- 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: Gasser didn't testify in McKnight case; Guilty of manslaughter
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:06 am to TH03
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:06 am to TH03
quote:
On second thought the 3 feet seems bad for Gasser.
That would mean if McKnight was at the window, Gasser would have not extended the gun at all basically right?
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 9:07 am
1
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:07 am to Demshoes
Pretty sure Gasser is fricked in the eventual wrongful death civil suit, but criminally I think he walks away.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:07 am to slackster
The most interesting part of the trial is that the judge let testimony regarding his prior road rage incidents come in.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:08 am to slackster
quote:
You don't have to unless you feel there is something that needs explanation.
I realize that. That’s why I said not guilty.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:08 am to boosiebadazz
He has a pretty strong case on appeal imo should he get convicted.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:08 am to Splackavellie
quote:
That would mean if McKnight was at the window, Gasser would have not extended the gun at all basically right?
Yep meaning it's pretty improbable that JM was getting into the car.
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 9:09 am
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:08 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The most interesting part of the trial is that the judge let testimony regarding his prior road rage incidents come in.
Is that something that would normally not be allowed?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:09 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
most interesting part of the trial is that the judge let testimony regarding his prior road rage incidents come in.
Yeah, any explanation for that?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:09 am to TH03
quote:
But he would've been shot by the girl in your example. Just clarifying.
they showed obviously not the picture I posted, but that of someone leaned over to talk through a lower car window.
The ladder inside Gassers car screws him alot I think
Also, this witness testimony was pretty solid
quote:
She demonstrated how she said McKnight put his fingers on the edge of the passenger-side window, which was half-down. “I never saw him go into the car,” she testified. “This is not no small guy. He couldn’t get in the car.”
quote:
Veronica Hoye testified that she heard McKnight shouting at Gasser, telling him to get out of his car, but did not see or hear Gasser react until he fired three gunshots.
different witness here
quote:
When Bailey stopped at the light, he said he noticed that McKnight was outside his vehicle and talking to the person in a blue car. He couldn't hear the exchanged, but agreed under questioning by Goetz that it was "animated." Bailey said that McKnight was standing straight up and that his chest was facing the blue vehicle. He testified that after his initial observation, he didn't pay much attention to the men until he saw McKnight falling.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:10 am to TH03
Yea, thats what I was thinking as well.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:11 am to Splackavellie
quote:
Feel sorry for the attorney that had to read through all that non sense
Not like he wasn't reading it anyways
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:11 am to lsupride87
quote:
they showed obviously not the picture I posted, but that of someone leaned over to talk through a lower car window.
Duh I was just clarifying
This witness statements sound similar to each other. Seem to agree with each other. The ladder might frick him hard.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:12 am to Splackavellie
quote:the general rule is prior bad acts evidence is not admissable, but there are some exceptions. I haven't paid close attention and don't know what exception the judge relied upon, but it seems on its face that the prejudicial nature of that evidence would heavily outweigh it's evidentiary value.
Is that something that would normally not be allowed?
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 9:13 am
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:12 am to X123F45
quote:
Not like he wasn't reading it anyways
Probably. Can honestly say it consumed too much of my time over the last couple days.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:13 am to TH03
quote:Common sense it seems no way JM was trying to get into his car, he was trying to get Gasser to come out of his. Gasser killed him out of rage being a lunatic
Duh I was just clarifying
This witness statements sound similar to each other. Seem to agree with each other. The ladder might frick him hard.
However, I am not sure the prosecution presented enough "beyond a reasonable doubt"
What is scary, is there is a legit chance Gasser does this again.....
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:13 am to TH03
quote:
The ladder might frick him hard.
So a half open window and a ladder?
That dosent sound like its in his favor.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:13 am to X123F45
You mean his public defender?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:13 am to PearlJam
quote:
the general rule is probably bad acts evidence is not admissable, but there are some exceptions. I haven't paid close attention and don't know what exception the judge relied upon, but it seems on its face that the prejudicial nature of that evidence would heavily outweigh it's evidentiary value.
It's one of those things that seems incredibly relevant to the average Joe, but a court of law is a different story. I was surprised it was allowed.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:15 am to PearlJam
quote:
the general rule is prior bad acts evidence is not admissable, but there are some exceptions. I haven't paid close attention and don't know what exception the judge relied upon, but it seems on its face that the prejudicial nature of that evidence would heavily outweigh it's evidentiary value.
It was a road rage incident at the same exact intersection that resulted in the defendant physically attacking someone.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 9:15 am to slackster
quote:
the general rule is probably bad acts evidence is not admissable, but there are some exceptions. I haven't paid close attention and don't know what exception the judge relied upon, but it seems on its face that the prejudicial nature of that evidence would heavily outweigh it's evidentiary value.
Good explanation, thanks.
Page 2 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News