- 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
0
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:47 pm to LILLY100
quote:
They were not at a neighborhood party with parents....they were over at a friends house
I hate to tell you but I know for a fact exactly where they were and there were in fact parents there, up until 12:30am.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:53 pm to LILLY100
quote:
Posted by LILLY100 They were not at a neighborhood party with parents....they were over at a friends house There was drinking (speculation that the beer was stolen or that a brother/17 year old bought it for them) but never was brought out in trial where the beer came from - don't know why. But who ever provided the beer to them should have been prosecuted for it. One of the kids was to drunk to drive - neither had DL. Austins had snuck out of the house (don't hate brought out as fact in court) Seths now ex girlfriend was a very credible witness who said she heard some one breaking into cars. His sister also heard and called 911. Why did the kids not tell the truth about this - football careers on the line and/or getting kicked out of school is my opinion.
You insist of nitpicking the most insignificant parts of this story to try and show that this guy was somehow railroaded by the system. Can you not admit that regardless of the actions of the kids, his shooting at them is not legally justifiable?
If you can't, then I reiterate, you're just here trying to stir the shite.
This was a slam dunk manslaughter case. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone, let alone these particular kids, tried to break in to his truck that night.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:57 pm to joeleblanc
I was just reading a couple of Advertiser articles about the trial testimony: Kelley testified he wasn't drinking, Bellamy testified he "had no more than three" beers, and one or both testified that Rivault was drinking. So it seems like there was beer at the party and at least some of the kids were drinking.
Not that it matters, relative to the shooting. But it does affect your credibility when you insist it didn't happen.
Not that it matters, relative to the shooting. But it does affect your credibility when you insist it didn't happen.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 2:00 pm to supatigah
quote:
LINK / Files on the case will be unsealed on Tuesday. This was the case two years ago in Lafayette where the 18 yr old fired into a truck killing 15yr old Austin Rivault
What happened in the case? I remember this guy claimed his truck was getting broken into during the middle of the night, but really had no other explanation or defense.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 2:11 pm to Tooncesridesagain
Convicted of Manslaughter. Sentencing pending.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 2:15 pm to chuckie
What the hell. Maybe they'd be guilty of helping rob, but what logic would they be complicent in manslaughter?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:19 pm to White Roach
quote:
Not that it matters, relative to the shooting
So why keep beating a dead horse?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:33 pm to boosiebadazz
So previous behavior that establishes ones character (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it? lol
Tell that to a judge about to pass sentence on someone with a mile long rap sheet.
Tell that to a judge about to pass sentence on someone with a mile long rap sheet.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:37 pm to Coach72
quote:
So previous behavior that establishes ones character (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it? lol
Tell that to a judge about to pass sentence on someone with a mile long rap sheet.
The defendant, sure. Not the victim, unless you're claiming self-defense.
Check out Article 404 of the Code of Evidence.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:46 pm to Coach72
quote:
So previous behavior that establishes ones character (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it? lol
Tell that to a judge about to pass sentence on someone with a mile long rap sheet.
The character of the defendant comes in sure. Not the victim. Unless this is a he said she said brawl resulting in a shooting. This was a dude firing at a passing car.
Whoops I see boosie covered it.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:53 pm to joeleblanc
If it doesn't matter, and I don't think it does, why are you saying it didn't happen? If you're actually in the know, and it does sound like you're familiar with the case and at least some of involved parties, why not help clarify the situation, instead of lying about it?
Last night, you quoted part of one of my posts, and responded with something like "none of what you've stated is fact." When in actuality, my post was more accurate than not.
1) 2 of the 3 victims were drinking
2) they were leaving a party
3) they were driving a truck that didn't belong to any of them.
You could have easily responded by saying that the driver wasn't drinking and they had permission from Gunnar Raborn to borrow the truck. Situation clarified. But you chose to say none of it was true. And by offering conflicting information, the story just gets a little more confusing for those trying to find out what really happened.
My post from last night...
quote:
There was some speculation that the kids had been drinking. They were leaving a party, so that wouldn't surprise me. I had also heard that they had taken someone's truck without the owner's permission. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction
Last night, you quoted part of one of my posts, and responded with something like "none of what you've stated is fact." When in actuality, my post was more accurate than not.
1) 2 of the 3 victims were drinking
2) they were leaving a party
3) they were driving a truck that didn't belong to any of them.
You could have easily responded by saying that the driver wasn't drinking and they had permission from Gunnar Raborn to borrow the truck. Situation clarified. But you chose to say none of it was true. And by offering conflicting information, the story just gets a little more confusing for those trying to find out what really happened.
My post from last night...
quote:
There was some speculation that the kids had been drinking. They were leaving a party, so that wouldn't surprise me. I had also heard that they had taken someone's truck without the owner's permission. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
So previous behavior that establishes ones character (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it? lol Tell that to a judge about to pass sentence on someone with a mile long rap sheet. The defendant, sure. Not the victim, unless you're claiming self-defense. Check out Article 404 of the Code of Evidence.
