RIP Joe McKnight!

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

yup...ONE guy in jail for the exact same thing while the other guy who has a record of road rage might i add is being investigated

same ol' song

You might want to do some research on the particulars in the Will Smith case.

First, research the basis of murder laws in Louisiana (based on French system, not the British system as the other 49 states). As such, as I've read, the DA and prosectors have an especially hard job in how to handle these cases so they stick. Specifically, the difference between first and second degree murder (and to point 3 below).

Secondly, in the case of Smith, we have an assailant who had a criminal history, including an arrest for unlawful possession of an illegal firearm and drug charge.

Most interestingly, Will Smith (and Pierre Thomas) had JUST finished dinner with one of the cops involved in a settlement of a case in which the assailant (Hayes) was involved - a case that involved the death of Hayes' father by police. Translation: there are extenuating circumstances which may mean premeditation and NOT a random road rage incident as initially reported.

Smart folks wait for the facts (or all the facts that will/can be revealed) to form an opinion. Smart folks let the process play out - a process that doesn't take 38 minutes plus a few tampon and Jan from Toyota commercials.

But why do that? Let's just jump to conclusions.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

.....but this guy has a history. So a person with a gun can start something or provoke someone, then shoot them and say they were "standing their ground"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e.html&usg=AFQjCNGAYZdvWfhbTLFVY84-O_EBB2EnSA

Yes, but it's not that simple. He was cited for 'simple assault'. I just google it (Louisiana law) and it's a misdemeanor. The charged was dismissed (which could mean any number of things).

We don't know. The guy could be a raging trigger happy maniac who killed someone after a traffic altercation. Or he could be someone who reasonably feared for his life with an aggressor bearing on him (McKnight). Or it could be any number of scenarios.

The point? Let the process play itself out. People are up in arms because he hasn't been charged. Any remedial review of this sort of situation shows that this is very common - particularly in LA where the law is unique (the only state) based on the French code.

The incident just happened. Let's let the process play itself out. Remember, the initial reports in the Will Smith case suggested a case of simple road rage, but the limited facts - suggested something quite different.

Oh, and for the 'eyewitness account' - I googled that. Based on what we've heard so far, those 'eyewitness accounts' were COMPLETELY at odds with facts. There apparently have been no credible accounts saying McKnight apologized or that the assailant was over him, swearing, etc. The shell casings were INSIDE the assailant's car.

I watched one video of an 'eyewitness' that gave an account a reporter. I'm not sure what made him more credible - the neck tattoos or the tattoos on his face? Or the fact that he was clearly high.

But hey, if I or someone near to me were involved in some sort of crime and or life/death situation, I'd certainly want the police and district attorneys to base their decisions on his to conduct the investigation based on the initial responses of 'eyewitnesses' with news cameras on them.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

And today, we see headlines and incendiary articles like the one on BET.com about the FATHER of the assailant. Saying that he has a history of 'road rage issues just like his son'. Because apparently he has 10 or so driving convictions spanning decades. BIG NEWS STORY!!! Looking further, the old man (83 years old) 'road rage issues' include speeding tickets, failure to wear at seat belt, etc - spanning DECADES. Apparently, a person who has zero involvement in this case getting a ticket for not wearing your seat belt in 1976 is relevant.

That is yet another in today's dishonest media/social media addict rush to judgement bullshit.

One last nugget in the 'food for thought' area - google the comments from the Sheriff in Jefferson Parrish.

“In this state, there are some relative statutes that provide defenses to certain crimes. Officers have those same defenses,” Normand told news outlets. “So when we shoot and kill somebody — it’s a homicide — the question is, is it justified?”



In response to comments on social media, Normand said, “I’ve been already accused of dropping the ball and not doing this or doing that because we released Mr. Gasser last evening after we took his statement. As I said before: External influences will not motivate this office, one way or the other, as to how we are going to conduct this investigation strategically. And because there are witnesses that are out there, I can not go into this at this point in time.”

He added, “Everyone wants to make this about race. This isn’t about race. And I’ll just throw this out, folks … the gentleman that raised Joe McKnight Jr. used to work for this office. So this office and many of the officers that are sitting over there, they are close to his family.”

 

[PrideisBears]

I love the excuses some people make up to justify murder. Stand your ground seems to be defined as if a black guy approaches you and you think he might be angry it is okay to kill him.

People who justify these actions are pussies

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

He'll probably get off for 'standing his ground'. Shotgun in your home? Hunting rifle? Fine. The rest? Not so much. That folks can differentiate the purpose of these things is disappointing.

I googled this and it seems that the Stand Your Ground laws were enacted largely as a result of the emergence of car jackings and the desire allowing people to protect themselves.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

I love the excuses some people make up to justify murder. Stand your ground seems to be defined as if a black guy approaches you and you think he might be angry it is okay to kill him.

People who justify these actions are pussies

Apparently you have all of the facts in the case to offer this post.

Please share them with us.

