ADVERTISEMENT

OFF TOPIC Will Smith: Crime Scene Re-Creation Sheds Light on What Really Happened.

03_TIGERS_07

Keeping the peace
Sep 29, 2007
43,799
15,056
113
Death Valley
lsu.rivals.com
Article with animated video detailing exactly what happened looks really bad for Hayes.

http://theadvocate.com/news/neworle...te-claims-that-former-saints-group-were-aggre

Will and his Friend were in the front seat with Raquel and her friend in the back seat.


The couple who rode with Will Smith and his wife on the night the former Saints defensive lineman was shot dead last month did nothing to provoke accused killer Cardell Hayes following a three-car crash in the Lower Garden District, their attorney said.

Richard and Rebecca Dooley Hernandez had dined with the Smiths and others at Sake Cafe late on April 9 and were riding with them in Smith’s Mercedes SUV when Hayes’ orange Hummer rear-ended them on Sophie Wright Place, attorney Martin Regan said Thursday.
 
I haven't been able to find out yet if Smith was armed. Regardless, seven shots in the back are going to be pretty damned hard to defend in front of a jury.
 
Article with animated video detailing exactly what happened looks really bad for Hayes.

http://theadvocate.com/news/neworle...te-claims-that-former-saints-group-were-aggre

Will and his Friend were in the front seat with Raquel and her friend in the back seat.


The couple who rode with Will Smith and his wife on the night the former Saints defensive lineman was shot dead last month did nothing to provoke accused killer Cardell Hayes following a three-car crash in the Lower Garden District, their attorney said.

Richard and Rebecca Dooley Hernandez had dined with the Smiths and others at Sake Cafe late on April 9 and were riding with them in Smith’s Mercedes SUV when Hayes’ orange Hummer rear-ended them on Sophie Wright Place, attorney Martin Regan said Thursday.
A very agitated shirtless man did nothing to provoke? Usually the agitated shirtless guy jumping around is instigating
 
  • Like
Reactions: 03_TIGERS_07
A very agitated shirtless man did nothing to provoke? Usually the agitated shirtless guy jumping around is instigating
I'm a little confused - don't know all the details - are you saying that Richard Hernandez was sitting in the passenger seat of Will Smith's Mercedes with his and Smith's wife on the way home from Ruth's Chris/Sake Café shirtless? Or that he got out of the car and ripped off his shirt when the Hummer struck them from behind? Are you saying that the defense is alleging that Hayes was so intimidated by Hernandez that he decided to shoot Smith eight times?

Something about that just doesn't seem right, particularly the idea that the person in the middle of a three-car pile up is somehow the provocateur or that the shooter was so intimidated by one man that he proceeded to repeatedly shoot a completely different man in the back...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 03_TIGERS_07
Something about that just doesn't seem right, particularly the idea that the person in the middle of a three-car pile up is somehow the provocateur or that the shooter was so intimidated by one man that he proceeded to repeatedly shoot a completely different man in the back...

And the different man's wife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 03_TIGERS_07
Oh absolutely, I 1000% agree. Your car is an extension of your home which your constitutional rights cover.

A weapon in your home/car is legally in your possession (constructive possession). A weapon in your hand, or on your person, and arguably within arms reach, is also in your possession (actual possession). To be considered armed, you must be in actual possession.

GEAUX TIGERS...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 03_TIGERS_07
I'm a little confused - don't know all the details - are you saying that Richard Hernandez was sitting in the passenger seat of Will Smith's Mercedes with his and Smith's wife on the way home from Ruth's Chris/Sake Café shirtless? Or that he got out of the car and ripped off his shirt when the Hummer struck them from behind? Are you saying that the defense is alleging that Hayes was so intimidated by Hernandez that he decided to shoot Smith eight times?

Something about that just doesn't seem right, particularly the idea that the person in the middle of a three-car pile up is somehow the provocateur or that the shooter was so intimidated by one man that he proceeded to repeatedly shoot a completely different man in the back...

Numerous people who saw parts of the events surrounding Smith’s shooting have told The New Orleans Advocate that they saw an agitated, shirtless man on Sophie Wright Place appearing to play a central role in the altercation.

Sources close to the investigation told The New Orleans Advocate on Thursday that authorities suspect Richard Hernandez may have been that shirtless man.


Common sense says he wasn't just riding in the car with his shirt off and most likely got out of the car and took his shirt off either wanting to or ready to fight. The article says he played a central role in the altercation, not me. I didn't say a single word about what the defense is saying.

