Kyren Lacy - LSU Receiver Seemingly Framed For Manslaughter By Police (1 Viewer)

[Juxtatarot]

Yeah that’s what the police are saying, right? Have you seen the video? They were going the same way unless I’m dreaming. I might be really botching this. That’s why I keep asking.

I looked up I-20. It’s one lane each way and there is no divider

I think the police are saying Lacy and those two cars were driving the opposite way. They weren’t in the video Ory showed. I’m gonna watch it again.

Yes, please rewatch. I think @GroveDiesel had the explanation above that I agree with.

I did and I’m still totally flummoxed how he’s . . .

I give up and I am usually not this stupid. I can’t figure this ish out.

Don’t give up. I think GroveDiesel explained what happened well. The woman in vehicle 2 was likely most responsible but Lacy’s improper lane usage may have started a chain reaction.

 

[rockaction]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

 

[djmich]

It is hard to understand from that local news video what the DA thought may have happened. They more or less were saying he crossed into the incoming traffic to pass someone, and this forced someone in the oncoming lane to swerve into the other lane?

But, maybe this is controversial, but I can kind of see how the police would get there. If you’ve ever been driving on a two lane road and had some impatient kid go flying by a bunch of cars illegally into oncoming traffic and puckered your butt a bit just praying nobody dies, I think you could see how easy it would be to envision some young kid in a flashy car doing that causing a chain reaction where the oncoming vehicle had to slam their brakes on and someone ends up dead as cars start swerving around.

Why would this be controversial, who hasn't driven around jackasses driving recklessly passing and bobbing in and out of traffic...thinking that can easily cause an accident.

 

[Juxtatarot]

It is hard to understand from that local news video what the DA thought may have happened. They more or less were saying he crossed into the incoming traffic to pass someone, and this forced someone in the oncoming lane to swerve into the other lane?

But, maybe this is controversial, but I can kind of see how the police would get there. If you’ve ever been driving on a two lane road and had some impatient kid go flying by a bunch of cars illegally into oncoming traffic and puckered your butt a bit just praying nobody dies, I think you could see how easy it would be to envision some young kid in a flashy car doing that causing a chain reaction where the oncoming vehicle had to slam their brakes on and someone ends up dead as cars start swerving around.

Why would this be controversial, who hasn't driven around jackasses driving recklessly passing and bobbing in and out of traffic...thinking that can easily cause an accident.

The question I have is who is most responsible? Lacy, who was driving recklessly, or the speeding, Funyun-eating tailgater. I don’t know how these things work.

 

[culdeus]

Yeah that’s what the police are saying, right? Have you seen the video? They were going the same way unless I’m dreaming. I might be really botching this. That’s why I keep asking.

I looked up I-20. It’s one lane each way and there is no divider

I think the police are saying Lacy and those two cars were driving the opposite way. They weren’t in the video Ory showed. I’m gonna watch it again.

Yes, please rewatch. I think @GroveDiesel had the explanation above that I agree with.

I did and I’m still totally flummoxed how he’s . . .

I give up and I am usually not this stupid. I can’t figure this ish out.

Don’t give up. I think GroveDiesel explained what happened well. The woman in vehicle 2 was likely most responsible but Lacy’s improper lane usage may have started a chain reaction.

One important note is that the fatal wreck was a kia and a kia. This is confusing because you think that perhaps there should be another brand but it isn't.

The wheel turn data is on the Kia with a survivor.

 

[djmich]

It is hard to understand from that local news video what the DA thought may have happened. They more or less were saying he crossed into the incoming traffic to pass someone, and this forced someone in the oncoming lane to swerve into the other lane?

But, maybe this is controversial, but I can kind of see how the police would get there. If you’ve ever been driving on a two lane road and had some impatient kid go flying by a bunch of cars illegally into oncoming traffic and puckered your butt a bit just praying nobody dies, I think you could see how easy it would be to envision some young kid in a flashy car doing that causing a chain reaction where the oncoming vehicle had to slam their brakes on and someone ends up dead as cars start swerving around.