 

[SilenceS]

You forgot to take your meds again. You just had like 8 post in a row


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burrberry]

It's not the same shootings. He was detained because Smith was shot in the back. The judge specifically stated on that being the reason he was held on a big bail. I'm not saying this guy should not be held but it's different circumstances. Shooting someone in he back isn't saying you were protecting yourself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From what I remember Smith made it sound like he was going back to his car to retrieve a gun so Hayes fired on him before he had a chance to do it.

 

[SilenceS]

From what I remember Smith made it sound like he was going back to his car to retrieve a gun so Hayes fired on him before he had a chance to do it.

He was shot on the side and in the back. It doesn't matter why they may have occurred. That's what the trial will sort out. To the judge, being shot in the back is considered murder. The judge specifically stated this in the bail arraignment on why his bail was so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Novak]

You forgot to take your meds again. You just had like 8 post in a row


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's okay, no one read them.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

You forgot to take your meds again. You just had like 8 post in a row


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are stalking me again. Please stop. It's weird.

 

[Burrberry]

You might want to do some research on the particulars in the Will Smith case.

First, research the basis of murder laws in Louisiana (based on French system, not the British system as the other 49 states). As such, as I've read, the DA and prosectors have an especially hard job in how to handle these cases so they stick. Specifically, the difference between first and second degree murder (and to point 3 below).

Secondly, in the case of Smith, we have an assailant who had a criminal history, including an arrest for unlawful possession of an illegal firearm and drug charge.

Most interestingly, Will Smith (and Pierre Thomas) had JUST finished dinner with one of the cops involved in a settlement of a case in which the assailant (Hayes) was involved - a case that involved the death of Hayes' father by police. Translation: there are extenuating circumstances which may mean premeditation and NOT a random road rage incident as initially reported.

Smart folks wait for the facts (or all the facts that will/can be revealed) to form an opinion. Smart folks let the process play out - a process that doesn't take 38 minutes plus a few tampon and Jan from Toyota commercials.

But why do that? Let's just jump to conclusions.

You should mention that Smith had a gun in his center console that he was not allowed to have after a Domestic battery charge; eye witnesses say he flashed it.

Smith's car was equipped with automatic brakes. Did he get brake checked or was he following him too closely which made him hit his bumper? Either way it is precarious that at any moment in time they happened to meet at that point.

Hayes was allowed to legally own a gun. It was a misdemeanor charge; my opinion he probably wasn't concealing it properly. What is the relevancy if he was allowed to legally own it? http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78739

Hayes was charged, but cleared for his drug possession case.

I don't buy that revenge angle. In that case what does he have against Smith and not the cop that was involved in his father's murder?

EDIT

It wasn't a brake check, and Smith was 3x over the alcohol limit

[video=youtube;Yh92iz_E_ZU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh92iz_E_ZU[/video]

 

[SilenceS]

You should mention that Smith had a gun in his center console that he was not allowed to have after a Domestic battery charge; eye witnesses say he flashed it.

Smith's car was equipped with automatic brakes. Did he get brake checked or was he following him too closely which made him hit his bumper? Either way it is precarious that at any moment in time they happened to meet at that point.

Hayes was allowed to legally own a gun. It was a misdemeanor charge; my opinion he probably wasn't concealing it properly. What is the relevancy if he was allowed to legally own it? http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78739

I don't buy that revenge angle. In that case what does he have against Smith and not the cop that was involved in his father's murder?

I dont think it was revenge. I think it was two big mother fuckers who wanted to play who had the bigger dick. One died over it.

 

[Burrberry]

I dont think it was revenge. I think it was two big mother fuckers who wanted to play who had the bigger dick. One died over it.

Pretty much. Both won the stupid grand prize for a lack of a better way to put it.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

You should mention that Smith had a gun in his center console that he was not allowed to have after a Domestic battery charge; eye witnesses say he flashed it.

Smith's car was equipped with automatic brakes. Did he get brake checked or was he following him too closely which made him hit his bumper? Either way it is precarious that at any moment in time they happened to meet at that point.

Hayes was allowed to legally own a gun. It was a misdemeanor charge; my opinion he probably wasn't concealing it properly. What is the relevancy if he was allowed to legally own it? http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78739

Hayes was charged, but cleared for his drug possession case.

I don't buy that revenge angle. In that case what does he have against Smith and not the cop that was involved in his father's murder?

EDIT

It wasn't a brake check, and Smith was 3x over the alcohol limit

[video=youtube;Yh92iz_E_ZU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh92iz_E_ZU[/video]

Good stuff. I wasn't aware of that.

Good on you for discussing the FACTS that came out in that case after months/investigation.

Although it's so much easier to rely on emotions and knee jerk reactions before knowing the facts.

 

[remydat]

Oh, and for the 'eyewitness account' - I googled that. Based on what we've heard so far, those 'eyewitness accounts' were COMPLETELY at odds with facts. There apparently have been no credible accounts saying McKnight apologized or that the assailant was over him, swearing, etc. The shell casings were INSIDE the assailant's car.

I watched one video of an 'eyewitness' that gave an account a reporter. I'm not sure what made him more credible - the neck tattoos or the tattoos on his face? Or the fact that he was clearly high.