I will say this though, IF I was in a wreck with someone and they said they were going to get their gun, I would try as hard as possible to win the race to mine and pull the trigger.

I don't know what happened. I do know that if Will Smith doesn't hit and run(provocateur), none of it likely happens. It is also likely if there wasn't a shirtless agitated guy playing a central role, the chances are much lower someone gets shot.
 
Last edited:
A weapon in your home/car is legally in your possession (constructive possession). A weapon in your hand, or on your person, and arguably within arms reach, is also in your possession (actual possession). To be considered armed, you must be in actual possession.

GEAUX TIGERS...



So, if I'm reading your post right, If I just have my .40 cal in my vehicle as it always is then I am considered in possession and someone can shoot me 8 times in the back?
 
A weapon in your home/car is legally in your possession (constructive possession). A weapon in your hand, or on your person, and arguably within arms reach, is also in your possession (actual possession). To be considered armed, you must be in actual possession.

GEAUX TIGERS...

True. If you're lying dead in the street and your pistol is in your car, you weren't armed (although, I guess you should have been).
So, if I'm reading your post right, If I just have my .40 cal in my vehicle as it always is then I am considered in possession and someone can shoot me 8 times in the back?

No, but if you're a felon, you can be charged with felon in possession of a firearm if you have a gun in your car or home. In possession of a firearm does not equal being armed.
 
So, if I'm reading your post right, If I just have my .40 cal in my vehicle as it always is then I am considered in possession and someone can shoot me 8 times in the back?
What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?
 
What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?


unfortunately you have to wait to see a weapon 1st, that determines if you actually are in fear for your life and can use deadly force.
 
that is incorrect unless your car is an RV etc




2011 Louisiana Laws
Revised Statutes
TITLE 32 — Motor vehicles and traffic regulation
RS 32:292.1 — Transportation and storage of firearms in privately owned motor vehicles


Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 32:292.1
§292.1. Transportation and storage of firearms in privately owned motor vehicles

A. Except as provided in Subsection D of this Section, a person who lawfully possesses a firearm may transport or store such firearm in a locked, privately-owned motor vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.

B. No property owner, tenant, public or private employer, or business entity or their agent or employee shall be liable in any civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving a firearm transported or stored pursuant to this Section, other than for a violation of Subsection C of this Section.

C. No property owner, tenant, public or private employer, or business entity shall prohibit any person from transporting or storing a firearm pursuant to Subsection A of this Section. However, nothing in this Section shall prohibit an employer or business entity from adopting policies specifying that firearms stored in locked, privately-owned motor vehicles on property controlled by an employer or business entity be hidden from plain view or within a locked case or container within the vehicle.

D. This Section shall not apply to:

(1) Any property where the possession of firearms is prohibited under state or federal law.

(2) Any vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment, except for those employees who are required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of their duties.

(3) Any vehicle on property controlled by a public or private employer or business entity if access is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, signage, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access onto the parking area, and if one of the following conditions applies:

(a) The employer or business entity provides facilities for the temporary storage of unloaded firearms.

(b) The employer or business entity provides an alternative parking area reasonably close to the main parking area in which employees and other persons may transport or store firearms in locked, privately-owned motor vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerNbama
What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?
There is always the 'get in your car and drive away' option. It would have saved lives on the victim's part and likely jail time on the defendants part, though I suppose that would defeat the whole point of following a guy who bumped you and slamming into him from behind in order to force a confrontation...
 
There is always the 'get in your car and drive away' option. It would have saved lives on the victim's part and likely jail time on the defendants part, though I suppose that would defeat the whole point of following a guy who bumped you and slamming into him from behind in order to force a confrontation...
It's obvious you see one side only. I get that. But answer my questions why don't you.

What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?


There is always the '"bump" somebody and when they pull over you do as well' option. Pretty sure that's what you and 99% of people would have done, after all, it is the law. Smith didn't.

I don't believe it is a cut and dry as you think. I don't know all the facts, but neither do you. We just hear what each's lawyers say and you happen to blindly believe Smith's.
 
It's obvious you see one side only. I get that. But answer my questions why don't you.

What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?


There is always the '"bump" somebody and when they pull over you do as well' option. Pretty sure that's what you and 99% of people would have done, after all, it is the law. Smith didn't.

I don't believe it is a cut and dry as you think. I don't know all the facts, but neither do you. We just hear what each's lawyers say and you happen to blindly believe Smith's.

You mean the D.A., not Smith's lawyer.
 
We just hear what each's lawyers say and you happen to blindly believe Smith's.
Lol

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Meanwhile, just keep playing your game of 'what if' instead of focusing on what we actually know happened.

