• 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.

convicted

kimber10mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
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
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Jury-convicts-man-in-slaying-during-drug-deal.html?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:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
...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.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

daniel boone

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
15
Location
gray tn
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

daniel boone

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
15
Location
gray tn
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?
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

daniel boone

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
15
Location
gray tn
Your statement contains too much common sense, something I've noticed is not welcome here. Glad to read your words, though !!
 

kimber10mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
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
 

kimber10mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
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
 

kimber10mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
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?
 
Top