- 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: LSP release Lacy info in reference to Lacy attorney misinformation
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:28 am to sgallo3
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:28 am to sgallo3
No you can’t.
No one can. And frankly, you can’t prove she wasn’t following at a subjectively safe distance.
Do yourself a favor and stop basing your entire view of this case solely on the ramblings of a cheese dick personal injury lawyer out of Thibodaux.
No one can. And frankly, you can’t prove she wasn’t following at a subjectively safe distance.
Do yourself a favor and stop basing your entire view of this case solely on the ramblings of a cheese dick personal injury lawyer out of Thibodaux.
1
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:30 am to Chad504boy
Almost at 1000 posts!
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:30 am to Vacherie Saint
You are recommended to follow at those distances because they allow you to stop in case of an emergency.
If an emergency happens in front of you and you aren't maintaining proper distance that is your fault.
If an emergency happens in front of you and you aren't maintaining proper distance that is your fault.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:33 am to sgallo3
Do you think that wreck happens the exact same way if Lacy is no where on the road that day? I don’t think anyone is arguing that funyun lady wasn’t tailgating and shares blame but to act like Lacy’s driving had no effect on the outcome of that wreck is dishonest. Every single action taken by the drivers involved in that moment was directly related to his reckless driving in front of them.
Also I see the analogy of a deer crossing the road and causing a wreck and no one would blame the deer. The deer has no concept of what a highway is, what speed limits and laws are and the awareness of how traffic works. Lacy had a driver’s license which meant that he sat through a course and took a test to prove that he was fully aware of traffic laws and deliberately chose to ignore them.
Also I see the analogy of a deer crossing the road and causing a wreck and no one would blame the deer. The deer has no concept of what a highway is, what speed limits and laws are and the awareness of how traffic works. Lacy had a driver’s license which meant that he sat through a course and took a test to prove that he was fully aware of traffic laws and deliberately chose to ignore them.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:37 am to sgallo3
Not always. I even gave you an example.
But again, you can’t prove she wasn’t following at a safe distance to even make that argument.
You and Sammy stomping your feet and insisting it’s so isn’t enough.
I can say, with equal utility, based on Orys “case”, that gold truck is liable. He chose to serve when Lacy was already safely back in the southbound lane “no where near the accident site”, right? 72 YARDS BEHIND, right? He didn’t have to do that. His swerve kicking up rocks and dust with abrupt braking prompted evasive maneuvers by other drivers that lead to a fatality right? That’s objectively true based on what Ory said.
It’s the exact same logic. Bad logic.
But again, you can’t prove she wasn’t following at a safe distance to even make that argument.
You and Sammy stomping your feet and insisting it’s so isn’t enough.
I can say, with equal utility, based on Orys “case”, that gold truck is liable. He chose to serve when Lacy was already safely back in the southbound lane “no where near the accident site”, right? 72 YARDS BEHIND, right? He didn’t have to do that. His swerve kicking up rocks and dust with abrupt braking prompted evasive maneuvers by other drivers that lead to a fatality right? That’s objectively true based on what Ory said.
It’s the exact same logic. Bad logic.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:38 am to jmh5724
He deleted the part about the deer and Bigfoot bc he got called out for the actual meaning of what he admitted and how it actually proved our point. Gotta love the dirty delete. Own the ignorance like a man.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:39 am to jmh5724
Lacy was absolutely guilty of reckless driving.
If the other driver had been following proper road protocol noone would have died.
Her inability to escape without causing a head on collision was a result of her actions before Lacy caused the gold truck to brake.
She didn't follow traffic law 32;81
Of maintaining a reasonable and prudent following distance.
She didn't fail to meet that standard because of the accident, she was in an accident because she failed to meet that standard.
If the other driver had been following proper road protocol noone would have died.
Her inability to escape without causing a head on collision was a result of her actions before Lacy caused the gold truck to brake.
She didn't follow traffic law 32;81
Of maintaining a reasonable and prudent following distance.
She didn't fail to meet that standard because of the accident, she was in an accident because she failed to meet that standard.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:42 am to sgallo3
But you keep letting him off the hook. His reckless driving amplified the fact that she limited her reaction time. That wreck needed both of them in order to happen the way it did.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:45 am to jmh5724
It’s bizarre
They claim to not have an agenda, but they assume soooo much while also ignoring what has been and can be proven.
If this happened to LaNorris Sellers this week, these same MFers would want him under the jail.
