• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Has anyone heard what happened to Anty?

LEO the Lion

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Hammond, LA, ,
imported post

Supposedly, he was involved in a "drug deal gone bad" in Clinton, LA yesterday or the day before. The other party struck him with the butt ofan AK47and he shot and killed them. Since the shooting occured during a drug deal, (They are saying it is not self defense) he has been arrested and charged with First Degree Murder.



This is all 3rd hand information, but it was supposedly in today's Morning Advocate. Also, I am not saying he is guilty/not guilty/wrong/right. Please do not read into my post words that are not there.



I cannot find anything about this online, and have not see the newspaper story firsthand.
 

Oscarr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
179
Location
near Bossier City, Louisiana, USA
imported post

LEO the Lion wrote:
I don't know enough about it to really comment. Sorry. I will upate as I find out more information.
I hear ya. I'm conflicted on it myself, I'd rather err on the side of caution I guess and say hey, if you shoot someone while in the process of committing a crime, and that crime itself is what put you in the position to have to shoot someone in the first place, then self defense can't be argued.

Now if say it was a drug deal and some armed robber came around and tried to rob him and the dealer both and he had to shoot the robber and defend himself, I'd be more lenient towards allowing Self Defense. That's just me.

In the end, I'd hope the jury would judge it on a case-by-case basis, on it's own merits, it's not really a black-n-white issue.

All my opinion.
 

FreeCitizen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
33
Location
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
imported post

The charges are justified. A justified homicide - " shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law".
 

Oscarr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
179
Location
near Bossier City, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Oh I know it's technically justified, I'm asking what peoples opinions are. Agree or disagree with it being that way?

Also I don't like that wording, "intent to distribute", always hated that, as if they can magically see into your brain and know you plan to distribute, maybe the dude is just stocking up? lol

But seriously, slippery slope and all that... what's the magic cut-off number that shows intent to dist.? 1lb? 1/2lb? 2oz?

Edit: And sorry, this is getting off topic, not really OC related (unless the accused was OC'ing at the time?)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Oscarr wrote:
SNIP I hear ya. I'm conflicted on it myself, I'd rather err on the side of caution I guess and say hey, if you shoot someone while in the process of committing a crime, and that crime itself is what put you in the position to have to shoot someone in the first place, then self defense can't be argued.

Now if say it was a drug deal and some armed robber came around and tried to rob him and the dealer both and he had to shoot the robber and defend himself, I'd be more lenient towards allowing Self Defense. That's just me.

In the end, I'd hope the jury would judge it on a case-by-case basis, on it's own merits, it's not really a black-n-white issue.
People have been killing people for a very long time. We've got what? 4000 years of common law and legal tradition in the West? The law has had a very long time to sort out these kinds of questions.

Between court cases and statutes, I doubt there will be a real question on the law. The question will be more a matter of who is telling the truth about the circumstances, and which law applies to those circumstances.
 

FreeCitizen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
33
Location
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Opinion....self defense. But the law is against him. I think that is a shame. IMO he should be charged with a drug crime - if it is proven that he was in fact committing one.
 

Oscarr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
179
Location
near Bossier City, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Course, I'm of the mind drugs should be legal. 'The Gov' shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or cannot put into your own body. It doesn't work anyway, refrence: alcohol prohibition, current drug ware - abysmal failures.

Punish people for their actions, alcohol is legal, drunk driving isn't. Getting in a wreck while drunk gets you in a lot of trouble. Replace alcohol with drugs now.

Don't get me wrong, I've NEVER done a narcotic, never plan to (I can make enough mistakes on my own lol), but again, I don't like the gov having the power to dictate what I can or cannot ingest.

But that's all a WHOLE nother can of worms lol.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Between court cases and statutes, I doubt there will be a real question on the law. The question will be more a matter of who is telling the truth about the circumstances, and which law applies to those circumstances.

This is good common sense. In a case as described, for all parties involved, including bystanders like us, it's best to assume that everybody involvedis lying.

For all we know, the "defender" might have been the "aggressor."

What kind of drugs were involved, I wonder?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

charlie12 wrote:
I just read the story in the Advocate. It's is the Sunday Advocate 7/26/09 on page 5B.

They don't have it online, maybe tomorrow.

What are the details?
 

charlie12

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
charlie12 wrote:
I just read the story in the Advocate. It's is the Sunday Advocate 7/26/09 on page 5B.

They don't have it online, maybe tomorrow.

What are the details?

The headline is, Clinton drug deal leaves man dead; three arrested.


Looks like a drug deal the story says "An apparent drug deal went sour Friday night in Clinton.

Seem like Matthew and Barnes were at Matthew's residence Friday about 11pm when AnthonyManzella and Andrew Robertson both of Hammond arrived for an apparent drug deal.
As Manzella and Robertson entered the residence Matthew pulled out an AK-47 assault rifle and struck Manzella on theback of the head with the butt of the gun, Dunn said (Dunn is from Clinton PD) Manzella responded by shooting Matthew once with a .40 cal. Glock and Matthew died withinminutes.

After the shooting the three men ran out in the street and Barnes approached a Clinton police officer who just happened to be patrolling the street at that moment Dunn said.
The LEO stopped all three and arrested them CPD recovered the glock and one shell casing from the glock and the AK.
Manzella's head wound was treated by Acadian at the scene.

The are questioning one other person who may have been involved.

the booked Johnny Barnes 27, 3302 Quiet Lane, Jackson, Anthony Manzella, 19, 52423 Piazza Rd. Hammond and Andrew Robertson, 23 14568 Kohnke Hill Rd. Hammond.

That's is most of the important stuff hope I got it all right. I wonder if he was OCing?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

charlie12 wrote:
The headline is, Clinton drug deal leaves man dead; three arrested.


Looks like a drug deal the story says "An apparent drug deal went sour Friday night in Clinton.

Seem like Matthew and Barnes were at Matthew's residence Friday about 11pm when AnthonyManzella and Andrew Robertson both of Hammond arrived for an apparent drug deal.
As Manzella and Robertson entered the residence Matthew pulled out an AK-47 assault rifle and struck Manzella on theback of the head with the butt of the gun, Dunn said (Dunn is from Clinton PD) Manzella responded by shooting Matthew once with a .40 cal. Glock and Matthew died withinminutes.

After the shooting the three men ran out in the street and Barnes approached a Clinton police officer who just happened to be patrolling the street at that moment Dunn said.
The LEO stopped all three and arrested them CPD recovered the glock and one shell casing from the glock and the AK.
Manzella's head wound was treated by Acadian at the scene.

The are questioning one other person who may have been involved.

the booked Johnny Barnes 27, 3302 Quiet Lane, Jackson, Anthony Manzella, 19, 52423 Piazza Rd. Hammond and Andrew Robertson, 23 14568 Kohnke Hill Rd. Hammond.

What a mess. I hope he gets good legal representation, pronto!

I gotta speculate that the drug(s) involved wasn't just some marijuana...



charlie12 wrote:
That's is most of the important stuff ... I wonder if he was OCing?

Is there any other way he could have been carrying a handgun? If he's only 19 years old he cannot carry concealed. Would need a CCW permit. I gotta guess right now(we'll find out later) that it's very possible Antywas OCing. That may account for his being hit upside the head with a rifle butt. You know, take the visibly armed guy out by surprise...

This could be a bad one.

But we have to wait until more facts are in before anyone can say for sure. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

I wonder ifhis crew and buddies (MEM?) over in LA are starting up a defense fund for Anty.
 
Top