- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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 5:31 pm to Metaloctopus
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:31 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:You're such an idiot. Without KL being in the wrong lane at the wrong time does the truck's action in front of the lady cause her to change course, even eating funyons and listening to music?
Was there any logical reason for this woman to be driving distracted and slamming into someone because someone else was driving recklessly?
0
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:33 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
what agenda do you think I have?
Anyone but Lacy is to blame. You’re literally pointing to everyone but him when he was the main issue.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:33 pm to Dicky
quote:One is no doubt against the law and the other is arguably against the law depending on judgement on whether the vehicle turning should have yielded or not.
Okay--change what I said to "turning left on a green light barely making it by in front of 3 cars and an 18 wheeler in one of the most congested areas on that road between Chackbay and Thibodaux." The point still remains the same.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:34 pm to ell_13
No saying this lady swerved to avoid hitting a green charger is dishonest.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:34 pm to PurpNGold1985
quote:
Not a vendetta against a young black man
But... but... but... this is what "they" do. You know... the racists.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:35 pm to reauxl tigers
quote:
Kyren’s dad and lawyer are being interviewed on Moscona’s show right now. Very weird interview. Lawyer sounds c unty. Clearly intentionally trying to stir up emotions.
That’s all the lawyer cares about at this point. Muddy up with water enough to claim this as a victory on his resume.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:35 pm to SammyTiger
It doesn't matter if he didn't hit the car. Here is the statute for reference:
§100. Hit-and-run driving
A. Hit-and-run driving is the intentional failure of the driver of a vehicle involved in or causing any accident, to stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident, to give his identity, and to render reasonable aid.
B. For the purpose of this Section:
(1) "To give his identity", means that the driver of any vehicle involved in any accident shall give his name, address, and the license number of his vehicle, or shall report the accident to the police.
(2) Repealed by Acts 2019, No. 2, §3.
(3) "Vehicle" includes a watercraft.
(4) "Accident" means an incident or event resulting in damage to property or injury to person.
C.(1)(a) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where there is no death or serious bodily injury shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where there is no death or serious bodily injury shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or both when: (i) there is evidence that the vehicle operator consumed alcohol or used drugs or a controlled dangerous substance prior to the accident; (ii) the consumption of the alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance contributed to the accident; and (iii) the driver failed to stop, give his identity, or render aid with the knowledge that his actions could affect an actual or potential present, past, or future criminal investigation or proceeding.
(2) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving, when death or serious bodily injury is a direct result of the accident and when the driver knew or should have known that death or serious bodily injury has occurred, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.
(3) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where all of the following conditions are met shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than five years nor more than twenty years:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury is a direct result of the accident.
(b) The driver knew or must have known that the vehicle he was operating was involved in an accident or that his operation of the vehicle was the direct cause of an accident.
(c) The driver had been previously convicted of any of the following:
(i) A violation of R.S. 14:98, or a law or an ordinance of any state or political subdivision prohibiting operation of any vehicle or means of transportation or conveyance while intoxicated, impaired, or while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any controlled dangerous substance on two or more occasions within ten years of this offense.
(ii) A violation of R.S. 14:32.1-vehicular homicide.
(iii) A violation of R.S. 14:39.1-vehicular negligent injuring.
(iv) A violation of R.S. 14:39.2-first degree vehicular negligent injuring.
Amended by Acts 1968, No. 647, §1. Acts 1988, No. 671, §1; Acts 1997, No. 561, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1103, §1; Acts 2003, No. 159, §1; Acts 2019, No. 2, §3.
§100. Hit-and-run driving
A. Hit-and-run driving is the intentional failure of the driver of a vehicle involved in or causing any accident, to stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident, to give his identity, and to render reasonable aid.
B. For the purpose of this Section:
(1) "To give his identity", means that the driver of any vehicle involved in any accident shall give his name, address, and the license number of his vehicle, or shall report the accident to the police.
(2) Repealed by Acts 2019, No. 2, §3.
(3) "Vehicle" includes a watercraft.
(4) "Accident" means an incident or event resulting in damage to property or injury to person.
C.(1)(a) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where there is no death or serious bodily injury shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where there is no death or serious bodily injury shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or both when: (i) there is evidence that the vehicle operator consumed alcohol or used drugs or a controlled dangerous substance prior to the accident; (ii) the consumption of the alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance contributed to the accident; and (iii) the driver failed to stop, give his identity, or render aid with the knowledge that his actions could affect an actual or potential present, past, or future criminal investigation or proceeding.
(2) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving, when death or serious bodily injury is a direct result of the accident and when the driver knew or should have known that death or serious bodily injury has occurred, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.
(3) Whoever commits the crime of hit-and-run driving where all of the following conditions are met shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than five years nor more than twenty years:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury is a direct result of the accident.
(b) The driver knew or must have known that the vehicle he was operating was involved in an accident or that his operation of the vehicle was the direct cause of an accident.
(c) The driver had been previously convicted of any of the following:
(i) A violation of R.S. 14:98, or a law or an ordinance of any state or political subdivision prohibiting operation of any vehicle or means of transportation or conveyance while intoxicated, impaired, or while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any controlled dangerous substance on two or more occasions within ten years of this offense.
(ii) A violation of R.S. 14:32.1-vehicular homicide.
