab their gentiles at inopportune times and may even pose for photograpy. Though no cure for ECGD has been developed, a good ass whipping is known to cause the condition to go into remission.
If you or someone you love might be suffering from ECGD talk to you doctor about the options for treatment.
We just need to develop a pill for this stuff.
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
Huh?
That's after the fact.
BEFORE the gun was produced he did not intent to kill this specific individual.
Simply carrying a weapon does not make us guilty of intending to kill. That horse has been dead.
Although everyday we do indeed intend to kill ANYONE who threatens our own life or the lives of our own, even though the situation might not ever come up.
That brings up the whole expression of a right cannot be deemed illegal debacle.
Yep, that's right, it's after the fact. That is usually when the judgment by a jury takes place. Nowhere does the statute mention the intent to kill had to be present when he put on the gun and left the house, it has nothing to do with premeditation or even a specific, predetermined target of the action. It comes down to: When he pulled the trigger on another person he did so with an understanding that such act would be likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, and a standard of reasonableness (a reasonable person under similar circumstances would believe/act the same) is what is used to satisfy proof of his intent in court. This happened in the course of an illegal narcotics transaction which is not one of the factors allowing justification of homicide, and is specifically used to qualify this incident under First Degree Murder. No specific intent was present when he first put on a gun, but given the rest of the circumstances it will likely weigh heavily in the minds of the jury when deliberating the lead up to the actual shooting, and the specific intent need only be proven for the moment of the shooting, not 15-20 minutes before when he left the house or even 15-20 seconds before as he approached the door.
Had he walked into a convenience store to buy a coke and been blindsided by a robber, there would be no problem. He walked into a drug deal, and by that point in time it didn't really matter whether he was about to be robbed or the dealer thought he was robbing him, their presence there for that purpose moved the issue from homicide committed in self-defense to homicide committed in the course of a crime.
As for his internet postings that someone mentioned, it's a good bet everything about him on the internet will be scrutinized in depth, it's becoming much more common in criminal proceedings where we all know one's character and credibility is wide open to attack.
Good interpretation of the law.
I wonder if they might be able to prove that he was the observer and not the dealer? or if it would matter.
