Lawyer for Cardell Hayes’ passenger calls killing of Will Smith “justifiable homicide”

Getty Images

There appears to be no dispute that Cardell Hayes shot and killed former Saints defensive end Will Smith, and so Hayes will claim he was defending himself and the passenger in his Hummer when he killed Smith in New Orleans on Saturday night.

Hayes’ passenger, Kevin Oneale, has not been charged in the incident but has hired a lawyer. And that lawyer told NBC News that Hayes was protecting both himself and Oneale.

“Smith had a gun and was going to shoot it and Cardell may have saved both of their lives,” attorney Tanzanike Ruffin said. “In my mind, this is justifiable homicide. We assume Will Smith is a saint but he’s not.”

Hayes’ lawyer has previously said that Hayes was “not the aggressor” in the incident. Hayes, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder, appears set to claim the killing of Smith was self defense.

119 responses to “Lawyer for Cardell Hayes’ passenger calls killing of Will Smith “justifiable homicide”

  1. Was shooting Smith’s wife twice also justifiable?
    The videos clearly show Hayes chasing Smith in his Hummer and I doubt he approached Smith with his insurance card in his hand…..makes me doubt he was not the aggressor.

  2. If a guy enters your home and threatens you and you shoot him in the back out in the yard, YOU are going to the big house.

    If Hayes is telling the truth, he should have put his SUV in reverse and escaped the danger.

  3. The loaded gun in Smiths vehicle may be just enough to create the doubt needed for a finding of not guilty. Will be interesting to see the bigger picture as more of the story comes out

  4. The lawyer’s play on words with Will Smith not being a “saint” is despicable, regardless of who the aggressor was.

  5. These lawyers need to shut up and let the police complete their investigation … their could be more video from businesses in the area that show what happened …

  6. Let’s see, Will was shot in the back while in his car. How was he a threat? Hit and run is wrong, but you get that person’s license plate and call the cops. You don’t get out the car with a gun and confront that person. Screw these lawyers.

  7. Did Smith have his gun out in his hand? Just saying you have a gun, while threatening, is not cause for getting shot. If Hayes shot an unarmed Smith, even if Smith did say he had a gun, he murdered him.

  8. 1) Hayes who has a history of violence, illegal weapons possession, and drugs???

    2) Smith “just happened” to be eating with the police officer that shot Hayes father minutes before the incident. Bit of a coincidence dont you think????

    3) Hayes rear-end Smith at the second encounter and already had the gun on him when he got out of his vehicle. Does this sound like something you do if you were simply trying to report a hit and run?

    Not saying Smith was totally innocent in this but clearly this was not a case of “self-defense” or justifiable homicide!

  9. I doubt that “justifiable homicide” comes from shooting another in the back. It appears that Will Smith may have bumped this guy in the rear of his H2 after Cardell Hayes slammed on his brakes. Will Smith drove around him at that point, and then, instead of calling the police and waiting for an officer, Hayes aggressively chased, rammed, and then shot Will Smith and his wife. Nothing “justifiable” about his actions.

  10. That is an interesting twist. Will Smith did have a loaded gun in his car, so this guys story is plausible. The point is if these guys weren’t carring a gun they would have yelled at each other then gone on with the rest of their lives. Instead both their lives are ruined. I will never understand why people feel they need to be carrying at all times.

  11. Unless Oneale has some sort of law degree, I will guess he doesn’t know the definition of “Justifiable Homicide”.
    I wasn’t there but if Smith was going for his gun, then Hayes probably did act in self-defense.
    Never pull out a weapon unless you intend to use it and anything worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.

  12. hmmmm something tells me Smith didn’t have his gun on him during the altercation, and Hayes put one in the chest and a few in his back. This idiot is done for.

  13. Imagine having the job of that lawyer and vilifying a fallen martyr so soon after his death. Even if the guy is being honest, he’s going to be crucified

  14. Smith may not have had his gun on him, but if announced he was getting it, then that points to self defense. Shooting in the back? Well is he supposed to wait until Smith has his gun and is already shooting at him?

