re: Lacy's Attorney Responds to LSP Video

quote:

---

My thoughts exactly Like a nasty wound that just keeps getting picked at. Are they angling in on dollars in civil court? Is Ory trying to raise his profile and Kyren’s family is cool with it? Is there some type of political outcome in play? Beyond fricking bizarre

---

The same reason a state school will soon have an arena named after a local law firm: exposure means more name awareness, which means next time someone needs an attorney, they know who to call.

quote:

---

Ory releases select clips of video and tries to talk in yards and make it look like Kyren didn’t cause this.

---

I know it’s been spoken about ad nauseam in these threads, but those ~90 yds, which would have been closer for the gold truck that reacted first, would have been covered in a little ~2 seconds at 88 mph.

Around 2 seconds if neither slowed down at all and Lacy was going 88mph

GFYWAAD

quote:

---

If the wreck was ~ 92 yards in front of Lacy when he re-entered the correct lane, he was less than 92 yards away from the gold truck.

---

That’s not true since the wreck took place AFTER Lacy was back in his lane. The wreck took place almost in the same spot as the gold truck was after another second or two of travel. Lacy was at least 100 yards from the gold truck at the time he returned to his lane.

quote:

---

You and the person you responded to are idiots. Kyren is the reason the accident happen. Trying to say he didn’t cause this is ignorant and idiotic.

---

That’s not what I said. I said it wasn’t the illegality of Lacy’s actions in and of itself that caused the accident. He could have been passing legally in a similar location without businesses along the road side and the end result still would have been the same. Those who want to shift the majority of the blame to Lacy are doing so based on the fact that he was driving recklessly. What I’m asking for is how his recklessness contributed more to the crash than if he had made a legal pass with all other circumstances the same.

quote:

---

Is 92 yards the correct distance?

---

According to his attorney it was 73 yards.

At 88 MPH and the truck driving 30 it was less than a second before they would have hit head on.

ABC News has obtained the April 2025 report by the DA's office of Lafourche Parish. They report that the Matt Ory accurately represented that same report in his original video.

quote:

---

- "The report provided to this office by Louisiana State Police has several inconsistencies which were used to base their opinion and conclusion of the crash."

- Had it been a stretch of roadway where cars were permitted to pass each other, the prosecutor's report said the point at which Lacy returned to his lane would have been three times the required distance and he "would not have been responsible for any crash."

- But according to the DA's report, "the evidence submitted in the crash report does not support that Kyren Lacy should have known that his actions were the cause of the crash."

---

ABC News "Prosecutor's report disputed police claims about fatal crash that led to Kyren Lacy's arrest"

I know it won't change people's opinion of what happened or how slimy Matt Ory might be, but it does substantiate what he said from the very beginning.

Cheers.

It would have been a good argument by Lacy's defense that the vehicle that turned off the road was an "intervening cause" of the death of the man. In law, the "defense" of "intervening cause" refers to events that occur after the initial act that may have affected the outcome, and that would (potentially) break the "chain of causation" between the defendant's actions and the victim's death. If an intervening cause is deemed foreseeable, it won't absolve the defendant of liability; but an unforeseeable intervening cause likely does relieve them of responsibility. In Lacy's case, it would be tough to prove that Lacy could reasonably foresee that (1) passing a car -- even at high speeds, could cause the driver of the passed car to decide to suddenly turn off the road, and that it would (2) then cause the trailing vehicle -- who was admittedly driving too close behind the turning vehicle, to turn into oncoming traffic and strike the vehicle that had as its' passenger the person who died.

quote:

---

it would be tough to prove that Lacy could reasonably foresee that (1) passing a car -- even at high speeds, could cause the driver of the passed car to decide to suddenly turn off the road, and that it would (2) then cause the trailing vehicle -- who was admittedly driving too close behind the turning vehicle, to turn into oncoming traffic and strike the vehicle that had as its' passenger the person who died.

---

1. Lacy’s attorney would lose this argument since it is a no passing zone.

2. It wasn’t the “passed” car that reacted. It was the lead vehicle in the opposite lane that reacted to Lacy coming head on at an extremely high rate of speed.