Why would this be controversial, who hasn't driven around jackasses driving recklessly passing and bobbing in and out of traffic...thinking that can easily cause an accident.

The question I have is who is most responsible? Lacy, who was driving recklessly, or the speeding, Funyun-eating tailgater. I don’t know how these things work.

Good question, but I'd say pretty clearly both are at least partially responsible (at least the tailgating part, not sure about funyuns). Tailgating probably harder to prove than crossing illegally into oncoming traffic though.

 

[Juxtatarot]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that even though Lacy was driving recklessly, he was far enough away that he shouldn't be held responsible.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that even though Lacy was driving recklessly, he was far enough away that he shouldn't be held responsible.

This is what seems to have happened. The gold truck slowed down or stopped because he was worried that Lacy wouldn't be able to get back over into his lane. But it's important to note that he didn't jamb on his brakes. He came to a controlled stop. Then the girl behind him that was going way faster and coming up on him, veered into oncoming traffic. She might have been distracted that she didn't see the gold truck slowing down.
The rules of the road in Canada are that you give enough room to the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop if he does. Almost all rear end accidents are considered to be 100% the fault of the lagging vehicle. And she would have rear-ended him if she didn't veer into the other lane.
It seems pretty cut and dry. I am very curious why they completely let her off the hook.
Especially considering that Lacy got back into his lane in plenty of time.

 

[coopersdad]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that even though Lacy was driving recklessly, he was far enough away that he shouldn't be held responsible.

This is what seems to have happened. The gold truck slowed down or stopped because he was worried that Lacy wouldn't be able to get back over into his lane. But it's important to note that he didn't jamb on his brakes. He came to a controlled stop. Then the girl behind him that was going way faster and coming up on him, veered into oncoming traffic. She might have been distracted that she didn't see the gold truck slowing down.
The rules of the road in Canada are that you give enough room to the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop if he does. Almost all rear end accidents are considered to be 100% the fault of the lagging vehicle. And she would have rear-ended him if she didn't veer into the other lane.
It seems pretty cut and dry. I am very curious why they completely let her off the hook.
Especially considering that Lacy got back into his lane in plenty of time.

she said she was eating "funyuns" from her lap. I will not judge, but just saying...........

 

[rockaction]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that even though Lacy was driving recklessly, he was far enough away that he shouldn't be held responsible.

This is what seems to have happened. The gold truck slowed down or stopped because he was worried that Lacy wouldn't be able to get back over into his lane. But it's important to note that he didn't jamb on his brakes. He came to a controlled stop. Then the girl behind him that was going way faster and coming up on him, veered into oncoming traffic. She might have been distracted that she didn't see the gold truck slowing down.
The rules of the road in Canada are that you give enough room to the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop if he does. Almost all rear end accidents are considered to be 100% the fault of the lagging vehicle. And she would have rear-ended him if she didn't veer into the other lane.
It seems pretty cut and dry. I am very curious why they completely let her off the hook.
Especially considering that Lacy got back into his lane in plenty of time.

she said she was eating "funyuns" from her lap. I will not judge, but just saying...........

I very much remember.

I am still having a crazy time because I cannot figure out how he would have been behind Hall yet they would be swerving into Hall. That’s why Ory keeps stressing that Lacy was behind him.

Still flummoxed as to how that could possibly happen.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Chaz McNulty]

It shouldn't really matter why the gold truck slowed down and stopped. Whether it was because he was worried about a passing car, or a deer was in his lane. It is still the responsibility of the vehicle behind to also stop in time.

 

[Juxtatarot]

You know, I had it all drawn out, but this won't let me format it correctly. I think I totally get it, and I get why the lawyer is saying it's so important that Lacy is behind the wreck and not in front of it.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that even though Lacy was driving recklessly, he was far enough away that he shouldn't be held responsible.