    Smith hit the other guy’s car first. The other guy took off after him and hit him later. As I understand it anyway.

    He probably won’t be able to say self defense as him hitting the Smith’s car (although I guess he could say it’s an accident) might negate that.

    But it’ll get pleaded to manslaughter and he’ll be out in 3-4 years.

  15. Its scary some of you are aloud to vote !!

    A gun is as evil or good as the person behind it !

  16. Unfortunately, he will probably get off. The duty to retreat has been removed from self-defense/Stand Your Ground laws and especially in LA where possession of a gun was made a fundamental state constitutional right under Jindal. Just saying you were scared is now enough to kill someone and be exonerated because of those NRA-lobbied provisions. More guns are always the answer and the law reflects that.

    “That’s some silly stuff we’re hanging on to.”
    -Sean Payton

  17. There is some info out there that the says that Smith, his wife and Pierre Thomas had just had dinner with Billy Ceravolo, former New Orleans Police Department commander. Billy Ceravolo was named in Hayes’ lawsuit over his fathers death. He was shot in an incident with officers apparently. Who knows how true this stuff is, but it wouldn’t be far fetched that Hayes followed and rear ended Smith on purpose with the intention of confronting him or even with the intention of shooting him. Might not be random violence.

  18. nowillrepeat says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:06 AM

    Let’s see, Will was shot in the back while in his car. How was he a threat? Hit and run is wrong, but you get that person’s license plate and call the cops. You don’t get out the car with a gun and confront that person. Screw these lawyers.
    ===============

    I hate to be “that guy”, but you don’t know that “Will was shot in the back while in his car.”. At no time has it been stated he was sitting in his car. And the “shot in the back” aspect has essentially been debunked. From what I have read, smith was outside his vehicle. The picture painted from a story I read recently (from one of the NOLA TV stations) makes it seem that Smith got out of the vehicle (there is no way to know if he had a gun or not, but the fact that one was in the vehicle makes it at least plausible he had a gun). The shooter pulled his gun. Now, if someone pulls a gun on you, you aren’t going to just stand there and get shot. you are going to react. There are a few reactions that may have happened, and both would lead to smith being shot in the back, and being found on the ground, slumped into the drivers seat (as has been reported, not sitting in the drivers seat with his seatbelt on and door closed). First, he may have been turning away from the shooter, leading him to be shot in the front, side and back (the story I read said smith had one shot in the chest, one shot in the side, and several shots in the back, which would indicate he was turning away from the shooter). The second possible scenario, would be he didn’t have his weapon in hand, and he saw the shooter’s weapon, so he made a move back toward his vehicle to get his gun, at which case the shooter began firing, and the same chest, side, back impacts would be found. If Smith was “shot in the back”, every single bullet would have entered in his back. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Am I arguing in favor of the shooter? Hell no. But I am so tired of people presenting their own facts of the case. For 3 days we heard Smith was unarmed, sitting in the drivers seat, and shot in the back. Now we hear he wasn’t unarmed, imagine that, another armed “unarmed black man”. Do you really think Smith rear ended a guy, drove around him (in what looks to me like he is trying to evade because he was drinking), and when this guy then rear ends him to return the favor, Smith is just going to sit in his car and wait for the light to turn green??? No, he got out of his car. Personally, I think an intoxicated Smith just so happened to accidentally rear end the wrong guy, and then when he tried to evade “the wrong guy”, that guy made a decision that this dude was gonna get blasted, and that’s what he did. The outcome was going to be the same no matter what once Smith rear ended him, sadly.