(iii) A violation of R.S. 14:39.1-vehicular negligent injuring.
(iv) A violation of R.S. 14:39.2-first degree vehicular negligent injuring.
Amended by Acts 1968, No. 647, §1. Acts 1988, No. 671, §1; Acts 1997, No. 561, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1103, §1; Acts 2003, No. 159, §1; Acts 2019, No. 2, §3.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:36 pm to RB10
quote:
Anyone but Lacy is to blame.
Not just anyone,
the woman who was driving the vehicle that hit the victim.
quote:
You’re literally pointing to everyone but him when he was the main issue.
No, I am pointing at the woman who was driving the vehicle that hit the
victims car.
you joke
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:37 pm to RB10
quote:
I was talking about when he communicated with the witnesses after that. The LSP admits that the officer contacted witnesses over the phone to follow up on their statements. Why is there no recording of it? Are you under the assumption that every second of every investigation is recorded?
It should be. It’s 2025. Every device around has recording capabilities.
quote:
He is not repeating their statements back to them. He is telling them his interpretation of their statements and instructing them to write their statement based on his interpretation of the statements. That may or may not be coercion, but it is wrong and the officer needs to do more training on how to take a proper history. This is ridiculous.
No it’s not ridiculous. I watched the entire video including when the trooper is talking to the witnesses. It was a terrible history taking.
quote:
This is even more ridiculous. I will point out any time I believe a cop is making a mistake.
Only when they write you a ticket. The rest of the time you Back the Blue religiously.
quote:
You clearly have an issue with cops.
No issue with cops. I have an issue with cops who think they are the law as well as people who think cops can do no wrong.
quote:
Your opinion on the matter can’t be taken seriously.
Well my opinion and the state AG’s opinion are the same which is why her office is investigating/reviewing the matter. So I guess it does count because I am getting what I want which is an independent investigation/review of the case.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:37 pm to reauxl tigers
quote:
Clearly intentionally trying to stir up emotions.
Sounds like he's calling out some bs.
1) The body cam vs. unsigned written statement
2) The passenger in Kyren's car never spoken to by police
3) The fact they said Kyren called an attorney shortly after the wreck, put omitted to say it was his "stepfather"
4) The video and audio out of sync in the video shown by the police this morning
That's 4 things that seem pretty damn sketch and deserves some clarification.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:38 pm to RB10
quote:imo, I believe lacy and funyon lady both are negligent.
Anyone but Lacy is to blame. You’re literally pointing to everyone but him when he was the main issue.
I actually believe what lacy did was over by a split second and funyon lady wasnt paying attention, even made the statement that she was trying to avoid gold truck as he wasnt totally off the road when he stopped and didn't have the proper following distance and did what she did.
Even after lacy broke the law and caused gold truck to brake and pull off, I felt like if "funyon lady" had proper following distance and was "paying attention", all she had to do was slowly down to a stop in her lane and these threads wouldnt exist. Lacy although negligent was back into his lane before she swerved. Jmo.
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:38 pm to Rhettro
Really really Great info, Rhett. But just for clarification, any crash report with the word “accident” in it, no matter the agency comes back and amends your report for you calling it a crash. I know that’s what the law states, but in law enforcement there’s ALWAYS a driving force to the MVC which is never an accident it’s merely an unfortunate sequence of events. An accident is backing into a mailbox. Pulling out in front of oncoming traffic is a crash.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:39 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
No, I am pointing at the woman who was driving the vehicle that hit the victims car. you joke
That’s because she’s the only one you could point at without coming across as a complete retard.
You still show a room temperature IQ by trying to absolve Lacy of all fault.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Full on doesn't understand it.
you either dont understand the case
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:40 pm to PurpNGold1985
quote:
The other 4 still got citations ?? they just didn’t fight it in court bc they were wrong.
The others didn’t fight a hit and run charge when their vehicle was not involved in the actual accident? I find that hard to believe. I think you miss interpreted my question. I am asking how many people have you arrested/cited for hit and run when the driver was not involved in the accident that were convicted by a jury? I am not asking how many tickets you wrote for a driver causing an accident.
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Full on doesn't understand it.
you either dont understand the case
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:41 pm to WeeWee
Okay. Sure Mr plant worker. You know more than me. I digress.
People like you are so fricken dense that it’s worthless to speak to them. You know nothing. You have no education on the matter. You’re talking out of your arse.
Have a great day.
People like you are so fricken dense that it’s worthless to speak to them. You know nothing. You have no education on the matter. You’re talking out of your arse.
Have a great day.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:41 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Well my opinion and the state AG’s opinion are the same which is why her office is investigating/reviewing the matter. So I guess it does count because I am getting what I want which is an independent investigation/review of the case.
You do understand that an AD investigation in no way points to corrupt, collusion or incompetence, correct?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:43 pm to PurpNGold1985
Makes sense. I just copied it off the state website. It's probably a little out of date or something. I can understand the difference there.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 5:45 pm to PurpNGold1985
Say what you will, but what she did was negligent as well. Swerving into oncoming traffic that is closer than the car coming at you from a farther distance is as unsafe as Kyren. But I will say Kyren’s activity put her in position to make a bad decision. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I wish Kyren had been driving the right way so that she didn’t get that chance.
Page 30 of 60
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News