- 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 10/9/25 at 8:53 am to RB10
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:53 am to RB10
quote:
The simplest explanation is she saw the vehicle coming head on in her lane.
Your simplest explanation is she doesnt have peripheral vision? She could see a car 100 yards ahead (with her vision blocked by a truck) but not one 10 yards ahead immediately in front of her?
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 8:55 am
1
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:54 am to sgallo3
quote:
Ur simplest explanation is she doesnt have peripheral vision?
She was looking straight ahead while driving on a 2 lane street with no intention to turn.
That is about as simple as it gets scooter.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:55 am to RB10
quote:
She was looking straight ahead while driving on a 2 lane street with no intention to turn.
Then she wouldve been looking at the back of a gold truck...
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:57 am to sgallo3
quote:
Then she wouldve been looking at the back of a gold truck...
Unless the truck was riding halfway on the shoulder, which is what all the on scene witnesses claimed.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:58 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
She reacted to the truck, not the charger.
And the truck reacted to the Charger meaning that if the Charger wasn't doing what he was doing, then the truck doesn't react and the Kia doesn't react, and we are not talking about this right now.
It's very simple guys...
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:58 am to RB10
The truck was not driving on the shoulder. They slowed down and got over on the shoulder. If the funyon lady was looking at the road as this happened she wouldve seen the car she served into.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:59 am to zuluboudreaux
That crooked attorney tried to lead social media and state police pulled their receipts
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:59 am to sgallo3
quote:
The truck was not driving on the shoulder. They slowed down and got over on the shoulder. If the funyon lady was looking at the road as this happened she wouldve seen the car she served into.
So the truck wasn’t completely blocking her view of what was ahead?
Got it
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:01 am to sgallo3
quote:
Because braking is based on reaction time.
Funyon lady was 0.5 seconds behind the vehicle in front of her, which doesnt give her enough reaction time to brake when she sees them brake.
Lacy isn't really tailing another car and is not forced to brake or swerve to avoid a collision.
OK.. I guess.. but why not give both Funyuns and Lacy distances in seconds and feet/yards... seems like someone can easily figure that out... when Lacy was going 88 he was x seconds from colliding with the gold truck... and the same with Funyuns.. she was x feet behind gold truck... and she was x feet from wreck when she applied the brakes... I am just asking for some consistency in the reports.. just seems like it would make sense
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:03 am to RB10
It is impossible to me that vehicle 2 could be watching the road and see vehicle 1 but not see vehicle 3.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:04 am to sgallo3
Here's a pro tip for you.
Don't pro create!
This world can't possibly stand another dumb arse like you in it.
Don't pro create!
This world can't possibly stand another dumb arse like you in it.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:06 am to sgallo3
quote:
It is impossible to me that vehicle 2 could be watching the road and see vehicle 1 but not see vehicle 3.
Brush up on tunnel vision’s causes and effects.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:06 am to Tigers4Lyfe
If you drive like funyon lady i dont think we have to worry about you procreating.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:06 am to Chad504boy
Yea because ultimately you believe that to avoid a head-on collision with Lacy's car, the female driver opted to swerve into another vehicle causing a head-on collision.
Typically, when things make no sense, it's often because they're not true.
ATP, I'm done with it. Some people will always be convinced Lacy caused the "events that led to the crash" and some will always believe he was innocent of causing the crash and that other events in this situation are sketchy to say the least.
I'll be 50 next month and I realize everybody has different views and opinions.
Typically, when things make no sense, it's often because they're not true.
ATP, I'm done with it. Some people will always be convinced Lacy caused the "events that led to the crash" and some will always believe he was innocent of causing the crash and that other events in this situation are sketchy to say the least.
I'll be 50 next month and I realize everybody has different views and opinions.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:10 am to ellis197575
quote:
Yea because ultimately you believe that to avoid a head-on collision with Lacy's car, the female driver opted to swerve into another vehicle causing a head-on collision.
Typically, when things make no sense, it's often because they're not true.
But we're the dumb ones for question it
Youre right though. No point using logic with people that have an ax to grind for whatever reason.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:13 am to sgallo3
quote:
But we're the dumb ones for question it
You aren’t just questioning it. You’re trying to make definitive statements and trying to say something is impossible.
The only person not open to possibilities is you, oddly enough.
quote:
Youre right though. No point using logic with people that have an ax to grind for whatever reason.
Oh my God
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 9:14 am
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:22 am to yaherrdme
quote:
OK.. I guess.. but why not give both Funyuns and Lacy distances in seconds and feet/yards... seems like someone can easily figure that out... when Lacy was going 88 he was x seconds from colliding with the gold truck... and the same with Funyuns.. she was x feet behind gold truck... and she was x feet from wreck when she applied the brakes... I am just asking for some consistency in the reports.. just seems like it would make sense
You know why. I’ve already provided the math.
Lacy was 1 second away from a head on collision sounds bad. Really bad. Lacy was 73 yards away from a head on collision sounds much better.
Funyuns was .5 seconds away from rear ending the gold truck sounds bad. Really bad. Funyuns was 10 yards away from rear ending the gold truck sounds much better.
We know which way the attorney is slanting this.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:09 am to jasonbr1975
So the charger is breaking the law (no one disagrees.
If it all goes down the same with the exception fat arse funyon lady is not eating, paying full attention to driving, and following the truck at a safe distance guess what? We aren’t talking about it either.
Now which one actually hit and killed another driver again?
If it all goes down the same with the exception fat arse funyon lady is not eating, paying full attention to driving, and following the truck at a safe distance guess what? We aren’t talking about it either.
Now which one actually hit and killed another driver again?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:14 am to RB10
Honestly, I think that the DAs report used different units. And KLs attorney discussed what he was given.
Maybe I got that wrong?
Maybe I got that wrong?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:18 am to tiger91
quote:
Honestly, I think that the DAs report used different units. And KLs attorney discussed what he was given.
Maybe I got that wrong?
The attorney used what painted Kyren in the best light possible. That’s his job.
Page 58 of 60
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News