• 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

SCDeac13 said:
We don't know and won't know for sure until the police make their investigation findings public. Just because it hasn't been alleged publicly doesn't mean it hasn't been alleged. The only story we've heard so far was the made up one that people ran with here as a fact, only to be disproven by forensics and other evidence.
Click to expand...

Well can we just go off of what we do know? If I showed up at your door and shot you and everyone knew that, nobody would say, "well, we have to wait till the police put out their official report to make sure that there's no possible way it could be justified."
 
Yeah if that was anything like what we know happened that might be a relevant post
 
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...

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...

RJ's point is well taken here. This was linked from the PFT article.

A couple of things stand out about the statute. First, this one, unlike a lot of self defense laws, requires the belief to be reasonable. Second, there has to be a belief that a burglary or robbery of the vehicle has to occur. Now, to be a burglary there does not necessarily have to be a theft as an underlying offense. The burglary statute includes situations where there is either an intent to commit a theft or a felony therein. So, it would appear to exempt something like a simple assault.

Seems to me, based on the limited facts at hand, that there is a basis for a Murder 2nd charge here. The requirement that the belief be reasonable is why I say Murder 2nd as opposed to Manslaughter. But again, I don't know all of the facts. If Knight threatened to kill the guy or something like that, there is likely a valid self defense argument.

Under the circumstances it's not terribly surprising that Gasser hasn't been charged yet. There are a lot of nuances with state of mind for murder charges and all of the lesser included offenses and it is critically important to have a developed theory of the case and charges that fit the theory - this was probably the most critical flaw in the Freddie Gray prosecutions. They are doing the right thing by fully investigating before they decide what to charge him with, and they should certainly be working with prosecutors before making any charging decision.
 
Could they charge 1st Degree as a ploy to get a plea deal? Theoretically, Gasser had the time to create "premeditation" in the time from when McKnight stopped his car until Gasser shot McKnight.
 
So what kind of car were each of them driving?
 
RJKarl said:
Could they charge 1st Degree as a ploy to get a plea deal? Theoretically, Gasser had the time to create "premeditation" in the time from when McKnight stopped his car until Gasser shot McKnight.
Click to expand...

That would be a bad idea.
 
PhDeac said:
So what kind of car were each of them driving?
Click to expand...

From the descriptions it appears Gasser was driving the blue Infiniti G37 and McKnight was driving the gray Audi Q5.
 
wfumike02 said:
From the descriptions it appears Gasser was driving the blue Infiniti G37 and McKnight was driving the gray Audi Q5.
Click to expand...

That adds to the absurdity of believing a guy would get out of a car to carjack him.
 
I don't think you can reliably make assumptions based solely upon the car someone gets out of. Sometimes carjackers ditch the car and take another. If the shooter actually feared he was being carjacked, that could have entered his mind based on whatever his preconceived notions of the threat were. He's the only one who knows what the hell he was thinking, and unfortunately he was armed. It's sad that whatever happened ended this way.
 
The law doesn't actually require that he believe that he was being carjacked. The law only requires an unlawful "entry" into the car and that the shooter believe that the use of force is necessary to compel the person that has unlawfully entered into the car to leave. It is an outgrowth of the version of the castle doctrine that basically says that you are justified in using force against anyone that has unlawfully entered your home even if you don't believe that you are in immediate, imminent danger. They basically took that law and extended it your car. See the below. In particular A(4)(a) and (B)(1) and (2).

Again, not saying I agree with it (or expressing any opinion about what actually happened here), but there appears to be a fair bit of misunderstanding about exactly what the law says (and how it could have led the police to release the guy without charging him while they continue to investigate).

§20. Justifiable homicide
A. A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.
 
Last edited:
So were McKnight's fingerprints found on Gasser's car? That could help clear this up.
 
PhDeac said:
So were McKnight's fingerprints found on Gasser's car? That could help clear this up.
Click to expand...

I don't think we know that yet. I mentioned up thread that blood or fingerprints inside the car (or not) will probably be the single most important aspect of this case given the fact that the shooter (1) didn't need to have any fear for his life (2) his belief that someone was unlawfully entering his car is presumed to be true and (3) didn't have a duty to retreat.
 
There are no heroes in this story.

McKnight would likely be alive today, had he not got out of the car and now that we are hearing about the prior incident, Grasser looks like Zimmer 2.0.


*edited to add (before anyone says it), no I don't think McKnight deserved to die for getting out of the car. I am just saying - he took on a certain amount of risk/blame when he got out of the car to challenge another driver.
 
This incident where he beat a man who called a How's My Driving number and got Gasser, the driver? This dude sounds like a winner.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nola...ails_surface_of_2006_road_r.amp?client=safari

Speaking to the Daily Mail in a story published Sunday , Marrero resident John Shilling, 61, said that he spotted Gasser in a red truck driving "irate and crazy" on the Crescent City Connection in 2006. Shilling said he called a number listed on the side of the truck and told the man who answered -- who turned out to be Gasser himself -- about the erratic driver.

"I said you're driving like a fool," Shilling said, according to the Daily Mail. "He sees me on the phone and realizes it's me."

Shilling then pulled over at a gas station at the intersection of Behrman Highway and Holmes Boulevard, the same location where Gasser admitted to shooting McKnight during a road rage incident last Thursday. Outside the vehicle, Shilling said Gasser exited his truck and spat at him, the Daily Mail reported. Shilling then said Gasser tried to punch him a few times.


According to a news release issued by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office last Friday, authorities alleged that Gasser confronted Shilling in an argument at the gas station and "and began to strike him with a closed fist several times." Shilling then called police.
 
91deac said:
There are no heroes in this story.

McKnight would likely be alive today, had he not got out of the car and now that we are hearing about the prior incident, Grasser looks like Zimmer 2.0.


*edited to add (before anyone says it), no I don't think McKnight deserved to die for getting out of the car. I am just saying - he took on a certain amount of risk/blame when he got out of the car to challenge another driver.
Click to expand...

What horseshit!
 
type of car he drives and his sunglasses and general appearance all suggest he was likely the instigator. since road rage has already been established, pretty obvious he killed the guy in a fit of rage. scared people do indeed run in their v8 audi or whatever that is.
 
tintinisahottie said:
Who the fuck gets out of their car with road rage? That's so bizarre to me



Very sad though, regardless
Click to expand...

It happened to me once, about a zillion years ago. I was headed southbound on the old I-295 (I think) that cut off the loop of the beltway and went through DC. It was 17 miles shorter and less likely to be congested. However, it was one POS road. I called it the "test-track."

I don't remember how it started, but it was back and forth, and ended with some red pulled over and standing outside of his car calling me out. I blew by him at 70 mph laughing. I didn't have a gun. Don't think he did either.
 
dmcheatw said:
type of car he drives and his sunglasses and general appearance all suggest he was likely the instigator. since road rage has already been established, pretty obvious he killed the guy in a fit of rage. scared people do indeed run in their v8 audi or whatever that is.
Click to expand...

The landmark United States Supreme Court case of David Caruso v. Horatio Crane firmly establishes the principle that the mere use of sunglasses cannot be used to affirmatively establish the presence of an asshole. Unfortunate, but the law is the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top