convicted

daniel boone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

[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

marshaul said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

turbodog said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah. Well, sorry about that. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't convey in letters.

kimber10mm said:

what felony did you do?

Click to expand...

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.

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


when YOU are the player in a crime you have no right to claim self defence
that is the way state law is supposed to read

As far as the law is concerned (and the way that I understand it), this conviction seems fair if not light. It's good that the deceased's family is forgiving, and I agree the judge was a pill, but this convicted got off light considering what he COULD have been pinned with. Self defense is one thing, but if you are in the middle of a crime self defense does not really apply as most case-law and written law has shown.


It really sucks that someone who seemed to be trying to do a lot for the gun community got caught up in drugs and screwed up so badly.

biggin215 said:

It really sucks that someone who seemed to be trying to do a lot for the gun community got caught up in drugs and screwed up so badly.

Click to expand...

That is the sad part, the frustrating part, but quite obviously the exception.

biggin215 said:

As far as the law is concerned (and the way that I understand it), this conviction seems fair if not light. It's good that the deceased's family is forgiving, and I agree the judge was a pill, but this convicted got off light considering what he COULD have been pinned with. Self defense is one thing, but if you are in the middle of a crime self defense does not really apply as most case-law and written law has shown.

Click to expand...

What is equally sad is that certain folks seem to agree with these patently unconstitutional and immoral laws.

There is no law which eliminates self-defense for those engaged in a crime. What if you are speeding by five miles per hour, and a road rager attacks you? Is your right to self-defense void?

What there are is laws which assign criminal liability to homicides which occur in the commission of violent crimes which bear an inordinate risk of loss of life.

The extension of this logic to drug "crimes" certainly is not found in most states. A handful of the most backwards (the law renders this self-evident; no offense meant -- change the law to change my analysis) Southern states are the exception. These laws are vestiges of the Jim Crowe past (and, evidently, present), designed to strip minorities and the poor from their right to armed self-defense.

And the logic is back-asswards anyway. The implication is that drug "crimes" are crimes which bear a high likelihood of death. Too bad prohibition of those drugs is the sole reason there are elevated occurrences of violence around drug transactions. Do liquor producers or distributors shoot each other down over territory, product, or snitching?

I'll give you a hint: No, but they did during prohibition (of alcohol).

Dupe post

Haven't really followed this case, but it is not uncommon in most states that when a felony is in progress (and I'm assuming the drug deal qualifies as a felony) and a death occurs, 'all' may be charged with murder 1--murder in the act of committing a felony (as opposed to with malice aforethought) either as doing the deed or accomplices before/after the fact for which the penalty is the same. And I'm guessing the original charge was much higher than what he was convicted of. Were that the case, self defense is not an affirmative defense.

Now, I am assuming drugs were present, as well. If they were not, the whole face of the accusation changes and self defense becomes an affirmative defense. You cannot buy what wasn't there, irrespective of your original intent. I want to rob the bank and go there with the full intention of so doing. While in the bank, before I pull my .45, some other guy pulls his and points it at a teller. I drop him (one shot, of course). My intentions indicated a criminal disposition, or mens rea; however, my actions (or rather inaction) rendered it moot. Justified exercise of self defense or the defense of others while preventing a felony. This may be closer to the argument some are making.

Gunslinger said:

I'm assuming the drug deal qualifies as a felony

Click to expand...

Distribution & trafficking of drugs is usually a felony. Possession, which is all that is implied by attempting to make a purchase, is generally a misdemeanor (most states).

It seems to be significant that the person in question was a would-be purchaser, not a seller.

The notion that trying to buy pot is a serious enough crime as to nullify the right to self-defense is farcical, absurd, and obviously unconstitutional (no due process, also death seems cruel & unusual punishment for a misdemeanor).

Once the robbery began, the commission of the crime ended, as nobody still intended to buy pot. It was merely one person defending himself against a robbery at gunpoint. This has about as little to do with someone getting shot during a bank robbery as if I go take a giant **** right now. Although the law is worth just as much, and smells just as bad.