Thank you Boosie.
Now waiting for the next un-medicated comment from Coach
Posted on 4/11/15 at 3:57 pm to White Roach
quote:
If it doesn't matter, and I don't think it does, why are you saying it didn't happen? If you're actually in the know, and it does sound like you're familiar with the case and at least some of involved parties, why not help clarify the situation, instead of lying about it? Last night, you quoted part of one of my posts, and responded with something like "none of what you've stated is fact." When in actuality, my post was more accurate than not. 1) 2 of the 3 victims were drinking 2) they were leaving a party 3) they were driving a truck that didn't belong to any of them. You could have easily responded by saying that the driver wasn't drinking and they had permission from Gunnar Raborn to borrow the truck. Situation clarified. But you chose to say none of it was true. And by offering conflicting information, the story just gets a little more confusing for those trying to find out what really happened. My post from last night... quote: There was some speculation that the kids had been drinking. They were leaving a party, so that wouldn't surprise me. I had also heard that they had taken someone's truck without the owner's permission. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction
You are correct. I was incorrect in the drinking part. It is also correct that they did have permission to use the truck. If anyone wants to know what really happened, all they have to do is look it up online at any of the local media websites.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 4:17 pm to joeleblanc
There was quite a bit of conflicting information in the media when this first happened. The articles I read this morning were based on trial testimony, so I'd hope to believe that they were more accurate. Obviously, there are points of contention: The distance and angle the shots were fired from, how well the street was lit, if Fontenot could see through the window tint in the truck, etc.
Fontenot testified that he saw two kids by his truck. The smaller one wearing a white long sleeved shirt and the larger in a dark blue or black shirt. These descriptions matched what Rivault and Bellamy were wearing that night. How would Fontenot know this, if the kids never got out of the truck? It seems like an extremely long shot coincidence if he just guessed. Even if two of them were pulling on his truck door handles, it doesn't provide justification for shooting them. Maybe it would be considered a mitigating factor when his sentencing takes place. I don't know...
I'd imagine that the only thing that will save Fontenot's hide is if the Rivaults ask the judge to show leniency. Regardless of religious faith, moral compassion, or whatever, that would have to be a hard thing for a parent to do.
Fontenot testified that he saw two kids by his truck. The smaller one wearing a white long sleeved shirt and the larger in a dark blue or black shirt. These descriptions matched what Rivault and Bellamy were wearing that night. How would Fontenot know this, if the kids never got out of the truck? It seems like an extremely long shot coincidence if he just guessed. Even if two of them were pulling on his truck door handles, it doesn't provide justification for shooting them. Maybe it would be considered a mitigating factor when his sentencing takes place. I don't know...
I'd imagine that the only thing that will save Fontenot's hide is if the Rivaults ask the judge to show leniency. Regardless of religious faith, moral compassion, or whatever, that would have to be a hard thing for a parent to do.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 4:42 pm to White Roach
quote:
I'd imagine that the only thing that will save Fontenot's hide is if the Rivaults ask the judge to show leniency
I doubt they do. Would you? They have filed a wrongful death suit against Seth, his mother and stepfather due to the stepfather buying the gun and not providing training with the weapon
Posted on 4/11/15 at 4:52 pm to joeleblanc
I doubt most people would. If my son ended up dead over something as stupid as this, I'd probably be feeling pretty vindictive.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 5:07 pm to chuckie
quote:
Does this apply here? I mean, if the kids were actually involved in breaking into
Vehicles, then wouldn't they be complicit in said murder/manslaughter?
No...not legally. They will have to live with their choices though.
As someone pointed out, Fontenot was able to tell what two of those kids were wearing. How could you do that if the truck didn't stop and the passengers didn't exit the vehicle? This supposedly happened on a leafy, tree lined street after midnight. I'm also curious as to how the shooter had the time to wake up, grab his gun and run outside only to find that the truck was still in the process of passing his house. Something is off with that story of "innocently driving down the street".
Those kids were likely up to no good and I have serious doubts about their story. That doesn't mean they deserved to be shot at. Regardless of how mad you are, it's not okay to shoot at a fleeing vehicle.
I do have my suspicions that the younger kid was just along for the ride on this. His friends got him into a bad situation. If it were my child, I'd be very upset about that. If I had made the decision to get my friends into a situation in which they ended up being arrested or shot at, I'd never forgive myself.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 5:38 pm to member12
quote:
As someone pointed out, Fontenot was able to tell what two of those kids were wearing. How could you do that if the truck didn't stop and the passengers didn't exit the vehicle?
Easy...access to the tapes at the hospital.
quote:
I'm also curious as to how the shooter had the time to wake up, grab his gun and run outside only to find that the truck was still in the process of passing his house
Exactly...sounds to me like he was hiding in waiting.
quote:
Something is off with that story of "innocently driving down the street".
Something is off with his story as he changed it twice.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 6:49 pm to Ash Williams
You're partially right.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News