We know Smith's car 'bumped' Haye's car but continued on. We know that Haye's car followed him and slammed into his car hard enough to drive it into the car in front of them. We know both drivers got out of the car and we know that when an unarmed Smith returned to the car he was shot eight times, seven times in the back. We know that his wife was shot twice in the leg. We know that there was an unfired gun in Smith's car. We know that witnesses at the scene have stated to police that Hayes threatened them before the shooting began and further stated that the Hernandez's were not aggressive in any way.

Oh, and we also know that someone - possibly Hernandez - at some point in time had their shirt off, but that Hernandez neither struck nor shot at Hayes, nor does he appear to have been in possession of a firearm at the time. I would suggest that anyone focusing on that particular grassy knoll to the exclusion of the other evidence that has been established is working from an agenda of their own rather than viewing the situation dispassionately.
 
Lol

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Meanwhile, just keep playing your game of 'what if' instead of focusing on what we actually know happened.

We know Smith's car 'bumped' Haye's car but continued on. We know that Haye's car followed him and slammed into his car hard enough to drive it into the car in front of them. We know both drivers got out of the car and we know that when an unarmed Smith returned to the car he was shot eight times, seven times in the back. We know that his wife was shot twice in the leg. We know that there was an unfired gun in Smith's car. We know that witnesses at the scene have stated to police that Hayes threatened them before the shooting began and further stated that the Hernandez's were not aggressive in any way.

Oh, and we also know that someone - possibly Hernandez - at some point in time had their shirt off, but that Hernandez neither struck nor shot at Hayes, nor does he appear to have been in possession of a firearm at the time. I would suggest that anyone focusing on that particular grassy knoll to the exclusion of the other evidence that has been established is working from an agenda of their own rather than viewing the situation dispassionately.

We also know the wife was shot in the legs.
 
It's obvious you see one side only. I get that. But answer my questions why don't you.

What if you said "I'm getting my gun" then turned and reached for said gun? What would your intent have been?

What if you had your .40 cal on you and someone else said and then did the same? You just gonna watch and wait?


There is always the '"bump" somebody and when they pull over you do as well' option. Pretty sure that's what you and 99% of people would have done, after all, it is the law. Smith didn't.

I don't believe it is a cut and dry as you think. I don't know all the facts, but neither do you. We just hear what each's lawyers say and you happen to blindly believe Smith's.




It's a fine line between the casket and the Cell, that's why those who choose to carry should have extensive training in the event of a live situation, Because You better be sure he is armed before you pump 8 in his back and 2 in his wife.

Hayes is going away for a very long time. a Grand Jury indicted him based of facts and evidence, along with multiple witness statements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSUfreak2
It's a fine line between the casket and the Cell, that's why those who choose to carry should have extensive training in the event of a live situation, Because You better be sure he is armed before you pump 8 in his back and 2 in his wife.

Hayes is going away for a very long time. a Grand Jury indicted him based of facts and evidence, along with multiple witness statements.

An indictment is not a conviction, I think I'll wait to know the facts before I make a prediction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaVbRef
An indictment is not a conviction, I think I'll wait to know the facts before I make a prediction.

I will say this...been doing the police thing down here 25+ years. I have never seen so many big name lawyers and firms hunting for a camera to talk to. Whose who of local attorneys hunting for someone to hook their wagon onto. Defense attorneys becoming spokespersons
 
  • Like
Reactions: 03_TIGERS_07
In the state of LA, your vehicle is an extension of your residence.

Thanks Jabba, I was hoping you or one of the attorneys would chime in just in case I was missing something.

An indictment is not a conviction, I think I'll wait to know the facts before I make a prediction.

I understand/agree he is not convicted, But you must understand the police presented their report and evidence to the District Attorney, who then presented it to a Grand Jury, a grand Jury was convened and based on the evidence and testimony, they saw fit to indict. which is the 1st step in getting a conviction.
 
I will say this though, IF I was in a wreck with someone and they said they were going to get their gun, I would try as hard as possible to win the race to mine and pull the trigger.

And you would be indicted and convicted of murder since you cannot prove that said person was going to retrieve a gun to kill you. Some of you simply cannot get past the fact that verbal threats are not enough to warrant taking someones life. Not legally, nor morally.
 
And you would be indicted and convicted of murder since you cannot prove that said person was going to retrieve a gun to kill you. Some of you simply cannot get past the fact that verbal threats are not enough to warrant taking someones life. Not legally, nor morally.
Sure, cause nobody has ever walked on stand your ground. Right. either way, your alive with a chance. And I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, just that we don't know for sure it's not.
 
