• 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

ibleedgoldandblack said:
You have a statute that doesn't require a fear for his life and creates a presumption that he was in the right if he was in his car and alleges that there was an unlawful entry into that car. If you don't understand that an investigation was necessary to overcome those presumptions then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

You don't have to actually rebut the presumption to arrest the guy. That's an issue for trial. All you have to have is probable cause to believe that you could rebut that presumption. And given the stuff that was reported on Day 1, that was clearly present.
 
MysteryMen said:
You don't have to actually rebut the presumption to arrest the guy. That's an issue for trial. All you have to have is probable cause to believe that you could rebut that presumption. And given the stuff that was reported on Day 1, that was clearly present.
Click to expand...

I just watched the press conference in which the sheriff laid out the entire rationale. The shooter cooperated and gave a 10 hour interview without an attorney (which he probably wouldn't have done if he had been charged). The locating of all the other witnesses and videos took until Monday, at which point he was arrested, and charged with manslaughter. This was done exactly correctly by the cops.

Also, if the description about what happened is accurate, there is a somewhat decent chance that the guy walks based on Louisiana's dumbass laws.
 
PhDeac said:
We don't know if he was or wasn't. I think that's the point. People are assuming McKnight was picking a fight based on no information whatsoever.
Click to expand...

TITCR

We're not talking about a courtroom yet, but rather the court of public opinion and it seems like some on here have their minds made up already about what happened.
 
Last edited:
ibleedgoldandblack said:
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.
Click to expand...

indeed, only a suspicion..but what kind of asshole is interviewed by someone, or even addresses someone without taking their glasses off? he could at least pretend to be upset by angling his face/chin downwards.
 
Buttermaker said:
Was staying out of the debate, and maybe I'm missing something, but how do sunglasses suggest someone was the instigator? Same question for "general appearance". Maybe I need to adjust my sarcasm meter.
Click to expand...

no i was being serious. In light of his prior incident with a 60 y/o, this was pretty straightforward rage killing w/no remorse or care afterwards (or thought before hand). I didn't say glasses proved anything, just that it made suggestions about his demeanor.

looks like I was perhaps wrong about who started the incident but i'm not working with details about the lead up. all that really is clear is this killing was done more so because gasser was angry and less so because he feared for his safety.
 
RJKarl said:
What horseshit!
Click to expand...

Too funny - that is pretty much my exact reaction to every one of your posts rj.


Back on topic - 2 interesting points I haven't seen on this thread - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/joe-mcknight-shooting-ronald-gasser.html

Witnesses dispute gasser testimony - "Mr. Gasser told the police he had feared Mr. McKnight, but witnesses disputed elements of his account, Sheriff Normand said."

There was a gun in McKnight's car - "Sheriff Normand revealed that Mr. McKnight had a gun in his car, but that both the gun and the car belonged to his stepfather. There was no indication that Mr. McKnight had suggested during the confrontation that he had a weapon, Sheriff Normand said."

Looking more and more like Gasser is bad guy.
 
We're 106 posts deep and this is the 1st mention of McKnight having a gun in his car?
 
Lawyers, help me out here. Does the fact McKnight left the gun in his car factor into any claims about his intent?

Seems like it would be hard to claim McKnight intended to harm Gasser or even expected a confrontation if he didn't take his weapon.
 
PhDeac said:
Lawyers, help me out here. Does the fact McKnight left the gun in his car factor into any claims about his intent?

Seems like it would be hard to claim McKnight intended to harm Gasser or even expected a confrontation if he didn't take his weapon.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what McKnight intended to do. It matters what Gasser could have reasonably believed McKnight was going to do.
 
From the reports, do they even believe McKnight was aware that there was a firearm in the car?

I assume Gasser would have mentioned McKnight waiving it around in a threatening matter if he had seen it just as a deeper justification for his actions if nothing else. It doesn't seem that Gasser knew about the presence of the gun.
 
If McKnight had a gun on him, it would have been lying beside his dead body.
 
PhDeac said:
Seems like it would be hard to claim McKnight intended to harm Gasser or even expected a confrontation if he didn't take his weapon.
Click to expand...

McKnight stepped out of his car and confronted Gasser but didn't expect a confrontation? Errr
 
PhDeac said:
If McKnight had a gun on him, it would have been lying beside his dead body.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he had a gun on his person, in fact, I'm pretty much saying the opposite. There was a gun in the car but it belonged to his step-father, as did the gun, I'm saying it is possible that McKnight didn't even know the gun was in the car.

And we can be pretty sure Gasser never saw McKnight possessing a gun or he would have mentioned that in his defense, presumably.
 
MysteryMen said:
Yeah, ridiculous. If you have probably cause to charge him with manslaughter now, you had it on the day of the shooting.
Click to expand...

MysteryMen said:
You can up the charges later.....If you think you can convict someone for Murder 2, there are no circumstances where you just let him walk away. That's clearly not what happened here. It makes no sense: we're going to let you go because we think we can charge you later with something more serious?
Click to expand...

In any prosecution for murder, manslaughter, etc., it is critically important for the charges to be right the first time as it greatly increases the chances for conviction. This is precisely why so many prosecutors' offices have homicide units. When the police make charging decisions they can be cross-examined on them. And if they change the charges part way through the defense attorney will make it look like they don't have a clue.

From what I've heard about the sheriff's comments today, it sounds like a number of witnesses were interviewed in the meantime to reach a charging decision. This is a good thing and increases the chances of conviction. To rip them for it doesn't make much sense.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Lawyers, help me out here. Does the fact McKnight left the gun in his car factor into any claims about his intent?

Seems like it would be hard to claim McKnight intended to harm Gasser or even expected a confrontation if he didn't take his weapon.
Click to expand...

What matters is what Gasser knew. If he saw a gun, it increases the chance of him having a successful claim of self-defense. If he knows McKnight's propensity for carrying a gun, that matters (which it doesn't sound like he knew anything about him before). If he doesn't have a gun on him when he gets out (and the gun in the glove box belonged to someone else), and Gasser didn't know it was there at the time of the confrontation it shouldn't be relevant and I would expect the prosecutor to make a motion in liming to keep that evidence from coming in. Whether it would actually be granted is a different story.
 
wfumike02 said:
In any prosecution for murder, manslaughter, etc., it is critically important for the charges to be right the first time as it greatly increases the chances for conviction. This is precisely why so many prosecutors' offices have homicide units. When the police make charging decisions they can be cross-examined on them. And if they change the charges part way through the defense attorney will make it look like they don't have a clue.

From what I've heard about the sheriff's comments today, it sounds like a number of witnesses were interviewed in the meantime to reach a charging decision. This is a good thing and increases the chances of conviction. To rip them for it doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

I'll defer to you because you seem to know more about this than I do, but it's hard for me to think that it's good policing to release a guy who just shot someone just because you're trying to figure out what to charge him with, especially given the previous road rage assault incident (that I'm sure the police were able to find out about). Don't you at some level have a duty to protect the community? Charge him with something to keep him in custody (which it seems clear that they had probable cause to do) and figure out the exact charges a few days later (as was apparently done here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top