- 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 1/27/18 at 10:18 am to TH03
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:18 am to TH03
quote:
For the vehicle he has to be attempting to enter the vehicle
Correct.
quote:
and the defendant feels deadly force is the only way to get him to stop
Sort of. Remember, you have no duty to retreat here in LA. Its reads that, deadly force is justified in illegal entry cases only if it was required to prevent the forcible offense but retreat may be considered as an option.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 10:33 am
0
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:19 am to nola000
quote:
No its not.
I situate mine at the ready from time to time when in my car with my family if I think the situation demands it. There have been times, at night, with my family in the car, in NOLA, on a dimly lit side street with shady looking people approaching, where I have drawn my weapon and kept it near me in case it was needed. Split seconds may count and I dont want to waste any struggling to draw.
I would rather have and not need it than need it and not have it.
Difference is Gasser was on a highway moving at full speed AND diverted from his normal route to continue the confrontation.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:20 am to nola000
quote:
They also asked to be re-read the definitions of second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
This doesnt.
Why not? Sounds like they were serious about applying the correct statute to the circumstances of the case.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:22 am to Bestbank Tiger
That was another big one most folks missed. He passed up his usual exit to continue the confrontation. Also pulled his gun when he passed his exit.
Dude was looking for trouble and he made sure he found it.
Dude was looking for trouble and he made sure he found it.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:26 am to tLSU
quote:
when you've started some shite that leads to that, or when you're responsible for it continuing to progress. It's not attempting to provide a safe haven for you to retreat to after you've kicked off an incident and then shoot the other guy.
Incorrect.
Youre pulling the aggressor exception into this but this was a simple argument and wreckless operation of motor vehicles right up until one of them escalated this to a level of physical violence or forcible entry.
You also have the right to withdraw at any time.
"§21. Aggressor cannot claim self defense
A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. "
Regardless of who the aggressor was, I would argue they both were at times, who is to say that Gasser didnt at some point withdraw? Wasnt he boxed in by McKnight? Wasnt it McKnight who got out of his car and approached Gasser?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:29 am to tLSU
quote:
There were numerous witnesses who saw a car chase /cut off contest spanning several miles.
Now you're just making stuff up.
Hes not on trial for road rage.
Is that better? Dont play semantics with me. You know what I meant. If youre going to be intellectually dishonest then I see no reason to engage in debate with you.
He was on trial for murder.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:31 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
What type of law do you practice? And where?
Why do you ask? Just curious.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:33 am to nola000
And you keep trying to bifurcate the 10 minutes or so leading up to the shooting from the 10 seconds or so leading up to the shooting.
And none of us can tell if it’s because you’re being intellectually dishonest just to play contrarian or if you are really just this ignorant of the law.
And none of us can tell if it’s because you’re being intellectually dishonest just to play contrarian or if you are really just this ignorant of the law.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:33 am to nola000
Because you seem to have a working knowledge of this stuff, but that working knowledge is, errrr, a different interpretation than most
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:35 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Why not? Sounds like they were serious about applying the correct statute to the circumstances of the case.
I agree. I just worry sometimes that people have reasonable doubts which should be automatic acquittal but use their gut instinct or are just not emotionally comfortable with no punishment at all so they look for an out. A lesser charge.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:37 am to nola000
Correct, he was on trial for murder. The jury, the finder of fact, determined he committed a manslaughter.
Under Louisiana law, what led to a murder alleged to have been committed in self defense is relevant. Fact. You may disagree, but we're not talking about a fantasy land where you're king. We're talking about the law in the state of Louisiana. The fact that you're trying to say "we can consider his justification defense, but not what happened before the shooting" is comedy gold.
So what I'm trying to say is, when you make statements like "not relevant," you're unequivocally wrong.
Under Louisiana law, what led to a murder alleged to have been committed in self defense is relevant. Fact. You may disagree, but we're not talking about a fantasy land where you're king. We're talking about the law in the state of Louisiana. The fact that you're trying to say "we can consider his justification defense, but not what happened before the shooting" is comedy gold.
So what I'm trying to say is, when you make statements like "not relevant," you're unequivocally wrong.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 10:45 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:41 am to lsupride87
quote:
Think like this, where Gasser would be the female in the photo
And add a ladder where the guy is in the photo.
I'm glad we got a manslaughter out of the deal. I think that was reasonable enough, given what we knew.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:42 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
And you keep trying to bifurcate the 10 minutes or so leading up to the shooting from the 10 seconds or so leading up to the shooting.
And none of us can tell if it’s because you’re being intellectually honest just to play contrarian or if you are really just this ignorant of the law.
This puts it perfectly. If he's claiming justifiable homicide, we necessarily need to know what the justification is, meaning we need to know what happened. He just thinks this should be looked at as "McKnight put his hand on my window ledge, so I can kill him (after he backs away.) Let's not talk about why McKnight did that. Couldn't possibly matter."
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:44 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
And you keep trying to bifurcate the 10 minutes or so leading up to the shooting from the 10 seconds or so leading up to the shooting.
Because they should be. Potentially. Its not illegal to engage in a public argument with someone. It should only result in violence if one of the parties escalates the confrontation to that level. AT THAT POINT and at that point only, does it matter who the "aggressor" was.
Like I said, this a trial for murder, not property damages resulting from the road rage and reckless driving that took place before it. In that case, who the aggressor was in the road rage would be pertinent.
quote:
just to play contrarian
Im not playing contrarian to get a rise out of you or anyone else, I just like to play devils advocate to get interesting conversation as a result of everyone considering all possibilities.
Im also not privy to all the facts of this case so were are all making guesses here. I quote law when I feel its relevant. It may not always be. Thats another fun debate to be had.
Its all good bro. Just looking for honest debate. I like to be educated but it has to come from a place of genuineness and not argument stemming from emotion.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:45 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
That was another big one most folks missed. He passed up his usual exit to continue the confrontation. Also pulled his gun when he passed his exit
Was this used in the arguments?
Doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:46 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Because you seem to have a working knowledge of this stuff, but that working knowledge is, errrr, a different interpretation than most
Im an odd cat brother. I like to take strange angles and argue from the opposite direction as most. I feel a better understanding can be had when people attack questions from multiple angles.
I have a core aversion group-think.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:47 am to nola000
quote:
Hes not on trial for road rage.
Is that better? Dont play semantics with me. You know what I meant. If youre going to be intellectually dishonest then I see no reason to engage in debate with you.
He was on trial for murder.
The previous incident was an assault. He got out of his car and beat a guy who called to report his driving. Ten years later, he had a gun this time, so he killed a man.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:49 am to nola000
You and I are arguing outside my house. I punch you in the face. You stagger to the ground and I run inside my door frame and grab a gun. You cross my door threshold into my house and I shoot you in cold blood.
Under your theory, the punch and everything before you cross my threshold should not count as the only possible crime there is a battery, not murder.
I’d be justified in shooting you solely because you crossed my doorstep. Why you were there and the seconds before would make no difference.
I’m sorry but that’s ludicrous.
Under your theory, the punch and everything before you cross my threshold should not count as the only possible crime there is a battery, not murder.
I’d be justified in shooting you solely because you crossed my doorstep. Why you were there and the seconds before would make no difference.
I’m sorry but that’s ludicrous.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 11:03 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:50 am to Deactived
I saw it mentioned by reporters there so I know it came out, but I’m not sure how hard the prosecution pressed on it.
Page 22 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News