- 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: Files to be unsealed in Seth Fontenot case
Posted on 4/10/15 at 8:03 pm to supatigah
Posted on 4/10/15 at 8:03 pm to supatigah
quote:
Prosecution wants to turn away from what the boys were doing on foot in the neighborhood and make it about Fontenot's actions solely
Defense wants it all to come out to provide context to Fontenot's actions
Will the text messages he sent prior to the event in regards to his plan to do such a thing "next time" be admissible?
1
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:16 pm to SamuelClemens
I have no clue if the alleged text messages were presented in court. LILLY100 has made several references to "suppressed evidence", but she implied it would favor Fontenot, not the prosecution.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:27 pm to White Roach
Even if they had broken into the vehicle, can't just go Rambo on their arses.
Something that I really never saw mentioned was that the three victims were, in fact, breaking the law themselves that night: 15 years old and driving, and out past curfew. Don't get me wrong, if the story went down as we're being told and the kids were leaving/driving by, then Seth is 100% guilty of manslaughter. However, if the three weren't breaking the law they wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Also, has/did any information regarding the victims character come out? Why did the one end up enrolled at a school in upper Lafayette, as opposed to attending the one he was on track to go to (where his two friends were, and where his brother had been a star athlete)?
Something that I really never saw mentioned was that the three victims were, in fact, breaking the law themselves that night: 15 years old and driving, and out past curfew. Don't get me wrong, if the story went down as we're being told and the kids were leaving/driving by, then Seth is 100% guilty of manslaughter. However, if the three weren't breaking the law they wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Also, has/did any information regarding the victims character come out? Why did the one end up enrolled at a school in upper Lafayette, as opposed to attending the one he was on track to go to (where his two friends were, and where his brother had been a star athlete)?
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:48 pm to Coach72
Because breaking curfew is worth a death penalty.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:57 pm to Coach72
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.
I do know that plenty of kids drink before they're 21 and that plenty stay out and/or drive past curfew. None of that warrants getting shot.
I do know that plenty of kids drink before they're 21 and that plenty stay out and/or drive past curfew. None of that warrants getting shot.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 11:14 pm to supatigah
Really, I wonder how much more just this world would be if we replaced a dozen jury members who were at the trial every day with one butt buddy who claims to have been. Surely this would be a better path to the truth.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 11:39 pm to randomways
Tragic situation all around, but if it ever came out that the three were involved in nefarious activity, then their poor decisions also played a part in this.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:37 am to Coach72
quote:
Something that I really never saw mentioned was that the three victims were, in fact, breaking the law themselves that night: 15 years old and driving, and out past curfew
The kids were at a party, attended by parents in the neighborhood.
That is irrelevant anyway. I don't think being out after curfew gives a person the right to shoot innocent people driving by a house.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:38 am to White Roach
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
None of what you stated is a fact.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:42 am to joeleblanc
Read the post before you comment. I haven't seen one poster on here yet who claimed a person has the right to shoot innocent people driving by. Christ dude - you sound like the mainstream media.
The part that might be relevant, is do you know for a fact they were innocent? Do you know for a fact the reason why one of them wasn't attending STM?
The part that might be relevant, is do you know for a fact they were innocent? Do you know for a fact the reason why one of them wasn't attending STM?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:50 am to Coach72
quote:
The part that might be relevant, is do you know for a fact they were innocent
Uh yes I do know they were innocent. The reason the kid went to Teurlings is because his parents made him? What does THAT have to do with getting shot!
Posted on 4/11/15 at 9:54 am to joeleblanc
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.
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.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:01 am to LILLY100
The beer provider should be in jail. Seth should be free to kill more kids.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:03 am to Coach72
quote:
The part that might be relevant, is do you know for a fact they were innocent? Do you know for a fact the reason why one of them wasn't attending STM?