    Lastly, the fact that the wife got shot does not mean the wife was his intended target. It is clear this guy was spraying and praying and had very little skill with his weapon. I’m shocked that only 2 people got wounded to be honest. He didn’t walk around the vehicle and pop Smith’s wife for good measure, she was hit with stray bullets, it wasn’t an execution attempt on his wife that failed…

  19. Given LA is a stand your ground state, no doubt he will claim:

    there’s nothing legally preventing Hayes from following Smith to get drivers information after Smith got in that very minor fender bender and Smith attempted a hit and run

    Evidently a witness heard them both declare “I’ve got a gun” which was straight up stupid n both their parts

    Smith suddenly turned around to retrieve something from inside his SUV and Hayes, fearing he was going to be shot, shot Smith, unfortunately his wife was also hit as she was in the background

    and it’s probably going to work as a defense unless some eye witness contradiction comes around

  20. “bunglesandbears says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:48 AM
    …and the NRA continues to suggest that having more guns on America’s streets would make it a safer place to live.”

    Yes. That is a fact. There are far more homicides every year from knifes and blunt instruments than guns. And homicides (and overall crime) are the lowest in US history especially in areas with conceal carry laws are embraced. The areas with the highest crime rates tend to be areas with the toughest gun restrictions like Chicago where citizens are not allowed to defend themselves.

    I am an advocate for police officers everywhere but the police force is a reactionary entity. They rarely prevent a crime. Just clean up after mostly so the ability to defend yourself is paramount. Gun control zones and Gun Free zones are prime targets which is why the majority of mass killings happen in these type of places within the US. Restricting access to guns will not prevent criminals from accessing them and there are not enough police officers to deal with the current population and the surge in the population growth due to illegal immigration. We can’t even prevent cartels from moving weapons in and out of the US which has resulted in more loss of life along the boarder states to American citizens that the government is sworn to protect and liberals want to disarm the citizens even more.

  21. My guess is that this ends up as a voluntary manslaughter charge. The loaded gun that Smith had is going to make a difference to a jury. It will also play into his favor that Smith’s wife wasn’t killed and the other passengers in the back seat weren’t harmed. He can just claim that if he was looking to kill him, he would have sprayed bullets more wildly, which isn’t what happened. None of us were there, so we don’t know the exchange between them and how it escalated so quickly. It’s just unfortunate because it ended with one man dead and unable to come home to his family ever again.

  22. bunglesandbears says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:48 AM
    …and the NRA continues to suggest that having more guns on America’s streets would make it a safer place to live.
    ————————————————

    1. No, that’s not what the NRA continues to suggest. The NRA suggests enforcing the laws that are already on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

    2. Have more guns in their hands of responsible individuals that use it for protection, and not crime. Like retired police officers or trained military personnel guarding schools, or military establishments that are targets of terrorists that Democrats continue to let in the country, and give free schooling, health care, and drivers license to.

  23. kissmysandwich says:

    This message board illustrates impeccably why we have trials in this country. Unless you were there, you don’t know jack.

    How do jurors know what happened? They weren’t there either. Just getting 4th hand info from a slim ball lawyer.

  24. hairpie2 says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:24 AM
    I thought if everyone had a gun, no one would ever get shot?
    ______
    Smart post above.

    This is what all the gun supporters want. If Smith would have had his gun in his hand, we could have had a wild west shoot out. That is certainly a much better outcome. Maybe even more people get shot and killed. Or maybe, just the two shooters kill each other. All those results are much better because people get to have their hand guns. Who cares the result.

    Does anyone stop and wonder, if neither party has a gun, they hopefully just get pissed off and stop this from escalating and drive away? But the right to carry guns here certainly preserved peoples safety. Right?!

    Look, I am being ridiculous on purpose. Under the right circumstances, gun ownership is fine. Driving around with them, unless in a law enforcement capacity, or as part of a security detail just begs for stuff like this. Too many people are unstable or just idiots.

  25. “”The videos clearly show Hayes chasing Smith in his Hummer and I doubt he approached Smith with his insurance card in his hand…..makes me doubt he was not the aggressor.”

    Actually video has emerged showing Smith rear ending Hayes first a few minutes before, it was a minor tap but Smith drove off while Hayes was starting to pull over and resolve the accident.