This is what seems to have happened. The gold truck slowed down or stopped because he was worried that Lacy wouldn't be able to get back over into his lane. But it's important to note that he didn't jamb on his brakes. He came to a controlled stop. Then the girl behind him that was going way faster and coming up on him, veered into oncoming traffic. She might have been distracted that she didn't see the gold truck slowing down.
The rules of the road in Canada are that you give enough room to the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop if he does. Almost all rear end accidents are considered to be 100% the fault of the lagging vehicle. And she would have rear-ended him if she didn't veer into the other lane.
It seems pretty cut and dry. I am very curious why they completely let her off the hook.
Especially considering that Lacy got back into his lane in plenty of time.

she said she was eating "funyuns" from her lap. I will not judge, but just saying...........

I very much remember.

I am still having a crazy time because I cannot figure out how he would have been behind Hall yet they would be swerving into Hall. That’s why Ory keeps stressing that Lacy was behind him.

Still flummoxed as to how that could possibly happen.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gold truck sees Lacy coming at him in the wrong lane. Gold truck veers to the right and brakes. Funyun lady is distracted/speeding/tailgating and swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid rear ending gold truck but hits Hall head on.

 

[djmich]

It shouldn't really matter why the gold truck slowed down and stopped. Whether it was because he was worried about a passing car, or a deer was in his lane. It is still the responsibility of the vehicle behind to also stop in time.

When you say it shouldn’t matter, what does that mean?

 

[Chaz McNulty]

It shouldn't really matter why the gold truck slowed down and stopped. Whether it was because he was worried about a passing car, or a deer was in his lane. It is still the responsibility of the vehicle behind to also stop in time.

When you say it shouldn’t matter, what does that mean?

It means that the trailing vehicle needs to give enough distance to the leading vehicle to be able to stop in time, if he stops. In most cases of rear-ending, it doesn't matter why the lead vehicle has to slow down and stop.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

In no universe is the green car at fault. The f’ing cop told the lady what to say.

 

[djmich]

It shouldn't really matter why the gold truck slowed down and stopped. Whether it was because he was worried about a passing car, or a deer was in his lane. It is still the responsibility of the vehicle behind to also stop in time.

When you say it shouldn’t matter, what does that mean?

It means that the trailing vehicle needs to give enough distance to the leading vehicle to be able to stop in time, if he stops. In most cases of rear-ending, it doesn't matter why the lead vehicle has to slow down and stop.

Yes, agree. Next to nobody does that consistently, but that’s accurate.

But, that being the case, would this remove legal liability from the person that was driving recklessly to initiate the chain of events? As a driver myself, I would hope it doesn’t.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

 

[djmich]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

Huh? Isn't this what everyone seems to say what happened? The only thing being speculated was why the cops let the woman (who carries the vast majority of blame) off so easy?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I believe black box data is tied to airbag deployment. We wouldn’t have that for the gold truck.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Lacy passed four cars at once? I was initially thinking it was four separate passes.

 

[djmich]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

Huh? Isn't this what everyone seems to say what happened? The only thing being speculated was why the cops let the woman (who carries the vast majority of blame) off so easy?

The first page is littered with posters calling the entire south racist and that Lacy was the focal point because he's black...

 

[GroveDiesel]

I believe black box data is tied to airbag deployment. We wouldn’t have that for the gold truck.

Where did they get his exact speed then?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I believe black box data is tied to airbag deployment. We wouldn’t have that for the gold truck.

Where did they get his exact speed then?

I don’t know.

 

[culdeus]

It is hard to understand from that local news video what the DA thought may have happened. They more or less were saying he crossed into the incoming traffic to pass someone, and this forced someone in the oncoming lane to swerve into the other lane?

