- 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
1
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's going to be difficult to prove she had the capacity to consent.
The defense doesn't has to prove anything. Just reasonable doubt.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:44 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Driver could have driven to a hospital or sheriff station cause you know they dindu nuffin wrong you know.
That could've been an option and really the only right one if she was passed out or she could've been adamant about getting out of the car...so much arguing in this thread over shite no one knows.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:44 pm to Choupique19
quote:
Why don’t you just answer his question?
Because it's not asked in good faith.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:45 pm to RandySavage
quote:read the links in OP you dumb frick
Without reading 71 pages of content can someone comment on how they are so sure this was a rape and that these guys are the scum of the earth? Usually this board, and men in general, sides with the man when a drunk girl claims rape after the fact.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:45 pm to Tomatocantender
Her blood alcohol level was 4x the legal limit.
No consent possible.
No reasonable doubt for these perps. Sorry.
The manslaughter charge is where the defense lawyers will have better arguments.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:45 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
The defense doesn't has to prove anything. Just reasonable doubt.
Good luck with that with her .319 BAC and the driver saying it was wrong to police.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:46 pm to HouseMom
quote:
I've read the warrant, and I assume what actually happened is worse than the "official" story from the guys in the car. They said they dropped her off at a neighborhood, but is there proof of this? Any cameras pick this up?
Also, did the ride share driver see her walking and hit her or was she lying in the road. This part is definitely important for their guilt. I just haven't read whether their story adds up.
This is the thing that has driven me nuts all day.
This situation is horrible enough. Why do you people have to interject this hyperbolic bullshite? What is wrong with you to where you immediately make a terrible situation 10x worse in your mind without any need to do so?
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:47 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Good luck with that with her .319 BAC and the driver saying it was wrong to police.
Yeah I was stating it was a matter of reality not legality.
Once the prosecution establishes she was drunk (and they will, easily), the defense will have to show she was drunk, but not DRUNK.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:47 pm to LNCHBOX
The driver is also the one most likely to do a plea deal. He's 28 and knows what he'd be in for at jail.
He didn't rape but he was a party to it so he's facing ALL the same penalties.
He'll flip for a lesser plea and point the finger at the others in exchange. "Yes, we knew she was drunk and not able to consent. I knew it was wrong but they wanted to get laid, etc."
Can see that happening.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:48 pm to Chicken
quote:
won't someone have to prove that they willfully allowed underage kids into the bar? With fake ID's being so good these days, how can the bar be liable if that is how the kids get in?
I was thinking the same. All of these bars have scanners. Granted some of them work better than others, but that is their defense. This isn't the first time that a crime or something bad has happened to an underage person that just left Tigerland. However, if it's true that she currently/use to work there then all of that goes out the window and they probably have video of her not even getting checked, and/or getting served free drinks all night long.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:48 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
The defense doesn't has to prove anything. Just reasonable doubt.
A borderline comatose girl in a car with four strangers. I don't see how any reasonable person could spin it as consensual. But it's the Baton Rouge jury pool, so anything is possible.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:48 pm to djangochained
The more shite like this happens the more chance men are gonna start becoming the fricking Punisher and it’s gonna get nasty when that happens
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:48 pm to HodsonTiger13
quote:
The driver is also the one most likely to do a plea deal. He's 28 and knows what he'd be in for at jail.
One of the younger kids was his nephew. I doubt he sells his nephew out.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:48 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Good luck with that with her .319 BAC and the driver saying it was wrong to police.
Simply stating a fact, the defense is not burdened with having to prove anything. Y'all know this, that's almost literally the first sentence of Criminal Law 101.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:49 pm to TeddyPadillac
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/23 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah but even there, where inside the subdivision would be a big deal. If they dropped her off down that entrance where there was housing, I don't see how you can postulate a murder charge.
quote:
A. Manslaughter is:
(3) When the offender commits or attempts to commit any crime of violence as defined by R.S. 14:2(B) [THIRD DEGREE RAPE], which is part of a continuous sequence of events resulting in the death of a human being where it was foreseeable that the offender's conduct during the commission of the crime could result in death or great bodily harm to a human being, even if the offender has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. For purposes of this Paragraph, it shall be immaterial whether or not the person who performed the direct act resulting in the death was acting in concert with the offender.
This post was edited on 1/24/23 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:49 pm to financetiger
Man this is fricking sick
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:49 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
They raped her. They raped her. They raped her and then hit the eject button knowing her condition.
well if they videoed it, then we won't have to assume that's what happened, like everyone is doing here.
and i would bet money that what happened was rape, but i'm not going to jump to conclusions when all of the facts aren't out yet. I think you can assume very safely that at the very least they took advantage of a very drunk girl, and in most instances it's going to be rape.
I would also think there are cameras on the entrance of this neighborhood. Maybe they did drop her off right at the entrance, and not in the neighborhood, and maybe there's a video of her walking near Burbank. Hopefully so.
There's just an awful lot of comments and opinions in here that are based on very few facts, and a bunch of people jumping to their own conclusions. And i understand a lot of those conclusions are probably right or close to being right, but how about we let all the facts come out and stop acting like we know exactly what happened already.
Posted on 1/24/23 at 2:49 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
Simply stating a fact, the defense is not burdened with having to prove anything. Y'all know this, that's almost literally the first sentence of Criminal Law 101.
Ok semantics man. They will have to "prove" there is reasonable doubt their clients didn't rape this girl because the facts we already know are very much against them.
Page 73 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News