    Hayes then chased Smith and the rest of the ugly scene went down. A loaded 9mm handgun was also found in Smith’s vehicle so he may be threatened Hayes as well.

    This is not so cut and dried.

  26. jjackwagon says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:22 AM
    Unless Oneale has some sort of law degree, I will guess he doesn’t know the definition of “Justifiable Homicide”.
    I wasn’t there but if Smith was going for his gun, then Hayes probably did act in self-defense.
    Never pull out a weapon unless you intend to use it and anything worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
    ——————————————————————-
    Unless you’re law-enforcement you can’t assume someone is going for a gun and shoot them. Especially a guy like Hayes who shouldn’t have had a gun anyway.

    If Smith felt threatened he would have had his gun in hand, that’s why most athletes in New Orleans have them as a deterrent, or protection. To me all the signs are pointing towards murder.

    There’s literally hundreds of people getting in accidents every day with handguns in cars, and I can tell you from experience your first reaction isn’t shoot the guy that collided with you.

  27. Nobody should have got killed over this, but if you watch the video that was on NBC nightly news it shows Smith running into the back of Hayes’s Hummer. Hayes proceeds to pull his Hummer over to the side of the road. Smith sped around the Hummer and took off. That is when Hayes started chasing Smith. Why didn’t Smith just pull his car over like the Hummer after the accident and do the insurance thing. Maybe nobody would have got killed.

  28. hatersgonnahatehate says:
    Apr 13, 2016 10:13 AM
    hallofchad says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:36 AM

    Its scary some of you are aloud to vote !!
    ************************************
    allowed*
    ===================================

    We all knew what you meant. It’s a common mistake especially with those that use dictation devices. As far as your point, you’re right.

  29. I don’t believe we’re going to get an accurate verdict in the court of uninformed sound-bite public opinion, but I just wonder how this self-defense plea explains shooting Smith’s wife.

  30. ( . Y . ) says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:45 AM
    He didn’t walk around the vehicle and pop Smith’s wife for good measure, she was hit with stray bullets, it wasn’t an execution attempt on his wife that failed…

    ———————————————————————

    And with that line you did exactly what you spent 2 extremely long paragraphs doing what you said others were doing—-assuming.

    You don’t know how or why his wife was shot but if he was outside, and she was in the car, it blows your theory straight out of the water.

  31. Feed just enough info via the media then push for a change of venue due to publicity. This lawyer is creating just that and judging by the keyboard lawyers in the comments its working.

  32. I agree hallofchad. I believe in order to vote you should show legal ID and your last two pay-stubs. Only those who contribute should have a say…

  33. If he never pulled the gun it is going to be very hard to prove an imminent threat to his and his passengers lives. A threat is typically not enough to prove justifiable homicide.

  34. reaganyears says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:49 AM
    Was shooting Smith’s wife twice also justifiable?

    —————————-

    A small scoop of common sense is all that is needed to know that he didn’t shoot Smith then walk over and pop his wife for good luck.

    Bullets don’t just hit what they are aimed at and they have this way of going through the things they hit.

  35. bunglesandbears says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:48 AM
    …and the NRA continues to suggest that having more guns on America’s streets would make it a safer place to live.

    Yup, takes bits & pieces, string them together in a way that makes your point. Classic.

    They read but do not understand.

  36. I dont get it. If they both had guns surely that makes them both and all the rest of us safe, at least that is what the NRA tell us all the time.

  37. evidently they both declared they had a gun, then Smith suddenly turned around to get something from his vehicle

    if that eyewitness account is true, then when Smith turned to get something out of his vehicle, Smith was most likely handing Hayes a get out of jail free card for self defense

    it’s straight up stupid for 2 guys to declare they have guns over a fender bender, and even more stupid to declare you have a weapon then make a sudden movement

  38. “You don’t know how or why his wife was shot but if he was outside, and she was in the car, it blows your theory straight out of the water.”

    No, it doesn’t.

    Bullets often go through their intended target or maybe he just missed.

    The fact that Smith didn’t have a gun when he got out of the car doesn’t negate self defense either. If he states he is about to get a gun and settle, this then that’s self defense.

  39. “We assume Will Smith is a saint but he’s not.”

    This guy wants to win over a jury in New Orleans? Probably not a good way to start.

  40. This Lieyer has his work cut out for him indeed as Will Smith was shot in the BACK! Hello?The Lieyer Knows this but he is after all of his clients money he got from his settlement.Like any really good Lieyer would be doing! LOL Watch when his client is found guilty his Lieyer will be quipping OH We WILL APPEAL THIS UNJUSTIFIED VERDICT!!!

  41. Discussion is good, but in reality, none of us were there. Not the cops, lawyers or anyone else but those named. It is prudent let the PD sort this out and report findings in the probable cause hearing on the 28th. Right now they are holding the shooter. I am sure ‘real’ information is being withheld due to the investigation being ‘open’.

  42. With even the bit of information that is out there including the video, it suggests that Hayes most likely “brake checked” Smith causing Smith to what appears to “almost” rear end him. Hayes was looking for a confrontation if you ask me, then chased Smith down and rear-ended him instead. Yeah, no aggression there at all… I am certain Hayes was out to get Smith that night. Too many coincidences…

    And that Smith has a concealed weapon in his vehicle means absolutely nothing unless it was found in his hand or discharged.

    If it looks like a duck…..

  43. You anti-gun people kill me! Ok, let’s say guns are now illegal. What next? Do you think everybody will just go turn thekrs in (assuming the legally own it)? Do you think the people who illegally own them are going to do the same? Should there now be a “War on Guns” much like the ever-so-successful War on Drugs? We all see how that’s worked out. Do you want to force the issue such that only the criminals will have these guns? You’re a fool if you think banning them will make them go away. People need to step up and start parenting the right way. It’s a shame how many grown-ass men are totally incapable of solving issues with the spoken word. Baffles me…

  44. He was defending himself as a law abiding citizen with a gun! You’d think the hard core conservatives and NRA supporters on this site would be falling over themselves to defend Hayes.

  45. I thought it was interesting that Pierre Thomas said he witnessed this and that he places the blame, not on Hayes, but that this happened because of a”…fender bender”. (this was his quote on the PFT article last night)

    Think about it.

    If you saw your friend shot, you wouldn’t blame the accident or incident leading up to the murder. You would most likely blame the person who shot your friend. But Pierre is attributing the death of Will Smith to the accident, not the person who pulled the trigger.

  46. So let me get this straight…the guy hit Will Smith’s vehicle hard enough to make it collide with another vehicle. Then he gets out of his car and approaches Smith and they get into an argument at which time he shoots and kills Smith. How is it he is not the aggressor?

    Unlucky for Hayes, Smith’s wife survived and will testify as to what happened.

    Regarding the gun in Smith’s vehicle…just because they found a gun doesn’t necessarily mean Smith wielded it. Since it wasn’t in any of the early reports that would seem to indicate it may not have been visible. Hayes’ lawyer never seemed to mention it until it was reported in the media which could mean it was never displayed.

    Time will tell but I wouldn’t believe hardly anything his lawyer says. His only job is to find ways to ensure his lawyer gets away with murder.

  47. I could almost see the lawyer’s point if Will Smith had exited his vehicle WITH the gun. But he didn’t, so how does this guy figure it’s justifiable homicide? What a joke. Killed Smith and shot his wife,twice? How was she a threat? They were just looking for some trouble. If he gets away with this,it’s just more proof that the US justice system is a train wreck.

  48. Where are all the dislikes now after i previously posted it was interesting that a previous PFT slated articles brushed over the fact that Hayes called the police. You PFT readers need to think for urselves and not instantly make conclusions based on the authors narrative. Rack it.

  49. Shoot to Kill an unarmed victim is hardly self defense.

    Also – For those video game anti-enthuasist: I hardly believe that Haye’s has ever played a video game. Violence in video games is childs play compared UFC tournaments or Simple Fender Benders – turned – homicide.

    Count my blessing, everyday.

  50. No matter how this shakes out, it was a fender bender and nobody should get hurt let alone die. The term “cooling heads prevail” would have been nice.

  51. The gun news is interesting but the evidence will probably decide what really happened. If Smith was shot in the back it’s all over for the shooter. Even if not, why was Smith’s wife shot?

    Smith pulling a gun is about the only way this guy Hayes can legitimately claim self-defense, it is interesting his lawyer didn’t mention Smith having a gun when he initially opened his mouth (at least according to what I read).

  52. to me the best thing that could come from this case is the city of new orleans opens the civil judgment of Haye’s father’s death, and uses the new definition his lawyer espouses to for justifiable homicide and gets the judgement thrown out.

  53. let me see if I get this right, Smith’s gun was found inside his vehicle which means he did not have it on him, then the other guy went and got his gun out of his vehicle despite smith not having his on him , if so that makes him the aggressor. also what justifies shooting the wife? seriously , lawyers will be the downfall of this country.

  54. Williams was shot multiple times in the back but I’ll tell you what this is about MONEY. With the jury pool in New Orleans having a combined IQ of 50 he will get off. Hayes will then sue the Williams family and the way it goes in America today probably win and leave the family penniless.

  55. All these arguments stating that if neither guy had a gun, the outcome would have been different. Sure! But, that’s assuming both parties acquired their guns legally. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the shooter didn’t get his piece through legal means and Smith probably did. If you change the laws as the anti-gunners want, the only guy with a gun in that case, would still be the shooter! How does that change the outcome? Most of the gun crimes we hear about and don’t hear about, have little or nothing to do with legally acquired firearms, and very likely could have been prevented or fatalities minimized, had there been someone with their legally owned and carried weapon to stop the perpetrator. With such an emotionally charged topic, facts are often misinterpreted or ignored. One of those facts is, criminals never have and never will, be bound by the law, so just what does gun abolishment really achieve except to give them even more of an advantage over the rest of us?

  56. The geometry shot in the back thing is confusing some people.

    From what I understand the shooter was standing outside the driver side window. Potentially Smith started pulling his gun.

    If the shooter was right handed he could indeed “shoot Smith in the back” but it was not like Smith was standing 10′ directly in front of him back turned and defenseless. It would be from an oblique angle.

    Which would also explain how his wife got shot if there was a miss or pass through.

  57. that carries the same fallacious weight as saying bows don’t kill people, arrows do;

    separating the pieces of a machine does nothing to dilute its intrinsic deadliness–what it does do is point directly to the true danger exhibited by the human who knows how to properly assemble the parts of the machine to restore its complete lethality;

    that being said, neither guns or bullets can be blamed for loading/assembling themselves, then pointing at a target before activating its mechanical process, any more than an can leave its quiver on its on volition then load and aim and fire itself at a target;

    the most dangerous gun in the world with the merest of hair triggers is completely harmless 100 yards away from everyone, just as any other lethal weapon would be;

    the solution, therefore, is logical as obvious;

    too bad neither the NRA nor Congress see it;

    perhaps if we had a few more moms in both…

  58. dreemeagle says:
    Apr 13, 2016 12:27 PM
    that carries the same fallacious weight as saying bows don’t kill people, arrows do;

    separating the pieces of a machine does nothing to dilute its intrinsic deadliness–what it does do is point directly to the true danger exhibited by the human who knows how to properly assemble the parts of the machine to restore its complete lethality;

    So, when a person has 6 drinks then decides to drive, is that person restoring the lethality to that machine?

    You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan”. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
    [Joker hands Two-Face a gun and points it at himself]

  59. why would Smith announce he had a weapon if he intended to use it?

    why would he so freely sacrifice the element of surprise to someone who just came committed a vehicular assault if not to attempt to defuse any further escalation?

    hello, when you have an accident, don’t you have to reach into your vehicle to get your insurance information and something to write they’re down with?

    what can you write down with a pistol besides–if you’re lucky–an epitaph?

    by turning his back on his assailant Will Smith sacrificed any possible surprise and any chance of bringing a weapon to bear first;

    this alleged killer hasn’t a leg to stand on in any manner of jurisprudence;

  60. geometry, you say?

    didn’t Smith announce he had a pistol?

    having completely forfeited any possible element of surprise, how could it be conceived he’d bring his weapon around to bear on a man already brandishing his?

    that is what makes any self-defence claim ridiculous and any jury will see that;

    what’s the geometry of reaching into your glove compartment for your insurance information?

    that’s where i keep mine, like most people;

  61. Had Will Smith unloaded on Hayes after he was attacked with the Hummer THAT would have been justifiable homicide.

  62. News conference just now with Smith family attorney who says that once his car was hit, Will Smith got out of the car and approached the Hummer with Hayes inside. Words followed and Raquel approached the two and was able to diffuse the situation. She and Willl returned to their car when shots rang out killing
    Will and injuring Raquel.

  63. najacoo22 says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:50 AM
    Laughable. How do these lawyers sleep at night?

    In much bigger beds than us common folk with high thread count sheets.

  64. All of u commenting that he shot and unarmed man and that he’s going to jail most likely commenting off your state laws when it comes to self defense, I’m in ny and know the laws are different down south!!! U threaten someone’s life and the person Ur threatening is genuinely fearful of his life regardless of you hold a gun or not is grounds for sm the stand your ground laws down south… with news of Smith actually having a loaded gun after he made his threat, sounds as if this Hayes guy has alot in his favor

  65. The passenger hired a lawyer so he and Hayes could keep their stories straight. There is no way Smith had his gun pointed at Hayes and didn’t shoot him if Hayes produced a pistol. Not to mention, all the reports paint the picture that Hayes hit Smith’s car, jumped out and shot him. Hayes executed Smith, and it is not some random incident. Too much coincidence is required to think the incident was chance.

    And to all the anti gun fools. You need to get programmed somewhere else. Whoever is brainwashing you all is making you look like idiots.

  66. “How do jurors know what happened? They weren’t there either. Just getting 4th hand info from a slim ball lawyer.”

    They rely on witnesses, ballistics experts, etc.

    If Hayes feared for his life cause Smith said “I’m fixin to kill you!”, and you don’t know that he didn’t, well then it’s GAME on.

    And “why would Smith announce he’s got a gun and lose the element of surprise?”. I don’t know. Innocent until proven guilty though. Let’s let a court settle this out instead of thinking we can logic this out from what little we have to go on.

    This guy, Hayes, has millions from a settlement. No way he does serious time.

  67. These comments show that people don’t understand the “Stand your ground” law, or should it be more accurately named “Kill and walk”

  68. godfatherd ,

    And exactly whose word are you taking on whether he pulled it or not, his friends and wife? In the heat of what happened at 11:00 at night, do you even think those people could say for sure if he did or not? I’m on record saying I think this was about some past beef and Hayes was waiting for a reason to pull the trigger, thus why he had his gun on him when he got out of his vehicle in the first place, but our criminal justice system doesn’t work on what you believe. It’s about what you can prove.

  69. a handgun BY DESIGN is an anti-personnel weapon–that is precisely all it does;

    other machines–in this case, a car–MAY BE EMPLOYED as a lethal weapon, but that is not what it is designed for;

    so can a soda pop bottle, toothbrush, paper clip, hardcover of a book, a baseball bat or a CD case;

    when someone puts four wheels on a handgun and drives it to work and parks it in a garage, then and only then can you compare it to a car;

  70. nowillrepeat says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:06 AM
    Let’s see, Will was shot in the back while in his car. How was he a threat? Hit and run is wrong, but you get that person’s license plate and call the cops. You don’t get out the car with a gun and confront that person. Screw these lawyers.

