- 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: Lacy's Attorney Responds to LSP Video
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:46 pm to deuceiswild
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:46 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
She made a bad decision. She should have rear ended the truck whether it happened in her lane or half way off the road had she followed him.
She had no choice. Again , everyone that day slowed and stopped safely except her.
In my opinion, it does NOT matter what or why the gold truck slowed and pulled off, her reaction to that truck is "only" her responsibility. Anyone who is paying attention slows down just fine.
She admitted she was eating(one of the biggest reasons for accidents is distracted driving and eating while driving is a big reason for distracted driving)
She was speeding
She was following too close to the vehicle in front of her.
She wasnt paying attention
She made a decision because of the above. She had 3 choices(go left, right or straight) all were bad because of the above. The fact she swerved into an oncoming suv right near her proves to me even more she was literally not even looking until it was too late. Who swerves into an oncoming vehicle for a head on collision unless you haven't even had any time to access tbw. Crazy situation. I can totally understand if KL is bearing down on her but he wasnt. He was already back into his lane 93 yards away and before she even swerved. She already admitted she swerved because of gold truck.
If she wasnt eating
If she wasnt speeding
If she was "paying attention"
If she had proper following distance
She would have came to stop without any issue, just like everyone else did.
To me that would be hard to convince a jury she wasnt negligent. Of course thats just my opinion. You do however bring up valid points. Your probably right about a civil court decision.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 6:11 pm
1
Posted on 10/9/25 at 6:46 pm to IvoryBillMatt
This all needs to stop. Why are we trying to litigate this thing in the public, if there are reasons this goes to trial (insurance settlement, etc) then take it there and let arguments be made in a court where witnesses can be called and experts can refute whatever arguments are made. This public sparring of the LSP and the attorney do no one any good.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:47 pm to SUB
Yes it was slowed down lsp released the one in real time. Also 2 cars 100 yards apart driving 45 MPH each takes 1.5 seconds to meet. This whole 78 yards when he got back into traffic argument is stupid
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:49 pm to Rhettro
quote:
Yes it was slowed down lsp released the one in real time. Also 2 cars 100 yards apart driving 45 MPH each takes 1.5 seconds to meet. This whole 78 yards when he got back into traffic argument is stupid
Lacy wasn’t driving 45 MPH until he slammed on his brakes and swerved back into his lane. He was driving at least 70.
The truck didn’t pull off the the road into a parking lot because Lacy was going 45 and back in his lane. He did it because Lacy was going 70+ and coming at him head on.
ETA: Reading back I think you were agreeing with me.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:28 pm to Rhettro
quote:
Yes it was slowed down lsp released the one in real time.
What are you talking about? How can you determine that they slowed the video down? LSP has the same video with the same 4 seconds between impact and Lacy getting to the crash. If the one I posted was slowed down, it would be at less than half the speed of the normal video and that would be obvious as hell. Why did you feel the need to make up some bullshite when your “1.5 seconds” is proven to be wrong?
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:45 pm to lsupride87
quote:
This is rich Do you not understand that is exactly what the LSP is doing? Releasing only what they want for their side
Maybe I’m off base but it seems to me like LSP did a reasonable job in this.
The report and investigation was representative of testimony and facts as we’ve seen.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:11 pm to rsbd
quote:
A lot of frickery on both sides at the expense of KL….
The funyon hoe should be just as responsible as KL…..
Honest question. Are we trying to assert that funyon would have crashed even if KL had not been there? That seems to be the point of the defense and applying common sense doesn't make sense to me. I get that she wasn't paying attention etc etc but why would she turn into oncoming traffic if not pannicked by seeing a car speeding toward her head on. Honestly trying to understand.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:17 pm to IceTea20
quote:
Are we trying to assert that funyon would have crashed even if KL had not been there?
No. The DA report says she crashed to avoid the gold truck which was braking, not to avoid Lacy.
If she was following the gold truck and couldnt stop in time and swerved, thats on her, because the gold truck had a legal right to brake.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:29 pm to sgallo3
quote:
No. The DA report says she crashed to avoid the gold truck which was braking, not to avoid Lacy.
Fair. But wasn't the gold truck braking because of KL which would still make him carry a big portion of the blame?
I don't live in LA anymore but do remember the blame game plays out alittle different there. I much prefer reading actual reports myself than relying on pundits or attorneys to interpret for me.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:30 pm to sgallo3
Bingo but yet everyone is still trying to say lacy being so many feet away is the reason she swung into the other lane.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:31 pm to IceTea20
He will always carry a large part of the blame for starting the sequence of events.
