- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: McKnight shooter released from custody...Cliffnotes of Normand press conf inside
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:05 pm to idlewatcher
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:05 pm to idlewatcher
If you take the same route home from work everyday for the last 15 years, then one day someone accuses you of sideswiping them on a completely different road, the testimony of your routine will help create reasonable doubt that you weren't on the road. (I know different rules govern prior bad acts and habitual actions, but it was the easiest hypothetical I could think of)
1
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:14 pm to dabigfella
quote:
yea shaun white, im not calling him shaun king especially since its proven that he's just as white as rachel dolezal and vern lundquist
Shaun isn't his real name either.
I feel bad for the Tulane quarterback. He gets blamed for the hack's idiocy.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:15 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
I'm having a hard time understanding why multiple posters think past actions don't matter in a trial. It's pretty standard procedure to include this stuff in a
They won't unless the defendant takes the stand.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:16 pm to Kcrad
quote:
They won't unless the defendant takes the stand.
Who's the defendant?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:19 pm to tgrbaitn08
The only person who could.
Think it through.
Think it through.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:21 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
He has a pattern of switching lanes with no signal
If that's justification for homicide, NOLA should have a population of less than 10,000.
And Baton Rouge would no longer have traffic issues.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:24 pm to Kcrad
But as of right now there is no defendant and you're just playing pretend Law and Order?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:28 pm to Kcrad
quote:
It seems some folks on this thread are related to JM or are racked with white guilt. I just don't get it.
Not white guilt they are just lifelong jock sniffers
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:33 pm to lionward2014
quote:
I know different rules govern prior bad acts and habitual actions, but it was the easiest hypothetical I could think of)
Yep. That was a useless example.
Wouldn't trying to use Gasser's prior road rage arrest as evidence in this situation is the exact definition of propensity, thus making it inadmissible?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:38 pm to City
There are exceptions that any skilled lawyer could use to get it admissible. Not a sure thing but the rules of evidence are very nuanced.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:49 pm to City
quote:
It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident
Without knowing everything can't really craft an argument, but I can think of a few ways the DA would be able to attempt to get it in. Then again it might get struck down as overly prejudicial.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:10 pm to City
It can be used to demonstrate his prior behavior; it's not evidence
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:40 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Probably because a propensity to do something shouldn't be a determining factor of guilt. Each action is independent of another hence due process.
I don't think a propensity to do something implies guilt. I'm just saying past actions often do play a role in trials. I don't think I made that very clear.
Examples:
-Defendants who testify often run the risk of the jury learning of their criminal record.
-In this case, JPSO has already released a public statement regarding Gasser's past incident, which certainly plays a role in the mind of a juror.
-A prior criminal record is often used to enhance a sentence for a new crime. In addition, the criminal record of a witness is something juries also must analyze to determine the credibility of witness testimonies.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:45 pm to tiggah1981
quote:
Fearing for his life and fear of getting his arse whooped are two different things...how can one fear for their life if the other guy hasn't brandished any type of weapon
According to the law he only has to fear "receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger." and also, "For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began" ( RS 14:20)
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:52 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
According to the law he only has to fear "receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger." and also, "For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began" ( RS 14:20)
If there is no evidence Gasser provoked McKnight, he could very well be well within the confines of the law to use deadly force.
The question is what was his role (if any) in the escalation of the situation prior to the actual shooting. If he provoked McKnight's actions, then it would be harder to claim he was truly all that fearful, whereas if he played no role in provoking McKnight, this could be a much more open and close case.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:56 pm to PointsInCase
As of now from what we know there are no facts pointing towards Gasser provoking McKinght
All the evidence and facts point towards MCKnight being the aggressor.
Let's wait and see what other evidence comes out before we put Gasser on trial.
All the evidence and facts point towards MCKnight being the aggressor.
Let's wait and see what other evidence comes out before we put Gasser on trial.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:56 pm to moneyg
quote:
If you are truly in fear of your life, that's a really stupid thing to do
If your window is rolled up and your door is locked, I don't see what is stupid about pulling your weapon out and not shooting immediately. I'm not suggesting you can't shoot him, but pulling it out and pausing for a second to see if he retreats doesn't seem like a stretch.
I've admitted many times that if he was trying to getting into your car, you're more than justified in shooting him from a legal standpoint. I'm just suggesting ways you can eliminate the threat without eliminating the life of the threat.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 10:03 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
As of now from what we know there are no facts pointing towards Gasser provoking McKinght
Agree.
quote:
All the evidence and facts point towards MCKnight being the aggressor.
The only evidence we have is he approached Gasser's car from the passenger side. We cannot make the assumption he made any aggressive moves other than speculating based on the positioning of his vehicle. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Maybe I'm missing something here.
quote:
Let's wait and see what other evidence comes out before we put Gasser on trial.
If I were making the call now, I'd say he should walk.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 10:12 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
Not white guilt they are just lifelong jock sniffers
More realistically, I think people just hate to see a life ended so soon because of road rage. People are discussing that even though Gasser may have acted within the law, it may not have been necessary in hindsight. McKnight could have been killed while he was trying to cause physical harm to Gasser. He also could have been killed while trying to argue with him.
I don't think people expect Gasser to know JM's intent, but unless JM intended to cause Gasser physical harm, then it is still a tragic situation.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 10:16 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
It seems some folks on this thread are related to JM or are racked with white guilt. I just don't get it.
quote:
Not white guilt they are just lifelong jock sniffers
Agreed to a point. I think it's a combo of both.
Page 89 of 98
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News