- 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
3
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:28 pm to Ash Williams
Do you think Rivault and Bellamy were messing with Fontenot's truck before the shooting? 0 to 100%... are you willing to post a probability percentage, based on your opinion of the evidence you saw presented at the trial?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:41 pm to White Roach
I'd say 8%
I believe that fontenot thought he heard something.
But I don't think it was those kids.
I don't even think it was the sound of his car door handles being pulled.
I believe that fontenot thought he heard something.
But I don't think it was those kids.
I don't even think it was the sound of his car door handles being pulled.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:11 pm to Ash Williams
Coincidence that he said he saw kids wearing similar shirts to Rivault and Bellamy? I find it hard to believe Fontenot had access to the hospital surveillance recordings, like joeleblanc suggested. Maybe a friend worked at the ER or was a cop and told him. Hard for me to believe he guessed correctly or saw two OTHER kids dressed the same way.
I was of the opinion that he just totally screwed up and shot some kids who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But after reading that he gave a vague, but matching, description of two of the boys, it makes me wonder. (The shooting wasn't justified in either case.)
I was of the opinion that he just totally screwed up and shot some kids who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But after reading that he gave a vague, but matching, description of two of the boys, it makes me wonder. (The shooting wasn't justified in either case.)
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:13 pm to Ash Williams
Wanna bet..
Look dude, I understand you have a little info and know what happened at trial....understand though, the prosecution shows EVERYTHING it knows, the defense doesn't if it is not needed.
You'll just have to trust me on this, I know (good or bad) double of what you heard or read. You would be shocked
Look dude, I understand you have a little info and know what happened at trial....understand though, the prosecution shows EVERYTHING it knows, the defense doesn't if it is not needed.
You'll just have to trust me on this, I know (good or bad) double of what you heard or read. You would be shocked
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:14 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:
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.
Ignorant at best.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:14 pm to White Roach
quote:
Coincidence that he said he saw kids wearing similar shirts to Rivault and Bellamy? I find it hard to believe Fontenot had access to the hospital surveillance recordings, like joeleblanc suggested. Maybe a friend worked at the ER or was a cop and told him. Hard for me to believe he guessed correctly or saw two OTHER kids dressed the same way.
In the callback after the 911 call he told the responding officer that he didn't see anyone. He later changed his story.
I think he said he saw someone in a white shirt and a dark shirt
It just so happened that rivals was in a white shirt and Bellamy was in a royal blue shirt
I think a lot of shades could fit under "white shirt" and "dark shirt" if you're a defendant trying to cover yourself
I also thought the two boys sounded much more believable than Seth
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:16 pm to White Roach
quote:
, 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.
The beer they were drinking was stolen from a neighbors garage fridge......Bellamy was one of the acquirers of beer.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:18 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
In the callback after the 911 call he told the responding officer that he didn't see anyone. He later changed his story.
Not true. He did tell the cops nothing was stolen and he didn't need to file charges..again, much later. He had to be at work at 530.
quote:
I think he said he saw someone in a white shirt and a dark shirt
It just so happened that rivals was in a white shirt and Bellamy was in a royal blue shirt
Not true, he detailed the shirts AND pants
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:21 pm to GeeOH
And he blew a 0.9, but so what? The neighbor might have been justified in shooting him if he confronted him in the garage, but Fontenot wasn't.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:21 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? 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.
You don't know shite...seriously, you have ZERO clue and should not post on this topic
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:23 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Ignorant at best.
Yeah, any remotely competent prosecutor would have got him for 1st degree.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:29 pm to joeleblanc
quote:
Easy...access to the tapes at the hospital.
According to this, it was part of his statement to police after he was picked up the morning after.
LINK
He got tapes to the hospital that fast?
I wouldn't put it past the paper to get details wrong....but how on earth could he accurately ID what the kids were wearing without seeing them outside the vehicle?
quote:
Fontenot told detectives he woke up when he heard someone popping his truck door handles, he peeped out the window of the house and saw two figures running in the yard and described them as wearing a white shirt and a dark shirt, which fits what Bellamy and Rivault wore
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:30 pm to goofball
One of the more interesting things about this case is how sure it's made everyone that their particular opinion is exactly right and any differing opinion is absolutely wrong.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:32 pm to GeeOH
Wanna bet..
Look dude, I understand you have a little info and know what happened at trial....understand though, the prosecution shows EVERYTHING it knows, the defense doesn't if it is not needed.
You'll just have to trust me on this, I know (good or bad) double of what you heard or read. You would be shocked
___________________________
The guy got convicted! It sounds to me like the Defense needed everything it had and then maybe a little more. Why would they hold any relevant evidence back?
Look dude, I understand you have a little info and know what happened at trial....understand though, the prosecution shows EVERYTHING it knows, the defense doesn't if it is not needed.
You'll just have to trust me on this, I know (good or bad) double of what you heard or read. You would be shocked
___________________________
The guy got convicted! It sounds to me like the Defense needed everything it had and then maybe a little more. Why would they hold any relevant evidence back?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:32 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
One of the more interesting things about this case is how sure it's made everyone that their particular opinion is exactly right and any differing opinion is absolutely wrong.
There is a vision of what happened in random internet guy's head, and everyone else with facts, quotes, links, or articles contrary to his opinion are ignorant and stupid.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:37 pm to boosiebadazz
I think several posters are either friends or family of the involved parties, and their objectivity is clouded by their loyalty.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:53 pm to White Roach
Regardless he was over charged, he knew what he did was wrong, he wanted manslaughter and he got it. This was Always a manslaughter case and he got the conviction he deserved.
None of the rest of it matters, he fired into a vehicle with three minors in it and killed one. He wasn't protecting anything, he acted foolishly and he deserves to go to prison
None of the rest of it matters, he fired into a vehicle with three minors in it and killed one. He wasn't protecting anything, he acted foolishly and he deserves to go to prison
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:56 pm to White Roach
quote:
I think several posters are either friends or family of the involved parties, and their objectivity is clouded by their loyalty.
I'm not friends or family with either party.
I am not an attorney that was on either side of the issue.
But I did watch the entire trial out of curiosity and have only posted things that were testified to in the trial itself.
I know that LILLY and GeeOh are claiming to know other information but I can tell you only what happened in the trial.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:59 pm to supatigah
I can also tell you for certain, that to this day, he has never apologized to the parents of Austin Rivault
It's been two years since the shooting
There have been several hearings.
He was on the stand for over 5 hours on direct and cross and never did it.
That speaks volumes to me and should speak volumes to everyone else
It's been two years since the shooting
There have been several hearings.
He was on the stand for over 5 hours on direct and cross and never did it.
That speaks volumes to me and should speak volumes to everyone else
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News