It may be slightly different than robbing a bank, but it was still illegal.
No, it's not "slightly different than robbing a bank", it's totally different.
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
the same thing as trying to buy a dog/car/bicycle/pound of pot.
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.
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."
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.
If you guys really want to defend Anthony for what he did, go for it.
I'm not defending Anthony. He was/is a puerile ******* who is the victim of his own decisions. I was no fan of his when he was here on the forum.
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.