re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case

quote:

---

Yea I'm kinda curious who in here has actual knowledge about law and who is just spouting off bullshite.

---

From reading this thread, I do believe that half the posters are now criminal trial attorneys with detailed backgrounds in mind reading, fictional story writing, and forensics.

Don’t forget that most also have insider information.

And then there’s Chad who believes it’s the Uber driver’s fault.

quote:

---

No one who got in trouble EVER got drunk at our establishment....and Billy always had his lawyer (Reggie) available to back them up along with Foxy Sanders on speed dial.

---

that makes sense for the owner to do after reading up on dram shop laws in Louisiana. Not surprisingly in Louisiana, the laws tend to protect the bars from liability.

the civil rulings from this case will be interesting to read. Reggie's is claiming she used a fake to get in and I am sure they will say drank before coming in (also probably likely pre-gamed somewhere).

She also briefly worked there so presumably they should know her and everyone knows Reggie's has a long history of serving minors.

quote:

---

The majority of states have what are known as “dram shop laws”. These laws address liability if someone is injured by a drunk person after consuming alcohol at an establishment. Most of these laws allow for the bar or other entity that served alcoholic beverages to be sued. Louisiana’s version of the law is quite unique, actually doing the opposite. The bar or other business must meet certain requirements to be afforded this essential immunity. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana recently considered such a situation.

In 2013, Arthur Tregre, Jr., the plaintiff, was driving in Lake Charles Parrish. The car ahead of him, driven by Dallas Veillon, was making a left turn when it was struck by a police car coming the opposite direction. This caused the same police car to crash into Mr. Tregre, killing the officer and injuring Mr. Tregre. Mr. Veillon had been intoxicated at the time of the accident. In fact, he had been just forcibly removed from the premises of a nearby bar, Boogie’s Lounge. Mr. Tregre sued the Sheriff, the bar and its bartender, and the bar’s insurance company. The officer’s widow was also a plaintiff in the case. Both the insurance company and Boogie’s Lounge filed summary judgment motions to have the case dismissed. In 2016, the trial court granted these motions, dismissing the claims against the bar and its insurer. Mr. Tregre, as well as the officer’s widow, appealed.The law in Louisiana, fittingly called the “Anti-Dram Shop Act”, serves to remove the burden from establishments that serve alcohol. The issue for the Fifth Circuit was whether or not there was any reason this law should not be applied. The law in question specifically provides that no person or employee of the person that holds a valid liquor permit and serves alcohol is liable for any injuries caused by a customer while off the premises. La. R.S. 9.2800.1. It also states that the proximate, or legal, cause of any such injury is the action of the intoxicated person. The accident occurred on a nearby road, well outside the premises of Boogie’s. Still, Mr. Trevor argued that the employees of Boogie’s should have known better than to eject Mr. Veillon to the road where he would most likely drive and cause an accident. Here, the Fifth Circuit applied the Anti-Dram Shop act, stating that it was Mr. Veillon’s actions of imbibing in large quantities of alcohol and then choosing to drive that caused the accident. Indeed, the law in Louisiana was enacted in order to put the blame on the intoxicated person.

---

LINK /

quote:

---

From reading this thread, I do believe that half the posters are now criminal trial attorneys with detailed backgrounds in mind reading, fictional story writing, and forensics.

---

Only half?

Further, everyone also has a doctorate degree from a medical school, and in their spare time earned a PE license.

quote:

---

I think everyone on this board thought that these three black hoodlums found this girl sitting on a bench outside of Reggies in pretty much a drunken stupor, and the black hood rats essentially dragged her to their car with the specific intent of gang raping her.

Well, that illusion has been completely thrown out the f*cking window. That’s not what happened. She went running after them. A prosecutor can try to explain that away as you suggest, but I’m telling you that there ain’t no black juror who is going to buy it.

---

So far, there's only one video from the side of Reggie's that shows her running to them.

Not saying this is what happened (I really have no idea and just speculating), but isn't it possible she was in an incoherent state on a bench at the front of Reggies, is seen by the group, and they tell her she can ride with them / encourages her to ride them, and then not wanting to miss out on a potential ride home, she runs over to them?

quote:

---

didn’t say that’s definitely what happened. I’m saying that’s how a black juror is going to view it.

---

That’s an awfully racist thing to say, and I don’t use that word lightly.

You have absolutely no idea how the jury will think once it’s explained to them that her friends left and she asked them for a ride. Then the prosecution will explain that the suspects admitted she just asked for a ride. They will also point out to the jury that she stumbles toward the end and that all the suspects admitted she was completely shitfaced.

Everything you think is relevant is completely irrelevant when given the appropriate context.

quote:

---

I didn’t say that’s definitely what happened. I’m saying that’s how a black juror is going to view it.

---

You'd have to assume all black people think alike, I'm not ready to make that claim. That would make me a progressive.

FWIW, here is my take on the potential jury pool:

1) I doubt there will ever be a jury, because I think the DA will offer a deal they cannot pass up, with the family's approval, to end this publicity.

2) The OJ trial was an anomaly that is mostly explained by terrible choices made by the prosecutors. Read "Outrage" by fabled prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

3) I think some black people are sensitive to charges of a black man raping a white woman based on historical injustice during the time of lynchings. Like it or not, history has examples of black men being hung for looking at a white women wrong, or when she cried rape when an interracial relationship was discovered.

4) I do not think that will apply at all to this case. The victim was drunk and is dead. This is not a situation of a white woman accusing a black man of rape. The victim here isn't an accuser at all. This is just a different case.

5) The fact of sex, probably anal sex, is going to be pretty much indisputable based on DNA evidence. And this is not DNA evidence on a glove found at the scene that may have been planted by police. This will be DNA evidence collected from a corpse. How could even the most corrupt of cops obtain someone's semen and plant it in a dead body?

6) The extreme level of intoxication is pretty much admitted by everyone. The two who talked can always recant, but what they have said along with the .319 level pretty much makes it clear she was in no state to consent.

7) A white guy is also being prosecuted. Provided the prosecution is smart enough not to plead out only the white guy and go after the black guys, that mutes the idea that this is some sort of racially motivated effort.

8) A hung jury is not an acquittal. If you do have a juror who, for whatever reasons, wants to acquit, that does not mean these guys get off. It's a mistrial, and it can be tried again. You think the prosecution would ever just let this case go after a hung jury?

You can believe what you want. You can read Facebook comments and get yourself all worked up about how these guys are going to walk. I just don't think so.

quote:

---

Do you think it’s just a coincidence that Jason Williams got off on tax fraud charges, and his white partner was convicted on basically the same facts and the same law?

---

Again, baw, learn your facts.

The case against Williams was very different from the case against Burdett.

You are taking scraps of information and drawing huge conclusions from them in a field in which you have no experience at all.