- 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: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:37 am to djangochained
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:37 am to djangochained
quote:
I hope these videos are never released
Jesus Christ, me too.
If the family wants to see them, I am sure the DA will let them. But Chicken should ban any piece of shite that posts them here.
That may be another reason the family would want a plea deal. The videos would be played at trial.
3
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:38 am to JudgeHolden
Agree
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:39 am to JudgeHolden
Can’t the family ask for those to be sealed? Or something similar?
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:40 am to djangochained
The Rape Shield law will apply if the case goes to trial:
I doubt either of the exceptions would apply.
quote:
Art. 412. Victim's past sexual behavior in sexual assault cases
A. Opinion and reputation evidence. When an accused is charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of the victim is not admissible.
B. Other evidence; exceptions. When an accused is charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior, evidence of specific instances of the victim's past sexual behavior is also not admissible except for:
(1) Evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen or injury; provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense, and further provided that the jury be instructed at the time and in its final charge regarding the limited purpose for which the evidence is admitted; or
(2) Evidence of past sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused upon the issue of whether or not the victim consented to the sexually assaultive behavior.
I doubt either of the exceptions would apply.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:42 am to JudgeHolden
That is some bullshite right there.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:42 am to USMEagles
quote:
That is some bullshite right there.
Wut?
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:43 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
Can’t the family ask for those to be sealed? Or something similar?
I'm pretty sure the DA and the Sheriff are not going to let them get out.
Could they clear the courtroom if they are played at trial? Maybe. But you are still going to have them played in front of twelve in the box, probably two alternates, a judge, a court reporter, a deputy clerk, and a bailiff at least. Likely the press would have to be there as well, although they could not record the videos.
It's not my call, and I speak only for myself, but I wouldn't want to see it or have it played if she were my family, I'd probably let the DA cut a deal to avoid a trial.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:43 am to Chad504boy
quote:
55. someone standing in the middle of the road, some sort of braking or swerving should have occured.
Okay…so…at 55mph, you’re traveling ~80 feet per second. High beams will let you see ~350-500 feet ahead of you, low beams ~250 feet.
Stopping distance at 55 mph is ~300 feet.
Reaction time of a driver is in the neighborhood of 0.5-1.5 seconds.
So, even doing the speed limit means you’re pretty much overdriving your headlights.
Does the driver have to be impaired or distracted to have hit her given those numbers?
(Numbers from quick google searches.)
This post was edited on 1/25/23 at 11:48 am
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:44 am to USMEagles
quote:
That is some bullshite right there.
That is the law in almost every state and in federal court.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:44 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
A. Opinion and reputation evidence. When an accused is charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of the victim is not admissible.
B. Other evidence; exceptions. When an accused is charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior, evidence of specific instances of the victim's past sexual behavior is also not admissible except for:
Isn't that just saying her past promiscuity, if any, can't be brought in?
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:46 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
Isn't that just saying her past promiscuity, if any, can't be brought in?
Exactly. That's the intent.
I do very little criminal, so I don't know how it works in practice, but that is what it is supposed to do.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:46 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
I'm pretty sure the DA and the Sheriff are not going to let them get out.
Let them? Would there be any reason to do otherwise? I mean they would have to “leak” right?
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:47 am to billjamin
quote:
I am shocked that the employees let her leave with those dudes if she worked there. There's a zero percent chance we would have let any of the bartenders do that when i was working at an LSU bar.
I worked in Tigerland while I was in school. We always made it a point to watch out for coworkers past and present.
There are a lot of failures at many levels of this tragic situation and even though the pieces of shite that carried out this attack are at the top of the list, every institution that played some small part in this tragedy needs to seriously evaluate where they failed and make it to where it won’t happen again.
JL and that fat tub of shite Darren need to come out and just show some goodwill gesture and shut the place down. They won’t though. It’s money at the end of the day for them. Underaged drinking is the majority of their revenue stream. I hope the city does the right thing for once and closes their doors for good and bans them from receiving another license to serve liquor.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:48 am to JudgeHolden
So the accused past sexually assaultive behavior can be brought in?
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:49 am to djangochained
that douche will insist on having the last word in any back and forth, just punt and move on
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:50 am to DomincDecoco
quote:
that douche will insist on having the last word in any back and forth, just punt and move on
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:51 am to Spasweezy
quote:
I hope the city does the right thing for once and closes their doors for good and bans them from receiving another license to serve liquor.
I would think they’re (the owners) are about to get the living frick sued out of them. They better start hiring attorneys and figuring out how to shield assets. I’m surprised the bar is even still there.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:52 am to tigerinthebueche
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:53 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Wut?
It looks like legislation dictating what's admissible as evidence in a criminal trial. That seems like it would present giant separation-of-powers issues. There's a whole framework of precedent and common law around admissibility of evidence and letting a bunch of low-IQ state legislators mess with it is a terrible idea.
Beyond that, I am sorry but a victim's past sexual conduct seems extremely relevant to a rape case. Anyone made uncomfortable by that assertion is probably self-conscious about her own promiscuity.
Page 111 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News