It's a fine line between the casket and the Cell, that's why those who choose to carry should have extensive training in the event of a live situation, Because You better be sure he is armed before you pump 8 in his back and 2 in his wife.

Hayes is going away for a very long time. a Grand Jury indicted him based of facts and evidence, along with multiple witness statements.

A Grand Jury can indict a slice of bread with the right prosecutor............................ That's why the question of guilt or innocence is rightfully left up to the jury trial. I wouldn't want most of you on a jury if I was on trial. You would have already made up your minds based on media reports (and we all know they are never wrong and never make mistakes) I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but I do know what the Constitution of our country says. Lot of the lynch mob mentality here based on comments people are making. Hayes may be guilty. I don't know at this time and none of us do either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mag Tiger
A Grand Jury can indict a slice of bread with the right prosecutor............................ That's why the question of guilt or innocence is rightfully left up to the jury trial. I wouldn't want most of you on a jury if I was on trial. You would have already made up your minds based on media reports (and we all know they are never wrong and never make mistakes) I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but I do know what the Constitution of our country says. Lot of the lynch mob mentality here based on comments people are making. Hayes may be guilty. I don't know at this time and none of us do either.

What I was about to say. You can indict a ham sandwich if u need an indictment
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mag Tiger
We also don't know if the first shot hit Smith and turned him around with the rest of the shots hitting Smith in the back. It hasn't been reported how many shots were fired?, was his wife hit by fragments or individual shots? There are a lot of questions still unanswered. The situation is we just don't know right now what happened and we may never know.

Did a little research and one gentleman (Turner) fired 18 shots (aimed and hit his targets 9" grouping) in 1.61 seconds.
Jerry Miculek, shot eight shots and hit four targets in 1.06 seconds and on another occasion fired a revolver six times, reloaded and fired six more times (and hit his targets) in 2.99 seconds. Not saying Hayes is anywhere near that level but shots (8-10?) can come out a lot faster than you would imagine when the adrenaline is pumping. https://www.youtube.com/user/MiculekDotCom
 
A Grand Jury can indict a slice of bread with the right prosecutor............................ That's why the question of guilt or innocence is rightfully left up to the jury trial. I wouldn't want most of you on a jury if I was on trial. You would have already made up your minds based on media reports (and we all know they are never wrong and never make mistakes) I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but I do know what the Constitution of our country says. Lot of the lynch mob mentality here based on comments people are making. Hayes may be guilty. I don't know at this time and none of us do either.

I think you sell many on here short; imo most would be good jurors. In fact,I bet most would get stricken by defense based on education and the jobs they do; the defense would be looking for the exact idiots you fear, the dumber the better.
 
And you would be indicted and convicted of murder since you cannot prove that said person was going to retrieve a gun to kill you. Some of you simply cannot get past the fact that verbal threats are not enough to warrant taking someones life. Not legally, nor morally.

If a verbal threat to retrieve a gun in a heated argument is made and you believe that you are in danger of great bodily harm if the gun is retrieved is enough under the law.
 
If a verbal threat to retrieve a gun in a heated argument is made and you believe that you are in danger of great bodily harm if the gun is retrieved is enough under the law.

Not true. The belief has to be reasonable. IMO shooting an unarmed man is not reasonable. If he's reaching for a gun, maybe, but if he's walking toward his car, doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tiger4ever2
If a verbal threat to retrieve a gun in a heated argument is made and you believe that you are in danger of great bodily harm if the gun is retrieved is enough under the law.
Exactly. Especially when their is alcohol involved, which it seems there was. And let's no forget that we're talking about the NOPD and a captain that just had dinner with Smith showing back up on the scene. I thank police for what they do, but there are corrupt individuals out there. It just doesn't seem cut and dry and to have already decided Hayes is guilty based on what the police have said, because a grand jury indicted, or the facts you think you know from the media, is extremely naive.
http://theadvocate.com/news/neworle...pt-billy-ceravolo-couple-who-rode-with-smiths
 
Not true. The belief has to be reasonable. IMO shooting an unarmed man is not reasonable. If he's reaching for a gun, maybe, but if he's walking toward his car, doubt it.
So you know he wasn't reaching for a gun in the front seat of his car? That he was just walking back to his car? No account says he was just walking back to his car, he was in the car.

Bottom line- if an NOPD police captain messed with the scene, he walks in my opinion. And there would have been no reason to mess with the scene if he was cut and dry.
 
ADVERTISEMENT