anty506, what is your side of the story?

imported post

VORiaSOI wrote:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/80246297.html?showAll=y&c=y

CLINTON — A state district judge has ruled two Hammond men may claim they were justified in killing a Clinton man during an alleged drug deal this summer.

Twentieth Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. said the state will have the burden at a trial of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the slaying of Jeral Wayne Matthews Jr., 21, was not justified.

An East Feliciana Parish grand jury indicted Anthony Manzella, 19, for first-degree murder and Andrew Robertson, 23, for principal to second-degree murder in Matthews’ July 24 death.

A third man, Johnny Barnes, 27, of Jackson, also was indicted for principal to second-degree murder.

Clinton police said in July that Manzella and Robertson came to a house in Clinton to buy drugs from Matthews and Barnes, but during the transaction Matthews allegedly struck Manzella in the head with a rifle butt.

Manzella responded by pulling a .40-caliber handgun and shooting Matthews, Clinton Police Chief Eddie Stewart said.

District Attorney Sam D’Aquilla argued earlier this month a section of the law dealing with justifiable homicide precludes its use as a defense when a drug deal results in a person’s death.

Ware’s opinion says a homicide is justified in four situations: in self-defense; to prevent a violent or forcible felony; to defend against the threat of unlawful force in a dwelling, business or vehicle; or to defend against unlawful entry into a house, business or vehicle.

Only the fourth reason — the so-called “shoot the burglar/carjacker” provision — is not valid as a defense if a drug transaction is involved, the judge’s ruling said.

Manzella and Robertson are invoking the reasons of self-defense and preventing a violent felony — an armed robbery — to justify the homicide, the opinion said.

The ruling means self-defense will be a viable response to the state’s claim that Matthews was murdered, said J. Garrison Jordan, Manzella’s attorney.

“It’s clearly a self-defense situation,” Jordan said Monday.

D’Aquilla said he has not seen the ruling, but said he likely will ask the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal to review the decision.

Although he did not join Manzella and Robertson’s attorney in a written motion to challenge D’Aquilla’s interpretation of the statute, attorney Benn Hamilton, representing Barnes, argued in court earlier this month that Matthews was shot in self-defense and Barnes therefore cannot be a principal to second-degree murder.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That sucks, maybe the next Judge won't like dopers. Get to work DA

imported post

Way to go attorney Garrison Jordan!! This is the correct interpretation of the law. The portion of 14:20 that the state is trying to apply is in Paragraph 4 section (b). In other words this...

[align=justify](b) The provisions of this Paragraph 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.[/align]
only applies to paragraph (4) and NOT to the first 3 paragraphs. It seems obvious to me that paragraph (1) applies here. Great example of a defense attorney and a judge doing a good job!!

imported post

That is a huge win for Anthony, assuming the state does not get a reversal (unlikely, if you read the law as written). Does anyone know how it will change the charges if he's shown to have killed this guy while carrying concealed without a permit?

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

That is a huge win for Anthony, assuming the state does not get a reversal (unlikely, if you read the law as written). Does anyone know how it will change the charges if he's shown to have killed this guy while carrying concealed without a permit?

Click to expand...

He must first be charged with illegal carrying of weapons. This is seperate from the charge of murder. In other words, whatever he has been indicted with is what he's charged with. If he hasn't been charged with illegal carrying of weapons then he cannot be convicted of that charge.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Gasp !!!! Anthony was concealed carrying without the permission of the state !!
Let's forgo a trial and hang him today !!! The NERVE of him !!!

Being hit with the butt of a gun DOES constitute the use of deadly force, your thugbuddies do it all the time !!! What's that? It's OK for the "law enforcement" community to do such, but not us peons?

Dealing drugs IS a victimless crime. The crime HERE is aggravated assault, which DOES have a victim, Anthony.

The sole reason drug trafficking IS so violent is because people, just like YOU, have created this artificially-inflated black market by allowing your buddies in the legislature/congress to make such absurd "laws." Take away these "laws," the only losers are the drug traffickers and your buddies in the POLICE STATE .

OH, here we go again. "Drugs are BAD !!!" Sex spreads disease, should we outlaw that, too ???

Click to expand...

With this I agree. Under Common Law there can only be a crime if there is a victim. Common Law i.e. the constitution is the only law that applies to the Sovereign. All other laws infringe on or liberty. A lot of us my not like this, but nobody said being free was easy. "The law" will not protect you from harm, but it will give recourse when you are harmed. The laws we have today do not protect us. They only take our freedoms. Freedoms we freely give in exchange for secuity we never receive.

imported post

Summit_Ace wro

With this I agree. Under Common Law there can only be a crime if there is a victim. Common Law i.e. the constitution is the only law that applies to the Sovereign. All other laws infringe on or liberty. A lot of us my not like this, but nobody said being free was easy. "The law" will not protect you from harm, but it will give recourse when you are harmed. The laws we have today do not protect us. They only take our freedoms. Freedoms we freely give in exchange for secuity we never receive.

Click to expand...

Not true... Common law is NOT the Constitution. The Constitution empowers congress to enact laws!!! Read article 1 sections 7 and 8. Geez...

You have the right IDEA, but FALSE information. It would do you some good to research WHY we are losing our "freedoms" and not speculate. You will find we still have remedy in the juditial branch, but you have to learn real LAW.