But, maybe this is controversial, but I can kind of see how the police would get there. If you’ve ever been driving on a two lane road and had some impatient kid go flying by a bunch of cars illegally into oncoming traffic and puckered your butt a bit just praying nobody dies, I think you could see how easy it would be to envision some young kid in a flashy car doing that causing a chain reaction where the oncoming vehicle had to slam their brakes on and someone ends up dead as cars start swerving around.

Why would this be controversial, who hasn't driven around jackasses driving recklessly passing and bobbing in and out of traffic...thinking that can easily cause an accident.

The question I have is who is most responsible? Lacy, who was driving recklessly, or the speeding, Funyun-eating tailgater. I don’t know how these things work.

Good question, but I'd say pretty clearly both are at least partially responsible (at least the tailgating part, not sure about funyuns). Tailgating probably harder to prove than crossing illegally into oncoming traffic though.

I believe black box data is tied to airbag deployment. We wouldn’t have that for the gold truck.

Where did they get his exact speed then?

Probably the CCTV

 

[rockaction]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

Huh? Isn't this what everyone seems to say what happened? The only thing being speculated was why the cops let the woman (who carries the vast majority of blame) off so easy?

The first page is littered with posters calling the entire south racist and that Lacy was the focal point because he's black...

That was only me and if you can’t handle a generalization from me then I don’t want your laurels when I make them and they comport with what you ageee with.

I think I’ve more than earned the right to make a generalization that people on the left side of things might find amenable

 

[djmich]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

Huh? Isn't this what everyone seems to say what happened? The only thing being speculated was why the cops let the woman (who carries the vast majority of blame) off so easy?

The first page is littered with posters calling the entire south racist and that Lacy was the focal point because he's black...

That was only me and if you can’t handle a generalization from me then I don’t want your laurels when I make them and they comport with what you ageee with.

I think I’ve more than earned the right to make a generalization that people on the left side of things might find amenable

No, it wasn’t just you, read the page. If I had the skill or patience I’d multi quote it for you lol.

And what kind of cloak of bs are you trying to dress yourself in here. You say dumb **** that one side would disagree with so you’re immune from being called out when you say dumb **** about a different side?

And I suppose that you're implying the “the left” finds the entire south racist? Lol, well I guess maybe that is true.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I think it’s cool that we can work through something like this and seemingly eventually come to the same conclusion. The hardest part can be initially trying to piece everything together.

 

[Caveman33]

I think it’s cool that we can work through something like this and seemingly eventually come to the same conclusion. The hardest part can be initially trying to piece everything together.

I saw this story a day or so ago but it didn't make sense. If Lacy was being framed, why commit suicide? Why/how is he being framed in the era of near complete camera coverage? I couldn't easily find a video to see for myself so I assumed the lawyer was crafting a biased story with one sided information.

GroveDiesel appears to have full knowledge of the event and the situation he described makes all the other weird things that happened afterwards logical. I agree with others that the distracted tailgater should have born most of the responsibility for the accident. Lacy was reckless but she was an even more reckless driver.

I also agree with DJMich about the intent behind this story and how it is framed. The lawyer is biased, that is understandable, but it seems the journalists are also playing into that bias. It was easy for GroveDiesel to provide the context that was not included in the new stories I read. As Mich pointed out, this biased reporting led to the reactions that most people had on the first page.

 

[culdeus]

Where in the video did the lead car say he was stopping to turn into the Dollar General? Or was that in a press clipping? That seems important.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Where in the video did the lead car say he was stopping to turn into the Dollar General? Or was that in a press clipping? That seems important.

That was the woman who hit the victim who said that. It’s right after the 13 minute mark:

This site is a cool site allowing you to grab transcripts from YouTube videos and then keyword search them:

Link

 

[Juxtatarot]

Where in the video did the lead car say he was stopping to turn into the Dollar General? Or was that in a press clipping? That seems important.