This is not a case of someone being killed in the commission of a violent felony (which might reasonably constitute a crime, complete with an actus reus and mens rea). It is a case of the law depriving certain classes of offenders from exercising their right to self-defense without any sort of due process. It is abhorrent, reprehensible, disgusting, unconstitutional on its face, and I will say the same about anyone who supports such a law (minus the unconstitutionality).

marshaul said:

Once the robbery began, the commission of the crime ended, as nobody still intended to buy pot. It was merely one person defending himself against a robbery at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that's a much better explanation of the same point I've been trying to argue in another LA thread about this same topic.

Now there is an opinion of matter.

Is it not a crime to "attempt" to buy pot? Does the transaction have to be completed for there to be a crime?

If that is the case, have you robbed a bank if you haven't actually gotten the money yet?

I admit that I don't know your La. specific applicable laws, but logic suggests to me that "attempting" to commit a crime is often enough.

Grapeshot said:

Now there is an opinion of matter.

Is it not a crime to "attempt" to buy pot? Does the transaction have to be completed for there to be a crime?

If that is the case, have you robbed a bank if you haven't actually gotten the money yet?

I admit that I don't know your La. specific applicable laws, but logic suggests to me that "attempting" to commit a crime is often enough.

Click to expand...

Then "attempting" would be an element of the crime spelled out in the statute or covered here... http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78386

But that doesn't matter because according to an article posted here some time ago, the defense attorney's motion to allow a defense based on RS 14:20 was granted... which is probably why he was not convicted of first degree murder... maybe...

see... http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

... and before people get all ridiculous with the interpretation of 14.20(A)4(a), go back and find the thread where I explain Louisiana's rules of statutory construction outlined in the criminal code.

Based on the article, he was convicted of RS 14.29 (4) negligent homicide...
see... http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78395
and... http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78409

Perhaps the jury found that even though he was involved in some type of illegal drug activity, his right to self defense has not been forfeited. However, it appears they also thought that if it were not for his criminal negligence, the victim would not have perished...

It continues to amaze me how these discussions can get so involved without anyone actually reading or posting the law.

Grapeshot said:

Now there is an opinion of matter.

Is it not a crime to "attempt" to buy pot? Does the transaction have to be completed for there to be a crime?

If that is the case, have you robbed a bank if you haven't actually gotten the money yet?

I admit that I don't know your La. specific applicable laws, but logic suggests to me that "attempting" to commit a crime is often enough.

Click to expand...

"Attempted" robbery is a crime--even if you don't get the stuff, it's there. I would assume the same applies to attempting to buy drugs. But even if the element of mens rea exists, if there are no drugs, how can you buy them? Again, let me be clear, I don't know very much about the actual circumstances of the case.

Since marijuana was the drug in question, I will reference the appropriate RS.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss_doc/lss_house/RS\40\Doc98880.html

A. Manufacture; distribution. Except as authorized by this Part, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:

(1) To produce, manufacture, distribute or dispense or possess with intent to produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analogue classified in Schedule I;

(2) To create, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute, a counterfeit controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I.

...

C. Possession. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner or as provided in R.S. 40:978, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this Part...

Click to expand...

So, intent only applies when distribution is the crime. Buying is not a crime, although to buy one must possess, which is a crime -- but not until the buy is complete, as a practical matter. There is no "intent to possess" crime.

marshaul said:

Since marijuana was the drug in question, I will reference the appropriate RS.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss_doc/lss_house/RS\40\Doc98880.html



So, intent only applies when distribution is the crime. Buying is not a crime, although to buy one must possess, which is a crime -- but not until the buy is complete, as a practical matter. There is no "intent to possess" crime.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting way to look at it. Transfer is then the element that makes it a crime. Of course, legalizing weed makes too much sense to consider...instead, let's create a criminal culture like prohibition. How'd that work out, again? Back in the late '60s, early '70s, you never saw someone smoking grass...unless you looked at the guy sitting next to you.