JOE FRANCIS IS NO PIMP!

Print This Post

Tweet This Story!

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

ronald richards vs joe francis JOE FRANCIS IS NO PIMP! photo

Know why?

Cuz any real pimp would have had one of their hoes nearby to handle any bitch who was getting outta pocket, mane!!!

Video recently was made public via RadarOnline showing the attack on Jayde Nicole. While it may have been provoked by Jayde who was defending her friend from Francis’ unwanted advances, Francis who is on probation and court supervision was way OUT-OF-LINE attacking her from behind in such a violent manner. Francis clearly committed a felony which is a BIG mistake for anyone currently under the thumb of law enforcement.

Jaydes Attorney and Hollywoods #1 Problem solver Ronald Richards is quoted as saying, “If we were on another planet, where people have eyes on the back of their heads, Francis’ version of events may be believable. However, since we are on planet Earth, the tape clearly shows a defenseless woman being savagely attacked by a three-time convicted felon who is on probation in more jurisdictions than John Gotti Jr.”

Not only that, but he is facing up against legal powerhouse and longtime adversary Ronald Richards who seems now regularly faces off against Francis to his serious detriment. Below is a brief summary of the law regarding self defense.

Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide)

Self-defense is a defense to . The defendant is not guilty of (that/those crime[s]) if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1 The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

2 The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND

3 The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).
When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
[The defendant's belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.]
[If you find that threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[If you find that the defendant knew that had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant's conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.]
[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with , you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).]
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ ) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of .

New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2008