ULL student indicted on first-degree murder in death of teen

[TomTerrific]

http://theadvocate.com/home/5248823-125/ull-student-indicted-on-first-degree


Something seems to be missing from this story.

Why first degree murder and not second or manslaughter?

 

[JadeRaven]

http://theadvocate.com/home/5248823-125/ull-student-indicted-on-first-degree


Something seems to be missing from this story.

Why first degree murder and not second or manslaughter?

"Seth Fontenot was formally charged Thursday in the killing of a high school freshman and wounding of two others when Fontenot fired at the teens as they fled in a truck."

Looks like he could have been trying to kill more than one person.

 

[Hitman]

A Lafayette Parish grand jury on Thursday charged Fontenot, a freshman at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, with one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder.

Means that ol'boy had a deliberate plan to kill someone and did kill someone. If he wasn't out for the others they'll drop it to 2nd degree. Unless his plan was to kill them all.

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Means that ol'boy had a deliberate plan to kill someone and did kill someone. If he wasn't out for the others they'll drop it to 2nd degree. Unless his plan was to kill them all.

Ehhhh. First degree is a touch more involved than willful and premeditated. Just from the facts in the article (and thats all im going on, im sure there are details that aren't included in the article) it won't make first degree.


Now it does fit second degree IF the prosecution can prove he shot at the vehicle with specific intent to kill.


Btw, no where in the La revised statute does the word "premeditated" appear in speaking about killing someone. What you are looking for is "specific intent to kill".

See LRS 14:30 and 14:30.1


Edit: Now I see that there were two more in the vehicle which would qualify it under the "trying to kill more than one person part." But the prosecution has to prove that he was trying to kill more than one person in that vehicle. NOT shooting at a vehicle with more than one person, but had the specific intent to kill more than one person in that vehicle. Without witnesses or other substantia evidence, that will be impossible. I'm sure it'll get pled down.

 

[MOTOR51]

Ehhhh. First degree is a touch more involved than willful and premeditated. Just from the facts in the article (and thats all im going on, im sure there are details that aren't included in the article) it won't make first degree.


Now it does fit second degree IF the prosecution can prove he shot at the vehicle with specific intent to kill.


Btw, no where in the La revised statute does the word "premeditated" appear in speaking about killing someone. What you are looking for is "specific intent to kill".

See LRS 14:30 and 14:30.1

Maybe that's why they are charging him with 1st degree. They know they cannt prove it

 

[speedster]

So...why did he open fire in the first place?

 

[Armnhammer]

I heard the kids were robbing him and this wasnt the first time they had been caught on his property. Definitely something missing from the story.

 

[TomTerrific]

I heard the kids were robbing him and this wasnt the first time they had been caught on his property. Definitely something missing from the story.

That is what I thought.

 

[Hitman]

Ehhhh. First degree is a touch more involved than willful and premeditated. Just from the facts in the article (and thats all im going on, im sure there are details that aren't included in the article) it won't make first degree.


Now it does fit second degree IF the prosecution can prove he shot at the vehicle with specific intent to kill.


Btw, no where in the La revised statute does the word "premeditated" appear in speaking about killing someone. What you are looking for is "specific intent to kill".

See LRS 14:30 and 14:30.1


Edit: Now I see that there were two more in the vehicle which would qualify it under the "trying to kill more than one person part." But the prosecution has to prove that he was trying to kill more than one person in that vehicle. NOT shooting at a vehicle with more than one person, but had the specific intent to kill more than one person in that vehicle. Without witnesses or other substantia evidence, that will be impossible. I'm sure it'll get pled down.

Maybe that's why they are charging him with 1st degree. They know they cannt prove it

Good point. The Grand Jury definitely thought it worthy though right?

 

[jmcrawf1]

Good point. The Grand Jury definitely thought it worthy though right?

That's the thing about grand juries. They are people just like me or you who probably loathe jury duty. All they do is decide if there is enough to charge somebody. It's not exactly scientific. If the DA or PD believed they had a smoking gun, i'm sure they would've cut a warrant and charged him that way.

 

[speedster]

Dang if that's true then tough break. I can understand he'd be EXTREMELY pissed, but shooting at a fleeing vehicle (and killing a passenger) is asking for trouble. He'll likely be tried and face severe punishment for his inability to control his emotions. I'm interested to hear the rest of the story.

 

[JadeRaven]

Killing while engaged in the perpetration of cruelty to juveniles could become 1st degree murder as well.

There are many ways to get 1st degree murder.

I feel bad for him though, but that was a bad choice.

 

[oleheat]

Stupid kids up to no good.

Even if you take the stealing out of it, three 15 year old boys running the streets at 2am is a recipe for disaster, and it looks an awful lot like that's what we have here. And it's illegal.

The 18 year old made a tragic mistake, no doubt. But damn....where were the parents of these little $hits?? Enough things wrong here to make your head spin.

Another incident that could have been so easily avoided.

 

[JWG223]

If they were indeed robbing him/his property, then this happening more often might deter that.
I've learned that the news is worth about as much as Jersey Shore if you want to know what's going on in the real world. Entertainment for the mindless, only. Too many facts left out, too much fluff emphasized, too many lies to sort.

"Person shot at vehicle with people in it, someone died." is all I got from this.

 

[Aussiecajun]

I'm 1 of the one's of the opinion there's more to the story than what's being told. If he really was only firing warning shots at 3 teens in a truck that were driving away, and he only fired 3 shots as has been reported, how did he manage to hit all 3? I have very limited knowledge and experience with shooting, but even to me that seems like almost impossible odds.

 

[kibb]

Three shots, three hits while they were in the vehicle leaving. It doesn't add up.

 

[Pas Tout La]

Three shots, three hits while they were in the vehicle leaving. It doesn't add up.

Not to mention the driver was shot in the ankle.

 

[kibb]

Exactly!! I didn't know which one was shot in the ankle and wether or not if it penetrate the door.

 

[JNieman]

If nothing else, it should be a clear reminder that cars are not cover, other than a very small bit of engine block.

 

[JLouv]

I've been following this story and from what I've gathered, I'm siding with the shooter. He defended his property all the while remaining on his property. Was it premeditated? Hell yes it was. The shooter's property had been looted/vandalized THREE times in the last couple of months alone!! To say he was prepared to handle the situation would be a gross understatement!

Key parts of the story are being left out in order to make the entire situation appear to be something more sinister that it was. First degree murder is the charge only so that it can be reduced in a plea and thereby make the shooter guilty of defending his property instead of receiving an apology from the police for failing to "protect and serve" yet again.