But legally he may not be at fault for the wreck if the reason they swerved was because they were following the other truck too close rather than because he was in their lane.
The DA report today said he returned to his lane at 3x the distance required by law to return to your lane after making a pass.
So it's not like he was closer to her than anyone else would be passing on a two lane road. Kinda takes away the panic excuse due to his proximity excuse.
Today's DA Report Release
But legally he may not be at fault for the wreck if the reason they swerved was because they were following the other truck too close rather than because he was in their lane.
quote:
everyone is still trying to say lacy being so many feet away is the reason she swung into the other lane
The DA report today said he returned to his lane at 3x the distance required by law to return to your lane after making a pass.
So it's not like he was closer to her than anyone else would be passing on a two lane road. Kinda takes away the panic excuse due to his proximity excuse.
Today's DA Report Release
quote:
Should this have been a passing zone, what distance would Kyren Lacy have needed to be back into his own lane. In RS 32:75 Limitations on passing on the left, the last sentence provides the distance by stating, "In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to the right-hand side of the roadway before coming within one hundred feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction." According to RS 32:75, if this was in fact a passing zone, then Kyren Lacy would have been back into his lane with three times the required distance and would not have been responsible for any crash.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:45 pm to sgallo3
If he was in a legal passing zone none of this would be up for discussion.
He was in a no passing zone and it’s a no passing zone for a reason. Because it’s dangerous to pass vehicles there. Much less 4 vehicles at over twice the speed limit.
He was in a no passing zone and it’s a no passing zone for a reason. Because it’s dangerous to pass vehicles there. Much less 4 vehicles at over twice the speed limit.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:51 pm to RB10
The lady didnt take time to think about whether or not he was in a legal or non legal passing zone as she drove headfirst into traffic.
It wasnt part of her decision making process so you cant pretend she wouldve acted differently if it had been a legal passing zone.
It wasnt part of her decision making process so you cant pretend she wouldve acted differently if it had been a legal passing zone.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:01 pm to sgallo3
quote:
The lady didnt take time to think about whether or not he was in a legal or non legal passing zone as she drove headfirst into traffic.
It wasnt part of her decision making process so you cant pretend she wouldve acted differently if it had been a legal passing zone.
For the last fricking time, she AND LACY were BOTH responsible.
The only person trying to move blame is you.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:02 pm to sharkfhin
quote:
To me that would be hard to convince a jury she wasnt negligent.
Do you not realize that literally no one has said she wasn’t negligent?
Saying she was negligent doesn’t mean Kyren isn’t at fault, so I don’t understand why so many of you keep trying to use that as your argument to absolve Kyren from wrongdoing.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:03 pm to RB10
She crossed the double yellow line also in a no passing zone and it resulted in a accident
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:10 pm to biggdogg
quote:
She crossed the double yellow line also in a no passing zone and it resulted in a accident
quote:
For the last fricking time, she AND LACY were BOTH responsible.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:18 pm to sgallo3
quote:
The lady didnt take time to think about whether or not he was in a legal or non legal passing zone as she drove headfirst into traffic.
It wasnt part of her decision making process so you cant pretend she wouldve acted differently if it had been a legal passing zone.
Great info.
I find it difficult to draw conclusions about what was going on in her head based on what the "black box" says she was doing. People do weird things when placed in these snap decision scenarios. It seems alot comes down to what was going through her head and if her explanation holds up to scrutiny in court.
Thanks for sharing and explaining.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:16 pm to RB10
quote:
He was in a no passing zone and it’s a no passing zone for a reason. Because it’s dangerous to pass vehicles there. Much less 4 vehicles at over twice the speed limit.
The same exact accident could have happened in a passing zone because Funyuns was following too close to the gold truck.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 12:16 am to IvoryBillMatt
Simply put, I think at the end of the day this case falls on Lacy. Even though the lady was clearly distracted driving, the video showing Lacy driving that fast and reckless, that close to the accident, is going to be what decides this case. The gold truck saw Lacy coming head on, slammed his brakes and veered slightly to the right to avoid potentially hitting Lacy, and then the lady in the last milliseconds realizes she’s in a bad situation, instincts kick in and she swerves to the left to avoid the truck. That is very likely what happened and Lacy just so happened be in bad place at a bad time when illegally passing, much less legally passing. Lacy caused the gold truck to hit the breaks, causing the reaction of the funyon lady, therefore causing the accident. But I am still of the opinion the funyon lady should hold some liability in this accident based off the data.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 12:23 am
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News