Wow. Some pretty bizarre statements from that judge.
Thread: Anthony sentenced in Clinton
Wow. Some pretty bizarre statements from that judge.
Hold your head up; it’s going to be all right,” the victim’s father, Jeral Wayne Matthews Sr., told Manzella, adding that he forgave him for taking his son’s life “the night it happened.”
“I love you,” Matthews told Manzella.
Thats something right there....he is truly the bigger man for forgiving.
Sounds like that Judge is an arse....the jury did what they were suppose to do.
]Wow. Some pretty bizarre statements from that judge.
yes like wishing he could give him a longer sentence he was right he deserved a lot more
anthony does not understand the rights of a property owner
Sounds like that Judge is an arse....the jury did what they were suppose to do
the judge is an A$$ for speaking his mind? sounds like someone else is the "arse" here
What took place was unfortunate. But Anthony was doing something illegal at the time he was carrying. While I have sympathy for both groups, I do not have sympathy for what Anthony was doing at the time he was carrying. Also for coming back to a store he was told he was not allowed back to before the incident, just to "make a statement".
He was breaking the law on both accounts, enough said.
The judge was being a jerk for asking for a longer term though. I hope Anthony learned from this incident and he cleans his life up because he has put a black eye on our cause due to it.
Last edited by Grimes; 03-24-2011 at 02:09 PM.
I still say the law that denies him self defense is wrong. What if he'd made the purchase successfully, then drove away while possessing marijuana with intent to deliver, which is a felony-level drug crime? And then, completely unrelated to the drug issue, someone attempts to carjack him, or mug him, or assault him over a road rage incident. Should he lose the right to self defense in those cases as well? He would under this law -- and that's not right.
Its not self defense in that circumstance. That criminal gets charged with another charge along with armed robbery.
What Anthony did was pretty much the same with minor differences.
A crime is still a crime, no matter if its a robbery or buying/delivering drugs. He did a lawful act (carrying a firearm), to do an illegal act (buying illegal drugs). In that circumstance, he committed two crimes (carrying a firearm while being involved in an illegal act). It's still a crime and he needs to pay the price for doing so.
This is why I get PO'd when people say, "Oh, It's just marijuana, it's no big deal.", because these drugs can lead to incidents like this.
Last edited by Grimes; 03-25-2011 at 10:35 AM.
Someone initiating force, such as a robbery or a right, loses the right to respond to the other person's self-defense.
In Anthony's case, it was the guy who clubbed him in the head with a rifle butt who lost that right -- and Anthony had the right to defend himself, and did. But, the state denies him that right just because of the nature of the transaction. If he'd been there to buy a car or a dog and it turned into a robbery instead (and that does happen), the same right to self defense would still apply.
What the other party did to try and rob him during the transaction was wrong, but then again, the transaction was illegal. You cannot compare equally buying a car or buying illegal drugs. I don't know why you are defending his actions.
The transaction was simply illegal, enough said there. So why should he be allowed self defense during an illegal activity? The fact is, he shouldn't and I would have convicted him the same way. As that is the way to solve crimes, holding people accountable for their actions and what is involved with them.
Either way you look at it, he has severely hurt the (our) image of the "law abiding, gun carrying citizen".
Last edited by Grimes; 03-25-2011 at 07:16 PM.
Anthony did little to hurt our image. The instant he was wrapped up in a drug case, he showed he was not really one of us. Our image is unblemished. By him anyway.
The only people who will conflate his criminality with us are those who want to distort things, or those with so little ability to differentiate that they don't matter or would remain our opponent even if they can differentiate.
If you guys really want to defend Anthony for what he did, go for it. I'm not stopping you. I'm simply giving you facts your choosing to ignore. A couple of you are simply shutting your eyes, plugging your ears and saying I can't hear or see you when I try and give you the facts of what Anthony really did. Your looking past the illegal activity that was taking place and simply looking at "Anthony was being robbed, so he shot him in "self-defense".
What Anthony did was protect his life when his drug deal went south, not lawful self-defense.
If Anthony was simply buying a game, movie or electronic device from someone who decided to rob him, and Anthony acted. That would be lawful self-defense.
Anthony in reality engaged in illegal activity (buying a pound of pot). It might have been different if he had been buying a small amount, but this was an entire pound. The only reason for buying that much is to resell it. He was also illegally concealing it during the incident. With him carrying at the time of the illegal activity, the once lawful act becomes unlawful.
The law was written that way for a reason and I stand by it.
Last edited by Grimes; 03-25-2011 at 10:11 PM.
Buying a dog/car/bicycle/pound of pot is a free transaction that may or may not be legal depending on the circumstances (yes, there are legal ways to procure pot; the federal government actually grows pot at Ole Miss and provides it to those who qualify).
