Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: convicted

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    convicted

    anthony was convicted of negligent hpmicide yesterday in the shooting death in a drug deal that went bad story in the morning advocate for feb 10, 2011

  2. #2
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411
    http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Jur...?showAll=y&c=y

    I'm a bit confused by the "negligent homicide" charge. RS 14:32 Was it just the best charge the prosecutors thought they could get to "stick"?

    And it appears that MEM has overtaken the article comments with accusations of "statist", "Amerikan", etc. Typical.
    Last edited by 4angrybadgers; 02-11-2011 at 08:49 AM.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Mark seems happiest when he can lecture and demean others.

    It's a pity that Anthony allowed himself to be in that position/place - could have been so much more.

    Two very unhappy people and of their own making.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by 4angrybadgers View Post
    http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Jur...?showAll=y&c=y

    I'm a bit confused by the "negligent homicide" charge. RS 14:32 Was it just the best charge the prosecutors thought they could get to "stick"?
    It's the Jury's decision...

    Contained in the jury instructions would be a list of lesser crimes which the defendant can be found guilty where it has been shown by the evidence presented that "all the elements of other lesser offenses" were proven. It does not appear to mandate that the lesser offenses be included in the indictment.

    RS 14:5. Lesser and included offenses

    An offender who commits an offense which includes all the elements of other lesser offenses, may be prosecuted for and convicted of either the greater offense or one of the lesser and included offenses. In such case, where the offender is prosecuted for the greater offense, he may be convicted of any one of the lesser and included offenses.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 02-11-2011 at 10:59 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    I don't get it. I can see a conviction for the firearms charge, but it's ridiculous to lose the right of self defense during an armed robbery.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    ...but it's ridiculous to lose the right of self defense during an armed robbery.
    Indeed. In fact, being that his pre-existing, natural right clearly didn't and couldn't magically disappear, it's pretty clear that the state is punishing him for the exercise of his rights, given the context of the actual charges levied.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    The right to self defense should not go away simply because an activity that someone is doing is not legal.

    Say perhaps I cut someone off while driving by not signaling a lane change. I then attempt to flee from some guy that is now chasing me. The guy pulls a weapon and starts shooting at me. I pull my weapon and fire back, killing him. Should I be charged with murder because I was speeding? Should I be charged with murder because I did an illegal lane change which "caused" the guy to get mad in the first place? I mean, I did commit a crime right?

    At most, this person should have been charged with trying to buy drugs. In fact, you could argue that he merely intended to buy drugs as no drug deal ever occurred. They probably would have had a difficult time prosecuting him for that too.

    The shooting was, imo, self defense and thus no charges should have been filed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    The right to self defense should not go away simply because an activity that someone is doing is not legal.
    Ok, so by your logic, someone breaking into someone else's house should be able to claim self defense if he (the one committing the crime) is shot at by the armed homeowner defending his family.

    Are you effing kidding me?

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    In most states (all?) there is a distinct difference between civil infractions, misdemeanors and felonies as it pertains to weapons. I do NOT know the relationship in this case, but would surmise that therein lay the connection.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Ok, so by your logic, someone breaking into someone else's house should be able to claim self defense if he (the one committing the crime) is shot at by the armed homeowner defending his family.

    Are you effing kidding me?
    Of course your example is ridiculous -- that's because you never have the right to self-defense against another's justified use of force. Emphasis on "justified" -- if you cause the justification, you lose the right to retaliate. No one has put forth the example you're arguing against, nor will they.

    In this case, his only use of force was in response to an armed robbery initiated by the other party. If he'd gone there to buy a dog or a motorcycle, he wouldn't have even been arrested or indicted, much less convicted. Based solely on the attempted transaction being about illegal substances, Louisiana says he had no right to self defense.

    Turn it around: suppose he had attempted to rob the dealer at gunpoint. The dealer should have been legal to shoot him in self defense, just the same as if the deal was over a dog or a motorcycle.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    gray tn
    Posts
    15
    What a shame. A man exercises his clearly defined right to self defense by using a handgun and is criticized by a forum of gun owners.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by daniel boone View Post
    What a shame. A man exercises his clearly defined right to self defense by using a handgun and is criticized by a forum of gun owners.
    Welcome to OCDO Daniel.

    We are hardly attacking Anthony but discussing the events and details related to it - there is no shame in that. Profit from the experiences of others or suffer likewise.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Ok, so by your logic, someone breaking into someone else's house should be able to claim self defense if he (the one committing the crime) is shot at by the armed homeowner defending his family.

    Are you effing kidding me?
    You need to develop a concept of "aggression" or initiatory force before you ask these kinds of silly questions.

    The person breaking into a home has aggressed against the homeowner, thus initiating force, thus rendering (most) violence the homeowner may use an appropriate reaction to aggression, thereby constituting self-defense.

    In the instance topical to this thread, who was the victim of an initiatory act of aggression? Whose right to self-defense takes priority here?

    Make no mistake, the only act of aggression was that of attempting to rob the person in question. The aggressor has no right to defend himself while engaging in initiatory violence, while his victim, being a victim of aggression, has every right to defend himself.

    Are you effin kidding me?

