re: Gasser didn't testify in McKnight case; Guilty of manslaughter

Gotcha. Can't imagine it was a big point in any argument.

Depending on where he lived, you can take a variety of exits to get home depending on the time of the day

It’s a big deal as far as the aggressor doctrine and disengaging from the confrontation. I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding he stated in the interviews with the police right after that he was going home and the other exit was the most direct way but he passed it up to continue the confrontation. That coupled with his “I don’t call the police because I’m a man and fight my own battles” and that he also pulled out his pistol a mile or two before the shooting makes it hard to believe he was not also at least the co-aggressor.

I think he spoke at length without an attorney.

Simply put, Gasser thought he knew the law and he would be justified killing McKnight the moment he put his hands on the window. He didn't think he did anything wrong.

He was wrong.

None of this is actual legal advice, but I’d always suggest having a lawyer present when you’re talking to the cops.

Haha I was thinking that also

quote:

---

None of this is actual legal advice

---

Already disbarred?

Jeez man

I couldn’t believe they even let me in to begin with

quote:

---

You don't think road rage + assault is similar to road rage + assault with a deadly weapon?

---

No, no.

I made that post in reference to the admissibility of a prior incident that Gasser was involved in.

If that was your understanding of my post then Ill engage; yes, I dont think "road rage + assault is similar to road rage + assault with a deadly weapon".

Couple reasons.

1. He was only arrested in the previous incident. I dont think it even went to trial. I could be wrong about that.

2. The previously alleged incident involved doesnt inform us to the justification of Gasser alleged self-defense. Only to alleged likelihood that Gasser would have participated in road rage + violence.

I get that its a fine line and its really hard to separate in ones mind but to me this is purely two separate incidents. A road rage incident with two willing participants and a self-defense case. To me, the two are mutually exclusive and should be argued on their own merits separately and since hes not on trial for road rage I think the court erred in its allowance of the previously alleged incident as it creates a prejudicial burden on the defendant to an unrelated case that only met the "time and place" requirement which is an obvious coincidence and highly unfortunate for Gasser.

All of this doesnt even take into account that either party, regardless of who the initial aggressor was, can willing withdraw at any point from the conflict and then become the victim. I think the defense could have argued that once McKnight boxed-in Gasser and then got out of his car and approached Gasser, even placing himself on Gassers vehicle, that Gasser was not only no longer the aggressor but that he was attempting to withdrawn without the duty to retreat.

I know. This case is tricky as frick.

quote:

---

The previous incident was an assault. He got out of his car and beat a guy

---

allegedly. He was never prosecuted due to lack of evidence.

So, every time someone accuses you of something, that should be used against you in the court of law? Even if there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the accusations true?

ETA: dude likely gets the same guilty charge without the court murking up the situation. It was just a dumb decision. If he'd been convicted and proven guilty of the past claim of road rage, then that info is maybe valid. As of now, he had a verbal accusation with no evidence used against him in a completely separate case.