Being the victim of an attempted robbery is not the same thing as trying to buy a dog/car/bicycle/pound of pot.
If he'd been illegally buying a stolen car instead of pot, he would have been legally justified. Or any other "illegal" activity, for that matter. He only lost the right to claim self defense because RS 14:20(A)(4)(b) infringes that right to anyone "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."What the other party did to try and rob him during the transaction was wrong, but then again, the transaction was illegal. You cannot compare equally buying a car or buying illegal drugs. I don't know why you are defending his actions.
Note that "intent to distribute" is a requirement. If he'd been acquiring it for personal use, he'd have been perfectly legal to use self defense (which makes me wonder whether he lawyer challenged this element). When Willie Nelson was busted with two pounds of pot on I-10 near NOLA, he only got a fine, because Louisiana has a curious construction: possession for personal use is a misdemeanor, no matter the quantity, while possession with intent to distribute is a felony, no matter the quantity.
Willie's bus, two pounds of pot, personal use? Sure, that's believable; misdemeanor fine. Hand someone a roach that's too small to smoke, but with a detectable amount of THC? Well, that's distribution, and a felony.
What I'm defending is the right of all free people to defend themselves from assault with a deadly weapon, even if they're engaged in an act the government doesn't approve of at the time.
I already established that it wasn't being illegal that cost Anthony the right to self defense, it was one specific illegality (controlled substances act). You're the one who has harped on him being "illegal". You blew off the idea that not wearing a seatbelt should cost you the right to self defense. Why? It doesn't, but why shouldn't it, to be consistent with your idea that being "illegal" means giving up self defense?
If some road-raging ******* threatens you with a gun, should you be able to defend yourself? Of course! But what if you're speeding at the time? Or smoking while you have a kid in a child safety seat?
What if you're coming home from a day of duck hunting, and you have 5 mallards in your bag; or, 4 mallards, 3 of which are female? If you get robbed or car-jacked on the way home, should you lose the right to self defense? You don't, according to the Revised Statutes. Unless the robber offers you a blunt first, and you accept it: then you're toast.
It is an illogical and unsupportable law. It singles out one particular illegal activity and voids the right to self defense, no matter whether or not the legality was an element of the act of self defense.
I'm not denying that he had the "right to defend himself". But he was engaged in illegal activity, so it does not make it "lawful self-defense".
Anyone in his situation would have defended themselves, I'm not saying he shouldn't have defended himself. I would have done the same if I was in his situation.
If you really look at it, he got off pretty easy. The judge and jury could have found him guilty on much more and he could be spending more time than what he got.
Now... my statement about seatbelts was meant to show you how stupid your argument really is... when I see stupidity I call it so... to not be able to defend yourself because something you are doing at the time is, in general, "illegal" is nonsensical.
Also, it would do well for you to look up LOUISIANA law as it pertains to justifiable homicide and see what it actually says as it relates to this case.
I'm simply trying to make an example. I don't really care if you find it stupid or not. You can't compare wearing a seatbelt to buying a pound a pot. They are two entirely different things.
The law that convicted Anthony was to try and take violence between drug deals and be able to convict a criminal further. Anthony fell under it whether anyone else likes it or not. I believe almost all states have a law similar to this.
If you don't like the law, try and get it changed. Not simply complain about it on here.
Last edited by Grimes; 03-26-2011 at 10:31 AM.
If he'd been illegally buying pot for personal use, his self defense would have been lawful.
If he'd been illegally buying a stolen car, his self defense would have been lawful.
If he'd been illegally buying sexual favors, his self defense would have been lawful.
It wasn't that it was "illegal activity", it was one specific illegal activity, and the prosecution would have to prove intent to distribute in order to exclude justifiable self defense.
Ok, how bout this then. Say it wasn't Anthony on trial, say it was some gang member doing the same thing.
Most of you would change your tone and say that he got what he deserved. Some of you would possibly say that he should be locked up for longer.
Emotions are getting in the way of judgment here.
As 2A supporters we recognize the impulse toward self-defense. Some/many of us devote quite a bit of time to persuading others to recognize it (activism).
It is a maxim among some philosphers that it is pointless to buck the laws of nature; its been around for centuries, perhaps millenia.
Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if he was a free individual or a drug lord. The moment the other party attacked him in an attempt at armed robbery, the "attempt to purchase a controlled substance for distribution" ended, immediately! (Thanks to marshaul for that insight.)
He was the victim of an attempted armed robbery, and defended himself with appropriate force. That is all.
If the state wants to prosecute him for the drug crime, they should do so. But don't prosecute him for self defense.