    There is no comparison between the two scenarios, other than both involving "illegal" acts.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-13-2011 at 11:08 AM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by daniel boone View Post
    What a shame. A man exercises his clearly defined right to self defense by using a handgun and is criticized by a forum of gun owners.
    +∞

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    gray tn
    Posts
    15
    I read the posts from when his arrest first took place. There was an OVERWHELMING attitude of "screw him" due to the fact he was supposedly involved in a "drug" deal and I detected a lot of resentment due to his actually USING a weapon for it's intended purpose.
    If ever there was a clear cut case of self defense, this is it. My gosh, folks, the man even had an audio recording of the event to prove his case and the bozo jurors just had to convict him of "something," since it was a DRUG DEAL.
    Question for you astute students of the law: if he went there to buy a POUND of weed and it wasn't there, was this a drug deal or an ATTEMPTED drug deal?

  16. #16
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Ok, so by your logic, someone breaking into someone else's house should be able to claim self defense if he (the one committing the crime) is shot at by the armed homeowner defending his family.

    Are you effing kidding me?
    No, you are twisting things.

    A person was invited to someones home on the pretense of making a purchase, in this case, of drugs. When they got there, the seller quickly turned the simple transaction into an armed robbery. IMHO, the intended buyer did not give up his right to self defense simply because he was there to make an illegal purchase.

    The scenario I used with the traffic infraction was quite similar because the person doing the chasing was analogous to the homeowner in that the drug dealer and the road rager both escalated the situation criminally and thus gave up any expectation of not getting shot. The person that made the illegal lane change did indeed break the law but did not give up their RIGHT to self defense for that.

    In the case with the intended drug buy gone bad, they should not be able to prosecute on what MIGHT have happened or what the alleged intentions of the people involved.

    The drug deal never took place, otherwise he would have been prosecuted for making a buy.

    Charge him with attempting to buy drugs, if that is even a charge, but charging him with shooting someone that pulled a gun in an attempted robbing is wrong no matter how you parse it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    gray tn
    Posts
    15
    Your statement contains too much common sense, something I've noticed is not welcome here. Glad to read your words, though !!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55
    but it's ridiculous to lose the right of self defense during an armed robbery.[/QUOTE]

    when YOU are the player of a felony YOU have no right to self defence

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55
    Mark seems happiest when he can lecture and demean others.

    It's a pity that Anthony allowed himself to be in that position/place - could have been so much more.

    Two very unhappy people and of their own making.[/QUOTE]

    was wondering under what rock mem has been hiding

    BTW when i first came in contact with anthony i knew he was headed for more and bigger things he had one hell of a big chip next to his head

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    The right to self defense should not go away simply because an activity that someone is doing is not legal.

    Say perhaps I cut someone off while driving by not signaling a lane change. I then attempt to flee from some guy that is now chasing me. The guy pulls a weapon and starts shooting at me. I pull my weapon and fire back, killing him. Should I be charged with murder because I was speeding? Should I be charged with murder because I did an illegal lane change which "caused" the guy to get mad in the first place? I mean, I did commit a crime right?

    At most, this person should have been charged with trying to buy drugs. In fact, you could argue that he merely intended to buy drugs as no drug deal ever occurred. They probably would have had a difficult time prosecuting him for that too.

    The shooting was, imo, self defense and thus no charges should have been filed.

    what felony did you do?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by daniel boone View Post
    What a shame. A man exercises his clearly defined right to self defense by using a handgun and is criticized by a forum of gun owners.
    him being a gun owner has nothing to do with the fact that he was there to buy drugs and killed a man in the deal

    he could have beaten the man to death with his hands same thing

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55
    [Question for you astute students of the law: if he went there to buy a POUND of weed and it wasn't there, was this a drug deal or an ATTEMPTED drug deal?[/QUOTE]

    he was there to buy illegal drugs he was attempting to buy sad drugs
    the seller tried to rob him by hitting him with a rifle and was shot

    by law everyone there could have been charged with murder

  23. #23
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You need to develop a concept of "aggression" or initiatory force before you ask these kinds of silly questions.

    There is no comparison between the two scenarios, other than both involving "illegal" acts.
    I know the difference between the two scenarios marshaul. The "silly question was said in "effing" sarcasm. I know that's tough to tell in typed words.

    I wanted to be sure that rscottie knew the difference and (thank you sir) he explained very well he did.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    I know the difference between the two scenarios marshaul. The "silly question was said in "effing" sarcasm. I know that's tough to tell in typed words.

    I wanted to be sure that rscottie knew the difference and (thank you sir) he explained very well he did.
    Ah. Well, sorry about that. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't convey in letters.

  25. #25
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by kimber10mm View Post
    what felony did you do?
    If you deliberately cut someone off or swerved towards them, that could lead to felony charges. If it was just poor driving and not intentional, it would not be. Either scenario could set off someone else chasing you down in road rage.

    But, you are missing my point. Perhaps my analogy was flawed but I did not think that all you arm chair lawyers would pick at it so.

    Re-read my original posts and think on it.
    Last edited by rscottie; 02-26-2011 at 09:30 AM. Reason: changed "post" to "posts" in final sentence

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •