Cardell Hayes manslaughter conviction of Will Smith overturned by Supreme Court (3 Viewers)

Saint Kamara

Formerly SaintSproles and SaintReggie
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
38,737
Reaction score
51,534
Age
56
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
Sticky Post
Someone will have to explain this one to me, because I'm lost.



In 2016, Cardell Hayes was convicted of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of retired New Orleans Saints defensive leader Will Smith. Monday, the U.S. Supreme ...
 

St. Chris

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
1,762
Age
56
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
Non-unanimous juries make the job of defense attorneys much easier. All you need to one doubting Thomas on the jury. Most of the cases I tried in New Orleans involved African American victims, as well as defendants, so I never saw non-unanimous juries as being a racial thing. People of all colors want to be protected from bad guys of all colors.
Shouldn't the first sentence be "Unanimous juries make the job of defense attorneys much easier."?
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
2,324
Offline
Thanks for the thoughtful and considered response.

This is no criticism, but the idea that the act of removing firearms which have the obvious potential to cause great harm (school shootings, the Vegas massacre et al) is described as "barbaric" probably underscores much of what follows in your post. And indeed I do not dispute much (if anything) that you have said, save for perhaps the legitimacy of the premise that any armed citizen, or indeed group of them, is genuinely going to be able to resist the "tyranny" of a federal government with the power of the world's strongest military at its disposal. In saying that, I am sure there are people who subjectively believe that to be a valid reason for gun ownership.

You are right when you say we do not have a deep-seated suspicion of government here too. Indeed, the first white settlers arrived and the laws of England as they stood were transposed to Australia at that point in time. In other words, a system of government was here before the (white) people were. Nobody seriously considered that laws targeting gun ownership were about reducing the capacity of our citizens to fight back against an oppressive government. It was a health and safety issue, it was framed as such, and the overwhelming majority accepted that the measures were appropriate.

Moreover, I accept that a legacy of sociopolitical factors combine to make gun ownership normal and generally acceptable in the face of the obvious damage it does to society. I also accept that the implementation of any buyback or voluntary hand-in scheme of the kind that saw about one-third to one-half of Australia's total gun inventory returned and destroyed after 1996 would be a far more challenging proposition, though not impossible. What I don't accept are the flawed arguments that these laws - properly and universally enforced - do not work: they do, and we are proof of it.

Never once has it crossed my mind that an altercation with a person who has merged without looking, stolen a carpark I was about to turn into, or collided with my car on the 2-3 occasions that has happened in 15+ years on the road might be armed. At worst, in a road rage incident, you run the risk of someone throwing a punch. It is absolutely inconceivable that somebody could fire seven shots into your back, as Cardell Hayes did to Will Smith. It also follows that the self-defence argument falls away when there are no guns, because using one is plainly disproportionate to any potential threat. The anxiety of people in the community is reduced. The temperature is lowered. The scope for incidents to escalate is significantly curtailed.

My initial point was merely this: America could take meaningful steps to eliminate gun violence. It could drastically reduce the number of incidents like Sandy Hook, Vegas, Columbine, the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, etc. It could introduce laws that would, over time, dramatically reduce the figure of 12.1 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it by far the most dangerous first-world country in this respect.

Instead, for a variety of reasons (some of which you have concisely articulated), the country seems content to accept a trade-off where a given (and comparatively very high) number of people will die in avoidable situations so as to preserve the right of ordinary citizens to own high-powered weaponry. I also want to avoid the perception I am a random foreigner in another country arrogantly pontificating on these issues without the benefit of context: I have been to 25+ states in the US, have tailgated at SEC football games, driven through and spent lengthy periods in some of the deepest red states in the country.

Your post succinctly articulates why there is no sufficient appetite for change. I do understand these views even if I don't agree with them. What I don't agree with are disingenuous arguments in favour of the status quo which are to the effect that it is not a solvable problem.
Thanks for a great, point-by-point intelligent response. The sort of knowledgable, reasonable, and logical responses I like and have come to expect from SR and its posters.

I will say this, and this argument is based around an presumption that could be outdated and doesn't take into consideration Australian state and federal laws surrounding gun ownership but since most of Australia's population lives along the eastern coast and into the central parts of the continent, the wide-open Western bush lands, Outback regions or what I half-jokingly term "Wild West Australia" the western parts of the country leading to the remote large city of Perth(Heath Ledger's hometown). Western Australia is one of the most scarcely populated regions in the country and because of its remoteness, isolation, it would potentially serve as a primary place for arms traffickers, storage places or dump hauls for massive international drug shipments.

Isolated, barely populated regions tend to be great potentially in holding or storaging contraband, drugs, illegal semiautomatic weapons, large caches of money, region with a long, storied history full of secrets. I know that there's still a bit of a conspiracy theory surrounding Australia's PM Harold Holt, who vanished while swimming off the east coast of Australia in 1967 and supposedly was never found. Some have alleged Holt was a covert Chinese spy and had converted to socialism since his days at University of Melbourne, IIRC and that he was instead, secretly spirited away by a Chinese submarine nearby while feigning an apparent drowning. These incredible, if not fantastical allegations were made public in the book, The Prime Minister was a Spy, in the early 1980's by Anthony Grey.




Do some parts of those areas give off that particular vibe or aura? I know majority, or I would like to believe that a majority of Aussies and Kiwis (New Zealanders) are well-traveled. It's something some Aussies have told me over the years that's rigorously encouraged to many growing up in HS and universities.
 
Last edited:

Poison

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
2,367
Reaction score
3,512
Age
33
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Offline
Thanks for a great, point-by-point intelligent response. The sort of knowledgable, reasonable, and logical responses I like and have come to expect from SR and its posters.

I will say this, and this argument is based around an presumption that could be outdated and doesn't take into consideration Australian state and federal laws surrounding gun ownership but since most of Australia's population lives along the eastern coast and into the central parts of the continent, the wide-open Western bush lands, Outback regions or what I half-jokingly term "Wild West Australia" the western parts of the country leading to the remote large city of Perth(Heath Ledger's hometown). Western Australia is one of the most scarcely populated regions in the country and because of its remoteness, isolation, it would potentially serve as a primary place for arms traffickers, storage places or dump hauls for massive international drug shipments.

Isolated, barely populated regions tend to be great potentially in holding or storaging contraband, drugs, illegal semiautomatic weapons, large caches of money, region with a long, storied history full of secrets. I know that there's still a bit of a conspiracy theory surrounding Australia's PM Harold Holt, who vanished while swimming off the east coast of Australia in 1967 and supposedly was never found. Some have alleged Holt was a covert Chinese spy and had converted to socialism since his days at University of Melbourne, IIRC and that he was instead, secretly spirited away by a Chinese submarine nearby while feigning an apparent drowning. These incredible, if not fantastical allegations were made public in the book, The Prime Minister was a Spy, in the early 1980's by Anthony Grey.




Do some parts of those areas give off that particular vibe or aura? I know majority, or I would like to believe that a majority of Aussies and Kiwis (New Zealanders) are well-traveled. It's something some Aussies have told me over the years that's rigorously encouraged to many growing up in HS and universities.
To answer your first question - while vast swathes of largely uninhabited land, particularly in Western Australia, might seem like an ideal location to stash weaponry and drugs, the reality is the tyranny of distance makes that unworkable. Australia is a long way from anywhere, frankly, which makes the task of smuggling contraband material here expensive, difficult and potentially quite dangerous, particularly on the open water.

One of the objections to restrictive gun laws is that "the criminals will still find a way to get their hands on them". However, Jim Jeffries rightly pointed out that the gun used at Sandy Hook, which cost $1,000 over the counter at Walmart in the US, would be accessible in Australia on the black market here for somewhere in the vicinity of $35,000. Part of that is because of the time and financial cost of smuggling that kind of weapon here and the risk of doing so is significant.

Unlawful drugs like cocaine are very, very expensive relative to other parts of the world (approximately $300 a gram here and much the same in New Zealand, or so I am told). The storage space might be enticing but the logistics are almost impossible. Plus, Australia has very strict border security and surveillance measures, an effective federal police force and a fairly rigorous approach when it comes to policing. This is not a jurisdiction where law enforcement agencies are liable to be corruptible at the institutional level, nor one that would turn a blind eye to illegal weapons, drug shipments or money laundering like they might elsewhere.

Some of those areas are still used for cool stuff, like this aircraft graveyard in Alice Springs which both domestic and local carriers use to store decommissioned or idle aeroplanes. But little to nothing in the way of unlawful/contraband material has ever been identified (and I don't believe that is just because it would be hard to find): https://www.news.com.au/travel/trav...s/news-story/65d31168715851a9125a322157676bcd

To answer the second - I think the Harold Holt conspiracies are like any incidents relating to high-profile figures or events. Like the JFK assassination, the moon landing, Sandy Hook, etc., there are people who look to construe these historically significant events as having a deeper significance or as forming part of a broader conspiracy.

The reality is that Holt was a Liberal Party politician (the conservative party in Australia, where "liberal" is essentially interchangeable with libertarian in American usage). He was educated at a school that has produced three conservative prime ministers and went to a sandstone university which to this day is ranked as one of the top 10 law schools in the world. That is, it was hardly a bastion of anti-establishment sentiment, particularly when Holt went there. He was also vehemently anti-communist, a true believer in the domino theory and very close with the US which resulted in his approval for the construction of several US intelligence facilities on Australian soil.

The Chinese spy conspiracy is without any credible evidence - just a fictitious reimagining of his disappearance. This is very much a case of Occam's Razor. The surf at Cheviot Beach beach where he disappeared is liable to be unpredictable at the best of times. You can be the world's most experienced endurance swimmer, but if you get caught in a rip at a place like Point Nepean, you can very quickly find yourself in a lot of trouble.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)



Headlines

Top Bottom