    “I’m going to get my gun and kill you.” (goes over and reaches into his car).

    Not saying this is what happened, but completely plausible and would push this into grey area.

  71. bmoreb says:
    Apr 13, 2016 8:59 AM
    The lawyer’s play on words with Will Smith not being a “saint” is despicable, regardless of who the aggressor was.
    ——————————————————————–
    Not a saint? Let the puns begin. For those talking by gun control… He could’ve just used his SUV and ran him over when he got out. Cue the limits on vehicles then??

  72. He was a threat because he was reaching for a gun. He was talking to him, not “confronting him”. He did have a gun, but it wasn’t visible to Smith.

    I’ve heard both sides now, I’m voting not guilty.

  73. mattbilleauthor says:
    Apr 13, 2016 9:14 AM
    Oh, yeah, Smith was going to shoot. That’s why he left his gun in his car and came out UNARMED.
    ——————
    At this stage, it’s just possible that a friend or family member restowed the gun afterwards but before the cops found it. Tests need to be done, 3rd-party eye-witnesses. It’ll all (hopefully) bevome clear in the trial.

  74. And some people wonder why lawyers are hated to much. A gun in the car can get you out of trouble…or it can get you into trouble.

  75. Shooting a man in the BACK, ….. SEVEN TIMES, is “justifiable”?

    Shooting a woman twice, in the legs, is “justifiable”?

    I suppose the man, while apparently walking away, was a ‘threat’ to Hayes.

    I suppose the wife was a ‘threat’ to Hayes’.

    “Justifiable Homicide” is a bunch of B.S.; especially considering where the shots hit Smith.

  76. broncomath101 says:
    Apr 13, 2016 10:27 AM
    Looking forward to hearing his wife’s testimony.

    ________________________

    So am I. In addition to the other passengers’ testimony that were in the veh with her and her husband.

  77. kenberthiaume says:
    Apr 13, 2016 2:04 PM

    ” ……..This guy, Hayes, has millions from a settlement. No way he does serious time.”

    _______________

    Where did you get “millions”? I read several different reports that the ‘settlement’ was for less than $200,000. And, that was a couple of years ago. You think he invested it?

  78. Here is an extract from one of the several articles I pulled up re: the settlement the city of N.O. made to Hayes and his sister for the 2005 shooting death of their father:

    City officials revealed Monday that they paid $100,000 to settle Hayes’ claim and an additional $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Hayes’ sister Tyiece Baptiste-Howard.

    That shooting happened Dec. 26, 2005, four months after Hurricane Katrina, near St. Charles Avenue and Felicity Street — a few blocks from the site of Smith’s shooting death at Felicity and Sophie Wright Place.”

  79. I’m sad, as a football fan, to read that so many fans have absolutely no clue as to why our legal system requires a zealous defense.

    The Jurisprudence system and the NRA provide a zealous advocacy for those who still believe the Constitution.

    That said, there’s a lot of people who should not have guns. That doesn’t mean all the others shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Just like cars and drunk drivers.

  80. Getting shot in the back 7 times makes this BS story. Smith was murdered. Anyone who thinks otherwise has an agenda.

  81. “we can’t get rid of guns, it’s too hard, people won’t just give up their guns, and even if they did, then only criminals would have them!”

    America – the country built on people looking at a problem, and saying “awwww that’s too hard, we can’t do it”

    bunch of whiners. Australia got rid of their gun problem, in a very quick and orderly fashion. Are you telling me that Americans can’t even do what Australians did 20 years ago?

    I really miss the America that won two world wars, put a man on the moon, and invented and/or improved virtually every aspect of modernity. Oh well, I guess it’s China’s turn anyway, have fun dying younger, dumber and poorer than anyone else in the civilized world.

  82. This comment illustrates the problem with the thought process of some males in our society… if I think you directed me I have the right to kill you… BTW the gun did not Kill Will Smith and person with a distorted view of the situation killed him.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!