But hey, if I or someone near to me were involved in some sort of crime and or life/death situation, I'd certainly want the police and district attorneys to base their decisions on his to conduct the investigation based on the initial responses of 'eyewitnesses' with news cameras on them.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/12/03/ronald-gasser-yelling-joe-mcknight-body-shooter-nfl-pic/

The above shows a pick of Gasser outside the car and pointing presumably at McKnight's body. So I think the confusion here in the eyewitness account is that the eye witness apparently snapped the photo after she heard the shots and when Gasser was already outside the car.

I don't know if she actually said he shot McKnight from outside the car or that is ultimately what the reporter thought she meant since she appears to have only seen him once he was already out of the car.

So it is quite possible, he shot McKnight while in the car and got out of the car at which point the eye witness saw him over the body talking shit. Who knows. All the pic shows is that it appears he certainly was outside of the car at some point after shooting McKnight.

 

[remydat]

https://gma.yahoo.com/judge-declare...der-trial-204204552--abc-news-topstories.html

And people wonder why there is so much distrust and skepticism.

You can't even get a conviction when there is video of a dude gunning someone down as they were running away and then trying to plant evidence on the dude as he lay there dying.

But hey I'm sure CK not standing for the anthem is going to get more outrage than the above.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

I'll never get the road rage killings. In 2002 I was almost killed in a road rage incident not far from Amundson High School. I was driving on Foster Ave and this crazy hispanic guy in the car behind me was going ballistic. I don't know if he thought I was going too slow or what but he lost his damn mind. For blocks he was riding my bumper and honking like crazy and when I'd look back in the rear view mirror, I could see him swearing up a storm about to blow.

Finally after a mile I slowed down and pulled over so he could go around. The dude pulled up along side me, yelled King love and pulled out a .38 and pointed it at me. I was scared shitless. I literally froze and could not move. He was not the guy to fuck with, but I didn't even do anything. He was ready to bust a cap in my ass.

People associate the Latin Kings with Humboldt Park and some south side hoods. But make no mistake, they are fully entrenched up north. This dude was probably from Death Valley (Berwyn & Wolcott), or Crack and Crime (Clark & Catalpa). Either way I'd bet $1000 he's either dead or in prison now. I'm sure he'd kill somebody in a road rage incident with out even thinking twice.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/12/03/ronald-gasser-yelling-joe-mcknight-body-shooter-nfl-pic/

The above shows a pick of Gasser outside the car and pointing presumably at McKnight's body. So I think the confusion here in the eyewitness account is that the eye witness apparently snapped the photo after she heard the shots and when Gasser was already outside the car.

I don't know if she actually said he shot McKnight from outside the car or that is ultimately what the reporter thought she meant since she appears to have only seen him once he was already out of the car.

So it is quite possible, he shot McKnight while in the car and got out of the car at which point the eye witness saw him over the body talking shit. Who knows. All the pic shows is that it appears he certainly was outside of the car at some point after shooting McKnight.

Which is PRECISELY while we let the experts do their jobs and wait for the facts to come in as opposed to the typical knee jerk emotional reactions from the media and others.

And just now we see that the suspect has been CHARGED. I've heard legal experts mention this approach is common with as there is some sort of 72 hour window in states with Stand Your Ground laws (which again, where enacted to allow people to defend themselves when carjackings became a common thing) - an approach that justice departments and the district attorney talks which apparently HELPS them make the murder case stick later down the line.

The Sherrif has a presser later. I'm sure he'll be asked if this was a result of social pressure or if the investigation warranted it. I'm hoping it's the latter - which would mean that, only a few days after the event took place, the investigation uncovered the relevant facts and led them to this decision.

Translation - this is the justice system at work as it should be. I know that's not as fun as screaming 'racism', but I'd prefer this.

 

[remydat]

Which is PRECISELY while we let the experts do their jobs and wait for the facts to come in as opposed to the typical knee jerk emotional reactions from the media and others.

And just now we see that the suspect has been CHARGED. I've heard legal experts mention this approach is common with as there is some sort of 72 hour window in states with Stand Your Ground laws (which again, where enacted to allow people to defend themselves when carjackings became a common thing) - an approach that justice departments and the district attorney talks which apparently HELPS them make the murder case stick later down the line.

The Sherrif has a presser later. I'm sure he'll be asked if this was a result of social pressure or if the investigation warranted it. I'm hoping it's the latter - which would mean that, only a few days after the event took place, the investigation uncovered the relevant facts and led them to this decision.

Translation - this is the justice system at work as it should be. I know that's not as fun as screaming 'racism', but I'd prefer this.

I'm don't recall screaming racism in any of my posts so not sure why this rant was directed at me. I was simply pointing out a potential reason in the confusion over the eye witness account.

And people will always remain skeptical because that is what happens when you have perceived injustices. Great the guy was charged. So was the cop that shot a dude in the back as he was running away from him and then tried to plant evidence on him.

https://gma.yahoo.com/judge-declare...der-trial-204204552--abc-news-topstories.html

So I don't have a problem with waiting and letting justice play out. What your posts ignore is that justice doesn't always play out because of shit like the above. That is why people don't trust the system. Trust is earned bro. It's not just given out for free.