- 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: Ronald Gasser sentenced to 30 years in Joe McKnight road rage killing
Posted on 3/15/18 at 3:54 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 3/15/18 at 3:54 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
For me it's probably every other day, but yeah there's a lot of stupid.
I drive a lot. I see a lot of stupid
A lot
0
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:02 pm to TH03
quote:
No, they went racial because
Were the "eyewitnesses" that saw Gasser stand over the victim and shoot him in the head while using racial epithets ever addressed at trial? No bearing on the facts of the case but I was curious if the Defense would try to drag those folks in to muddy the waters for the jury.
Found this:
quote:
Bailey, who estimated he was 70 yards away, said he then remembers seeing Gasser stand over McKnight’s body and fire several rounds into him. Some witnesses made that claim immediately after the shooting but that storyline has been discounted based on lack of evidence.
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:03 pm to biohzrd
Why did you go full LNCHBOX? Never go Full LNCHBOX.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:06 pm to biohzrd
quote:
Anybody here that says they have never gotten pissed off by someone in traffic, and taken it too far is a liar.
Sorry baw, we aren't all total fricking idiots like you.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:26 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Were the "eyewitnesses" that saw Gasser stand over the victim and shoot him in the head while using racial epithets ever addressed at trial? No bearing on the facts of the case but I was curious if the Defense would try to drag those folks in to muddy the waters for the jury.
Why would something that was discredited within like a day be brought into the trial?
And why would the defense try to drag a meaningless witness through the mud?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:31 pm to TH03
quote:
Why would something that was discredited within like a day be brought into the trial? And why would the defense try to drag a meaningless witness through the mud?
It certainly discredits eyewitness testimony seeing as that eyewitnesses stated something as fact that forensics proved false. If you get that in, then you can paint the other eyewitnesses with the same brush. Meaning you get to discredit the folks who testified that McKnight wasn't a threat. That doesn't seem a reasonable defense strategy to you?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:33 pm to TH03
Didn't the eyewitnesses say gasser was beating up some girl and McKnight tried to stop him
Posted on 3/15/18 at 4:54 pm to biohzrd
quote:
Both could, and should have handled it better. Trying to pull a gravy and push McKnight as a savior and totally innocent is a joke. End of the day, if he stays in his car, he is still probably alive today.
I get what you are saying but I fail to make the connection of how these facts correlate to the sentence.
Joe McKnights actions were 1) provoked by Gasser and 2) did not warrant Gasser to shoot him.
Yes, if Joe stays in his car he’s still alive but that logic doesn’t excuse the shooter and get him off the hook.
If two guys got in a bar fight and one guy kills the other, the killer doesn’t get off the hook cuz the victim could have walked away.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:05 pm to jbgleason
quote:
jbgleason
So you want to bring someone in to give testimony that is known to be false as a defense?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:10 pm to jbgleason
quote:
It certainly discredits eyewitness testimony seeing as that eyewitnesses stated something as fact that forensics proved false. If you get that in, then you can paint the other eyewitnesses with the same brush. Meaning you get to discredit the folks who testified that McKnight wasn't a threat. That doesn't seem a reasonable defense strategy to you?
I hope you aren't a lawyer
One fake, uncorroborated account doesn't discredit the legit accounts and certainly doesn't nullify the forensic evidence.
You've been watching too many shitty procedural TV shows.
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:11 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
So you want to bring someone in to give testimony that is known to be false as a defense?
Yeah man, because the defense can prove he was lying and then say that because he's lying, the other witnesses are lying. It's foolproof!!
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:19 pm to TH03
Damn dude, you are salty as frick today.
I was bringing up the point for discussion. You don't have to be a dick.
And getting a witness on the record and then impeaching them would certainly tend to taint, merely by association, the testimony of subsequent witnesses who were in the same place at the same time. Even the inference wouldn't have hurt the defense. They did lose after all.
I was bringing up the point for discussion. You don't have to be a dick.
And getting a witness on the record and then impeaching them would certainly tend to taint, merely by association, the testimony of subsequent witnesses who were in the same place at the same time. Even the inference wouldn't have hurt the defense. They did lose after all.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:24 pm to jbgleason
That wasn't me being a dick
It wouldn't and I doubt they'd even let the farce go on
quote:
And getting a witness on the record and then impeaching them would certainly tend to taint, merely by association, the testimony of subsequent witnesses who were in the same place at the same time.
It wouldn't and I doubt they'd even let the farce go on
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:27 pm to jbgleason
He repeated this and also claimed that Gasser's gun was smoking from the time he got out of the car until he was standing over Mcknight behind his car. He wasnt sure if he was shooting behind the vehicle but he saw him standing over him while pointing the gun and his body motions seemed to be consistent with him firing and the gun was smoking.
Keep in mind this guy is sitting at the red light trying to make the left turn from Behrman onto Holmes, across the intersection facing the scene. He was full of shite
Keep in mind this guy is sitting at the red light trying to make the left turn from Behrman onto Holmes, across the intersection facing the scene. He was full of shite
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:27 pm to TH03
quote:
I doubt they'd even let the farce go on
Which is why, if you go back to the first reply I made in this thread, I asked you if they ever brought it up.
FWIW, this all goes back to the Michael Brown "Hands up, Don't shoot" witnesses that were roundly discredited. If you can imply that the same thing was going on here, it would definitely have the chance (albeit slight) of tainting testimony. And, given how fricked Gasser was in this deal, it would have been good for him.
Reaching, yes it was, but that is why I asked.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:30 pm to jbgleason
quote:
FWIW, this all goes back to the Michael Brown "Hands up, Don't shoot" witnesses that were roundly discredited. If you can imply that the same thing was going on here, it would definitely have the chance (albeit slight) of tainting testimony.
Did those witnesses testify though?
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:30 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
But if someone approches my car in a hostile manner.... i dunno. I feel like i should be able to defend myself
The key being of course how hostile and what defense you use. You don’t kill a guy because he yelled and you think he might knock your mirror off or dent a door— but if he’s rolling up with a weapon that’s a different beast
This post was edited on 3/15/18 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:32 pm to TH03
quote:
Did those witnesses testify though?
They gave sworn statements to the FBI (and should have been prosecuted for it) but the case never went to trial. So they were denied the chance to double-down on their lies.
If the FBI had prosecuted them, and made a public spectacle of it, I think it would have very much cut down on the subsequent BLM bullshite that resulted in the Baton Rouge and Dallas police killings.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:35 pm to jbgleason
I believe that case is different because it took a justice department investigation to determine it was a lie. There were no other witnesses to discredit IIRC.
It took like a day in the Gasser case because there were other eyewitnesses whose stories corroborated and matched the evidence.
It took like a day in the Gasser case because there were other eyewitnesses whose stories corroborated and matched the evidence.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 6:36 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
But if someone approches my car in a hostile manner.... i dunno. I feel like i should be able to defend myself
Yeah, it's called reverse. Killing an unarmed man should and apparently will get you 30 years.
Justice served.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News