They claim to not have an agenda, but they assume soooo much while also ignoring what has been and can be proven.
If this happened to LaNorris Sellers this week, these same MFers would want him under the jail.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:45 am to sgallo3
quote:
If the other driver had been following proper road protocol noone would have died.
Please continue to repeat this. Repeat repeat repeat.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:47 am to Chad504boy
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:47 am to sgallo3
Just last week I was on interstate with my 4 kids and a car traveling well over 100mph closes in behind me and then swerves around me and another vehicle. We never reacted and he made it around us but if any of us made the slightest move it could have been bad. frick him and anybody that drives that selfishly. You can debate all day about how close the funyun lady was to the truck but it’s a-hole drivers that puts everyone’s lives at risk who are the problem.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:48 am to jmh5724
Yes, but was he an LSU football player?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:53 am to Vacherie Saint
It’s funny that 95% of this board would blame Lacy if this was a random OT thread about a regular person but him playing for LSU makes him innocent. I’ll never get the worship
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:54 am to jmh5724
quote:
But you keep letting him off the hook. His reckless driving amplified the fact that she limited her reaction time.
With neither driver adjusting their actions for the other drivers behavior before the gold truck hit the brakes in front of the Kia, we have 2 offenses.
Lacy: Reckless driving, passing in a no passing zone.
Kia: Not maintaining reasonable and prudent following distance, speeding ~10mph above speed limit
From that point Lacy is able to overcome his 2 traffic violations and slow down and come to a stop before the accident location.
The Kia driver, due to her 2 traffic violations, is forced to choose between hitting the truck in front of her or swerving into the other lane and killing someone.
She caused the wreck (contact, not traffic disruption) more than he did. Just because going 80mph sounds more dangerous, does not mean it is actually so when accounting for room in front of the vehicle to maneuver away from danger.
Lacy at 80mph and 270 feet has about 2.5 seconds to react. The woman at 50mph and 40 feet following distance has under 1 second
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:55 am to Vacherie Saint
you’re logic applies the same facts and conditions to gold truck as you would to Funyuns but gold truck was in front of Funyons.
He was objectively closer to Lacy and started breaking before Lacy got back into his lane and before Funyons left her lane.
Not only was he closer to lacy, he should have been MUCH closer to Lacy because again, Funyons needs to be following at a safe distance.
Your whole argument is that it’s literally impossible to say what a safe distance is, which isn’t how the courts interpret the statute
He was objectively closer to Lacy and started breaking before Lacy got back into his lane and before Funyons left her lane.
Not only was he closer to lacy, he should have been MUCH closer to Lacy because again, Funyons needs to be following at a safe distance.
Your whole argument is that it’s literally impossible to say what a safe distance is, which isn’t how the courts interpret the statute
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:56 am to sgallo3
quote:
Lacy: Reckless driving, passing in a no passing zone.
Kia: Not maintaining reasonable and prudent following distance, speeding ~10mph above speed limit
So Lacy wasn’t speeding?
quote:
From that point Lacy is able to overcome his 2 traffic violations and slow down and come to a stop before the accident location.
What the frick does this even mean?
quote:
She caused the wreck (contact, not traffic disruption) more than he did. Just because going 80mph sounds more dangerous, does not mean it is actually so when accounting for room in front of the vehicle to maneuver away from danger.
Wow. I didn’t think your post could get more ignorant, but you actually finished it with this.
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/8/25 at 12:00 pm to RB10
The math doesnt lie
Lacy at 80mph and 270 feet has about 2.5 seconds to react. The woman at 50mph and 40 feet following distance has under 1 second. There's a reason he was able to stop without hitting anyone and she wasnt.
Lacy at 80mph and 270 feet has about 2.5 seconds to react. The woman at 50mph and 40 feet following distance has under 1 second. There's a reason he was able to stop without hitting anyone and she wasnt.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 12:01 pm to sgallo3
quote:
The math doesnt lie
Lacy at 80mph and 270 feet has about 2.5 seconds to react. The woman at 50mph and 40 feet following distance has under 1 second. There's a reason he was able to stop without hitting anyone and she wasnt.
You’re assuming the truck came to a complete stop, which it didn’t. You’re also assuming Lacy was moving towards a stationary object, which he wasn’t.
So your math is incorrect.
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 10/8/25 at 12:04 pm to sgallo3
You still never answered my previous question. Does that wreck happen if Lacy is no where on that road that day?
Page 48 of 60
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News