• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Former USC and NFL RB Joe McKnight gunned down in New Orleans

Let me get this straight. A guy driving a less expensive car was afraid of getting carjacked by a guy who alone in a more expensive car and the cops believed him??
 
RJKarl said:
Let me get this straight. A guy driving a less expensive car was afraid of getting carjacked by a guy who alone in a more expensive car and the cops believed him??
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I am sure if you keep throwing out wildly implausible theories with no evidence, you'll get one correct eventually.

I really don't understand the overwhelming desire to make wild accusations before pretty much any verifiable facts are released.
 
ibleedgoldandblack said:
Probably not, but I am sure if you keep throwing out wildly implausible theories with no evidence, you'll get one correct eventually.

I really don't understand the overwhelming desire to make wild accusations before pretty much any verifiable facts are released.
Click to expand...

?

they released a lot of verified facts today. the sherriff held a PC and basically described the entire incident and reason there wasn't an arrest.
 
I know, but we still don't know what precipitated it or why McKight was out of his car, which is why RJ's speculation about the shooter's motive is premature.
 
well the sherriff cited the carjacking law as it's a form of SYG laws. while he probably didn't think he was actually getting carjacked, that law says if you're in your car and reasonably afraid you can use deadly force first before trying to leave. and it's clear that they had a road rage argument, the sheriff specifically mentioned a cut-off, and that the shooter's "motive" was that he feared for his safety and those laws give a wide latitude to use deadly force. i don't think McKnight will be able to tell us why he got out. not sure what the story is missing that we're going to get
 
i guess what we could be missing is when breitbart starts smearing mcknight for smoking weed/having thc in his system or something like trayvonn
 
i mean, jeebus. if you're in your car, armed, and an apparently unarmed guy knocks on your window, even if he's acting aggressively, after an "incident", how fucking hard is it to just flash your piece and go about your day - even if you're trying to be a hardass. if the guy breaks your window, flashes a firearm, whatever, then the calculus changes, but otherwise it just looks like a trigger-happy zimmerman 2.0. fucking-a, man.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
well the sherriff cited the carjacking law as it's a form of SYG laws. while he probably didn't think he was actually getting carjacked, that law says if you're in your car and reasonably afraid you can use deadly force first before trying to leave. and it's clear that they had a road rage argument, the sheriff specifically mentioned a cut-off, and that the shooter's "motive" was that he feared for his safety and those laws give a wide latitude to use deadly force. i don't think McKnight will be able to tell us why he got out. not sure what the story is missing that we're going to get
Click to expand...

I didn't see the entire press conference, I had to rely on a summary. Do we know what, if anything, they said to each other? Was the passenger door open or shut? Window up or down? Any blood inside the car? Did the bullets have to pass through anything to hit him? Where did the bullets hit him? Powder burns? I honestly don't know any of the above, and I don't know if they've been answered, but I consider them all relevant.
 
they were verbally arguing with each other before mcknight got out. there were no specifics of the argument mentioned. sherriff said mcknight was shot through the open passenger window. bullets didn't hit anything except McKnight who was shot 3 times. didn't mention the door being open or attempted to be opened. shells were in the car corroborate gasser's own story that he shot him from the driver seat.
 
DeacinBama said:
i mean, jeebus. if you're in your car, armed, and an apparently unarmed guy knocks on your window, even if he's acting aggressively, after an "incident", how fucking hard is it to just flash your piece and go about your day - even if you're trying to be a hardass. if the guy breaks your window, flashes a firearm, whatever, then the calculus changes, but otherwise it just looks like a trigger-happy zimmerman 2.0. fucking-a, man.
Click to expand...

some people want to kill other people and know the laws that protect them. gasser and zimmerman's actions after the fact show they knew the laws.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
some people want to kill other people and know the laws that protect them. gasser and zimmerman's actions after the fact show they knew the laws.
Click to expand...

In most states you can't obtain a concealed carry permit without passing a test regarding the laws of concealed carry and self defense.
 
Of course who guns an unarmed down in cold blood has to be believed. I'm sure they'd a black guy who shot a white celebrity in the same situation.
 
RJKarl said:
Of course who guns an unarmed down in cold blood has to be believed. I'm sure they'd a black guy who shot a white celebrity in the same situation.
Click to expand...

What about that "eye witness" you were so confident in?
 
RJKarl said:
Of course who guns an unarmed down in cold blood has to be believed. I'm sure they'd a black guy who shot a white celebrity in the same situation.
Click to expand...

This reads like one of those Facebook posts that states "only 7% of people can understand WTF it means". Assuming I'm one of the 7%, I'd say that there is no evidence that the sheriff believes what the shooter said - rather that the shooter's statement opened the possibility that there was justification, under LA law, for the shooting.

I have a strong suspicion that the shooter will be charged, and probably convicted, assuming the prosecutor/grand jury picks the appropriate charge.
 
I agree with 71. The shooter should be charged eventually. Probably manslaughter.

The real issue here shouldn't be about race. It should be about bullshit laws that allow people to act like its the wild wild west and justify senseless gun deaths.
 
How's the shooter to determine the guy screaming in his window is armed or unarmed? Ask? Frisk him?

I'm not taking sides here but no one on this thread was there and could speak to whether the shooter was threatened or felt threatened. It's pretty clear that will be the defense here and with the standard being so subjective, it's impossible to predict what the outcome of any trial would be without more facts.
 
SMUDeac said:
How's the shooter to determine the guy screaming in his window is armed or unarmed? Ask? Frisk him?

I'm not taking sides here but no one on this thread was there and could speak to whether the shooter was threatened or felt threatened. It's pretty clear that will be the defense here and with the standard being so subjective, it's impossible to predict what the outcome of any trial would be without more facts.
Click to expand...

You cannot fucking end a life just because you are a paranoid bitch and feel "threatened" in your car where you could easily just drive away. Unless there is a reasonable threat on your life (you see a gun, your lie is threatened) then you don't take anothers life because you're a scared little cunt worried about somebody outside your car.

Completely unjustifiable and, again, a completely HORRID law. It makes no sense.
 
SMUDeac said:
How's the shooter to determine the guy screaming in his window is armed or unarmed? Ask? Frisk him?

I'm not taking sides here but no one on this thread was there and could speak to whether the shooter was threatened or felt threatened. It's pretty clear that will be the defense here and with the standard being so subjective, it's impossible to predict what the outcome of any trial would be without more facts.
Click to expand...

Unless you are blind, you can see if he has a gun.
 
deacvision7 said:
You cannot fucking end a life just because you are a paranoid bitch and feel "threatened" in your car where you could easily just drive away. Unless there is a reasonable threat on your life (you see a gun, your lie is threatened) then you don't take anothers life because you're a scared little cunt worried about somebody outside your car.

Completely unjustifiable and, again, a completely HORRID law. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
you see a gun, you're already dead or seriously injured (if the guy can shoot). Hence the reason these laws are drafted to be able to protect oneself from the threat of death or serious bodily injury. Do you know what McKnight was verbalizing to the shooter? How do you know he didn't scream "I'll f'ing kill you!" and reach behind his back or in his pocket?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top