Because that has absolutely nothing to do with the events of that night.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:07 am to LILLY100
quote:
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)
Blood test showed the driver was completely sober, thats why he drove the truck, bc the 17 year old friend had been drinking
the 17 year old friend told the sober teen to drive austin home because it was only a a few blocks away and in the same neighborhood
so no, he didnt have a license to drive, but he was the only person sober so he drove rivault home. I'd say that's pretty responsible of them
obviously they shouldnt have been drinking underage, but who didnt at that age?
and yes, rivault snuck out of his house
my question for you:
does any of the above information prove that they attempted to break into fontenot's truck or give fontenot enough reason to shoot at them?
if you say "yes" then you are twisted or you're clearly very close to fontenot's family and are supremely biased
quote:
Seths now ex girlfriend was a very credible witness who said she heard some one breaking into cars.
but seth testified that HE heard someone breaking into cars and woke up his girlfriend to tell her about it
this is my problem, the stories of fontenot's family and ex gf changed several times since the night of the incident, but the testimony of the 2 teenagers didn't change at all other than the driver saying that he was probably driving slower on the road than he originally told police.
quote:
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.
they did tell the truth about their activities that night
they said they were at a friend's house
they said they were drinking beer underage (except for the driver tho is the only one with a future football career)
and they admitted that rivault had snuck out and they were trying to get him home.
for someone who lists their occupation in their profile as "Legal Eagle" you leave much to be desired when it comes to questions of the law and evidence
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:15 am to joeleblanc
quote:
quote: attended by parents .
Don't think so
Just a terrible situation
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:26 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:18 am to LILLY100
Why does it matter if the kids were drunk?
Why does it matter if someone bought them beer?
Why does it matter if they heard someone breaking into their cars?
Even if all of the above is true you can't shoot at cars driving down the road. If you do, and you kill someone you should go to jail
Actually, if no one dies you still should be in a good bit of trouble.
Why does it matter if someone bought them beer?
Why does it matter if they heard someone breaking into their cars?
Even if all of the above is true you can't shoot at cars driving down the road. If you do, and you kill someone you should go to jail
Actually, if no one dies you still should be in a good bit of trouble.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:21 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:44 am to LILLY100
I'm sure the reason that "where the beer came from" wasn't brought out at trial is because it was completely irrelevant to the case.
So the very credible, now ex-girlfriend (who hung up on the 911 call callback), Seth's sister and Seth all say they thought they heard a car getting broken in to, but no cars were broken in to that night. How does that happen? That sounds like three people concocting a bullshite story to cover up the fact that a moron shot up a bunch of kids.
What didn't the kids tell the truth about? They did some of the same stupid shite that teenagers across America have been doing forever: sneaking out, drinking beer and staying out past curfew. If a high school football coach has to kick every kid off the team who has ever drank beer, it's going be an awfully empty locker room.
I'm beginning to believe you must be Seth's grandmother or something. You're certainly dumb enough to be related to him.
So the very credible, now ex-girlfriend (who hung up on the 911 call callback), Seth's sister and Seth all say they thought they heard a car getting broken in to, but no cars were broken in to that night. How does that happen? That sounds like three people concocting a bullshite story to cover up the fact that a moron shot up a bunch of kids.
What didn't the kids tell the truth about? They did some of the same stupid shite that teenagers across America have been doing forever: sneaking out, drinking beer and staying out past curfew. If a high school football coach has to kick every kid off the team who has ever drank beer, it's going be an awfully empty locker room.
I'm beginning to believe you must be Seth's grandmother or something. You're certainly dumb enough to be related to him.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:30 pm to joeleblanc
quote:
That is irrelevant anyway. I don't think being out after curfew gives a person the right to shoot innocent people driving by a house.
If they were just driving by the house at 2am, how did Fontenot know what they were wearing?
quote:LINK /
Hours later, at the police station, 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
Also, how long does it take to drive past a house that the occupants could be awakened and go outside with a gun? Was Fontenot sleeping on the front lawn? Perhaps he heard them coming from a mile away and had time to prepare?
No one should carelessly shoot at vehicles...but I don't buy the whole "innocently driving by" storyline.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:46 pm to goofball
If a man is driving a getaway car and someone is killed in the course of the robbery, then even the getaway driver is charged with murder, correct?
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?
Now I believe Fontenot is an idiot. There is no way to justify firing a weapon when you or family are not threatened with harm. They were driving away. No where in the second amendment does it condone trying to scare someone by firing a few shots.
But does the above not apply if the kids can be proven to have been trying to break into a vehicle?
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?
Now I believe Fontenot is an idiot. There is no way to justify firing a weapon when you or family are not threatened with harm. They were driving away. No where in the second amendment does it condone trying to scare someone by firing a few shots.
But does the above not apply if the kids can be proven to have been trying to break into a vehicle?
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News