- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: LSP release Lacy info in reference to Lacy attorney misinformation
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:44 am to RB10
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:44 am to RB10
quote:
I’ve provided plenty of counters to the more rational viewpoints. Why would I respond to your illogical ranting outside of suggesting you take a step back from the topic?
I called out a cop for his attempt to drive a specific statement by a witness and stated that LSP should make a statement on that video. Yes, that is irrational.
Again, questioning what the cop did given the video evidence and the witnesses refusal to sign the written statement should give pause to anyone, especially when the cops body camera is randomly turned off during a significant period of the interaction.
Maybe it was a malfunction, maybe he did it on purpose, maybe he was coaxing the witness to go along.
Whatever the reason, it puts in question the investigation and its validity.
It doesn’t vindicate Lacy entirely and I don’t think any reasonable person will say he doesn’t hold any responsibility for the end result, but bad police work should not be accepted.
But yes, that is illogical ranting.
1
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:45 am to UpToPar
quote:
Where is that data?
Lacy's lawyer presented black box data and the lady's statement in the police report. She admits she was eating Funyuns that were in her lap, says she was going "the speed limit," but the black box data shows she was going something like 15 over and tailgating
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:45 am to Chad504boy
On here, the people arguing that he didn’t cause the wreck are people who just want to debate everything.
On facebook, the people arguing that he didn't cause the wreck are black people who will defend other black people no matter what.
Same as always.
On facebook, the people arguing that he didn't cause the wreck are black people who will defend other black people no matter what.
Same as always.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:46 am to BigBinBR
quote:
Without going and looking at the exact numbers she was traveling over 45MPH in a 35 MPH zone and was overtaking a gold truck that his black box said was only doing around 28MPH.
you have this all wrong. the area is a 40MPH zone and the 28MPH was a calculation Ory did for the gold truck based on time over distance of him pulling into the carwash parking lot from the video. Not his actual speed prior to the incident.
She cannot be following too closely and speeding if the gold truck was not speeding. That doent make sense.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:46 am to Geauxgurt
quote:
But yes, that is illogical ranting.
It absolutely is.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:47 am to Madking
quote:
The poor kid died tragically. His lawyer is a ghoul and this tennis match over finger pointing is also ghoulish.
Not when you realize that the family of the victim likely is going to, if they have not already, file civil suit against Lacy’s family. It matters if false details were used in the investigation. The truth still matters even if Lacy going to jail or not isn’t the question anymore.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:48 am to dgnx6
He was the truck driver that saw it all.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:48 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Lacy's lawyer presented black box data and the lady's statement in the police report. She admits she was eating Funyuns that were in her lap, says she was going "the speed limit," but the black box data shows she was going something like 15 over and tailgating
Wrong. Lacy’s lawyer “calculated” that she was going that fast based on the gold truck braking and his rate of speed when he pulled over.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:48 am to Ingeniero
he also doctored the crash video to crop out the part where he passed 4 large vehicles at a high rate of speed, neglected to include witness statements that killed his argument, and clipped a witness interaction to make it look like coercion. Trust that slimeball at your own peril.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:49 am to SammyTiger
quote:
would she have hit lacy if she didn’t swerve into oncoming traffic?
Would she have swerved into oncoming traffic if Lacy wasn't there?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:49 am to UpToPar
quote:
Where is that data?
It was in the original video from the attorney. Here I time stamped it for you.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:49 am to RB10
at 123 yards out before he began his rapid merger back into his correct lane, gold truck sees a green charger driving in my estimation 72.5 mph.
gold truck in my assumption was driving right at 50 mph.
At this distance and speed, a head on collision would have happened in 2.05 seconds roughly. That is a very blimp moment in time. People don't understand the severity of that moment that Kyren put everyone in. It resulted in a fatality. Criminal charges should have been put on Kyren Lacy.
gold truck in my assumption was driving right at 50 mph.
At this distance and speed, a head on collision would have happened in 2.05 seconds roughly. That is a very blimp moment in time. People don't understand the severity of that moment that Kyren put everyone in. It resulted in a fatality. Criminal charges should have been put on Kyren Lacy.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:50 am to BigBinBR
The person in the white car is not responsible for the reckless driving of Lacy.
She had 3 choices - A) ram the gold truck, B) run into a power pole on side of the road or C) miss both by going into the oncoming lane which at the time probably seemed like the best option.
This chain of events never starts if a green dodge charger doesn't pass 3 cars and an 18 wheeler in a no pass zone.
She had 3 choices - A) ram the gold truck, B) run into a power pole on side of the road or C) miss both by going into the oncoming lane which at the time probably seemed like the best option.
This chain of events never starts if a green dodge charger doesn't pass 3 cars and an 18 wheeler in a no pass zone.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:51 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
he also doctored the crash video to crop out the part where he passed 4 large vehicles at a high rate of speed, neglected to include witness statements that killed his argument, and clipped a witness interaction to make it look like coercion. Trust that slimeball at your own peril.
Doctored it so much that he admits multiple times throughout the video and even before showing it that Lacy was speeding and illegally passed the 4 vehicles.
And I am the one that needs to sit out of the thread.
You also understand that showing a shortened clip is not doctoring a video.
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 9:54 am
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:52 am to zuluboudreaux
Reckless driving? Yes. Causes of the accident? Heavens, no.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:54 am to BugAC
she didnt swerve into oncoming traffic per se. The right half of her northbound lane was abruptly occupied by the braking swerving gold truck. leaving her nowhere to go but around him to his left. A pure reflex. She clearly over shot and caught the front left quarter panel of the kia in the southbound lane. she was either going to rear end the gold truck, who hit the brakes hard in front of her, or try to make it around him before the southbound kia got to her. Either way, she's hitting someone.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:55 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
She cannot be following too closely and speeding if the gold truck was not speeding. That doent make sense.
This is wrong. People "follow too close" all the time resulting in an accident. Following too close is an actual liability term. You will see it with insurance a lot when they determine liability.
For instance if a light turns yellow and a front vehicle slows down to stop and is rear ended by the vehicle behind them they are normally cited for following too close and found liable by the insurance company for following to close (or failure to maintain an fate driving distance).
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:55 am to Geauxgurt
quote:
Admits…Lacy was speeding and illegally passed the 4 vehicles
If he wouldn’t have done this, none of this is likely to occur. Ory probably shouldn’t have made that statement agreeing that he was driving in a manner consistent with a penalty of, at the very least, a reckless op citation. At the most, negligent homicide/vehicular homicide. And the citation is best case scenario if you don’t have a direct or indirect contribution to a fatal MVC. Which while not the sole driving factor, KL is complicit in instigating traffic disruption by driving illegally.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:57 am to Geauxgurt
quote:
You also understand that showing a shortened clip is not doctoring a video.
Eh
quote:
A "doctored video" is a video that has been intentionally altered or edited to deceive the viewer.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:57 am to Chad504boy
quote:
At this distance and speed, a head on collision would have happened in 2.05 seconds roughly. That is a very blimp moment in time
FYI, engineering manuals typically give 2.5 seconds as the reaction time in stopping sight distance calculations. So yeah, 2.05 seconds is probably a little tight but not outside the realm of possibility for a non-distracted driver. If what Lacy's lawyer presented is true (he says this data was provided by the DA) and the lady was 0.5 seconds behind the gold truck, that's a huge indicator that she was following too closely and shares blame for the accident.
Page 11 of 60
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News