You are correct when you say "nobody said being free was easy." Now practice what you preach and get to work... and if I can assist in any way, let me know.

imported post

georg jetson wrote:

Summit_Ace wro

With this I agree. Under Common Law there can only be a crime if there is a victim. Common Law i.e. the constitution is the only law that applies to the Sovereign. All other laws infringe on or liberty. A lot of us my not like this, but nobody said being free was easy. "The law" will not protect you from harm, but it will give recourse when you are harmed. The laws we have today do not protect us. They only take our freedoms. Freedoms we freely give in exchange for secuity we never receive.

Click to expand...

Not true... Common law is NOT the Constitution. The Constitution empowers congress to enact laws!!! Read article 1 sections 7 and 8. Geez...

You have the right IDEA, but FALSE information. It would do you some good to research WHY we are losing our "freedoms" and not speculate. You will find we still have remedy in the juditial branch, but you have to learn real LAW.

You are correct when you say "nobody said being free was easy." Now practice what you preach and get to work... and if I can assist in any way, let me know.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I miss spoke. I think it better said our Constitution is based in common law. In that fact that we "grant" powers to the government. However our Constitution also cites some of our "rights". The Constitution does not however "limit" our rights, only the governments authority.

I am however interested in what you mean by "real" law. The "laws" congress enact do not in fact apply to the sovereign. There is case law to back this.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

The sovereigns "we the people" are the law.

imported post

Summit_Ace wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

Summit_Ace wro

Click to expand...

You are correct, I miss spoke. I think it better said our Constitution is based in common law. In that fact that we "grant" powers to the government. However our Constitution also cites some of our "rights". The Constitution does not however "limit" our rights, only the governments authority.

I am however interested in what you mean by "real" law. The "laws" congress enact do not in fact apply to the sovereign. There is case law to back this.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

The sovereigns "we the people" are the law.

Click to expand...

What I meant by "real" law is the black letter law found in the several constitutions, the federal statutes, state statutes etc...

In your cite, all the court was saying was that law derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Don't tell me you're saying that because sovereignty lies with the people, therefore each person is sovereign and not subject to the law. I hope that's not what you're saying because that's NOT what the court said. DONT go down that path... You will quickly find that your FAILED sovereignty argument will get you PRISON time!!!

Anybody wanting to read for themselves go here...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356

Edit... let me add... here is an example of how this type of thinking(common law and the sovereign) appears on the internet in the guise of "real" law. Notice how the claims made are unsubstantiated. It's just legal theory and BAD theory at that!!!

http://www.dismissticket.com/CommonLaw.html

imported post

georg jetson wrote:

Summit_Ace wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

Summit_Ace wro

Click to expand...

You are correct, I miss spoke. I think it better said our Constitution is based in common law. In that fact that we "grant" powers to the government. However our Constitution also cites some of our "rights". The Constitution does not however "limit" our rights, only the governments authority.

I am however interested in what you mean by "real" law. The "laws" congress enact do not in fact apply to the sovereign. There is case law to back this.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

The sovereigns "we the people" are the law.

Click to expand...

What I meant by "real" law is the black letter law found in the several constitutions, the federal statutes, state statutes etc...

In your cite, all the court was saying was that law derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Don't tell me you're saying that because sovereignty lies with the people, therefore each person is sovereign and not subject to the law. I hope that's not what you're saying because that's NOT what the court said. DONT go down that path... You will quickly find that your FAILED sovereignty argument will get you PRISON time!!!

Anybody wanting to read for themselves go here...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356

Edit... let me add... here is an example of how this type of thinking(common law and the sovereign) appears on the internet in the guise of "real" law. Notice how the claims made are unsubstantiated. It's just legal theory and BAD theory at that!!!

http://www.dismissticket.com/CommonLaw.html

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. The sovereign is absolutely subject to law. That is where what I call Common Law comes in. Now granted I may use that term incorrectly so allow me to explain myself. If there is not a victim then there is not a crime. All other laws are specifically there to oppress free men. I also agree that one could end up in prison with that mind set. I also am saying that we have come a long way from where our founding fathers intended. Let's remember that it was the "black letter law" that our founders thought oppressive. Back then to think that you were a sovriegn unto yourself, not under the king's{government} law would end you in jail as well. Worse yet relieve you of your head. You see where I am going with this?

In your argument State and federal statutes trump the Constitution until proven otherwise. That may be how it is but it does not mean it is right. If the state legislature passed a law that they could sleep with your wife and the supreme court upheld it. Would it be right? Hope you got the cash to bring it all the way to the Supreme Court. With the bankroll of the state of Louisiana against you. I know that would never happen but you know what I am saying.

The second amendment Is a perfect example of this. For many years "shall not be infringed" meant exactly that. In the thirties, with prohibition, came gangs. The government had a hard time dealing with well armed gangs. In comes the National Firearms Act of 1934. Now infringed means something a little different. Then came permits for "concealed carry". You can't tell me old Ben Franklin didn't have a pistol tucked in his coat.once again "infringed"means something a little more different. Now today we have to notify,escentialy asking the government permission every time we purchase a gun. Again "Shall not be infringed" is redefined.

All "laws must abide by the constraints of the Constitution. This is something we have become complacent in. Every President apoints Supreme Court justices that will "interpret" the Constitution the way they think it should be interepted. A justice should not lean "left" or"right"they should just read. The founders were common men and the Constitution is a simple document. Today when our legislature passes a law it is a thousand pages of legal crap. The entire Constitution was just a few pages. The problem today is the government tries to make it say things it doesn't for the sole purpose of controlling the people. Our rolls have become reversed. I believe we have come full circle.