That was the woman who hit the victim who said that. It’s right after the 13 minute mark:

This site is a cool site allowing you to grab transcripts from YouTube videos and then keyword search them:

Link

I think driver two (the Funyon woman) wanted to turn into the dollar store on the left?

All I can see is that a car is coming this way in the car in front of me." Right before
12:34the crash, I'm looking at the pickup truck in front of me. That's all they see for the moment. I'm eating my
12:39funions. I got in the middle of my lap and I'm driving. I'm listening to my music. All of a sudden, I see the car
12:46get in the other person's lane. The truck, in quote, steps on his brakes
12:52first, so it slows down, but then he does it again. And this time, it's really hard. That's when you can see on
12:58the other side, the car is trying to get back over. But before he can get over, the truck stops in the middle, like on the brakes hard. There's another car
13:05that runs damn near into the pole. It's either I run into him or I try to get out the way. So, I'm trying to get into the dollar store parking lot. Then the
13:11other car just comes and slams into me.

 

[El Floppo]

I believe black box data is tied to airbag deployment. We wouldn’t have that for the gold truck.

Where did they get his exact speed then?

I don’t know.

Onboard gps? Thats my assumption when they say "black box data".

 

[El Floppo]

I watched the whole video and honestly I think the police investigation is more likely to be bad investigation/police work than malicious intent. Which unfortunately is way too typical. Police will often take the first feasible scenario presented to them and then work to prove that scenario rather than conduct an unbiased investigation of the whole case.

Let me set the scene:

Police arrive on the scene of a fatal head on accident. Lacy isn’t on scene and has left the scene of the accident. As they start taking statements, at least one person heading southbound that Lacy passed tells the officer that Lacy passed them illegally and caused the accident. We know at least one person said this according to the officer and we know that one person’s account was incorrect because they said Lacy shot between the vehicles. We don’t know if any of the other vehicles traveling southbound gave statements and if they did what they said. It’s certainly possible that others gave statements to the officer saying that Lacy’s passing is what caused the accident. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think that is fully possible and Lacy’s lawyer would have incentive to not mention those statements if they blamed the accident on Lacy but didn’t have obviously erroneous information in them.

We do know the officers talked to someone that blamed Lacy before talking with Vehicle 2’s driver (the woman who went left of center and hit the guy who died) because at this point the officer knows about Lacy’s vehicle which is no longer on scene and someone has obviously said that it was Lacy’s fault. So the officer begins to interview the woman while she is in the ambulance and begins to ask leading questions based on the statements of the other witness blaming Lacy. This is bad police work but we can see how he would get there because he has a witness, or possibly witnesses, blaming Lacy and Lacy has left the scene. Easy for the human brain to quickly buy into the story of a reckless driver in a muscle car driving recklessly, causing an accident, and leaving the scene. So of course the woman driver goes along with that story because it’s better for her than admitting that she was driving too fast, not paying enough attention, and caused a head on collision. Perhaps she even quickly truly believes this is what actually happened.

I’m also a little confused about the 4.5 minutes before the officer turned on his body cam the lawyer talks about. Is that supposed to be right before the video he shows in the interview? Because that video really seems to show the officer turning on the body cam after he exits his car and first approaches the driver of the gold truck. Is that 4.5 minutes before a different interview with that driver?

I’m also unsure of why we see the speed, braking, and speed change of the vehicle that struck the victim, but we only get presented the driving speed of the gold truck and then are told basically that the truck gently braked and eased over. If they have the black box data for his speed, then surely braking and deceleration data are available as well. We know the data must exist, so why does the lawyer characterize the gold truck’s stopping rather than provide us with the data objectively demonstrating that? I would have liked to see that data so that I can verify that characterization.

How is it possible to be tailgating someone when you’re going 20 mph faster than they are? At the speeds given, 50 mph and 30 mph, the woman driver would be closing the gap between her and the gold truck at 20 feet per second. So in the 5 seconds provided by Lacy’s lawyer, the woman driver would have eaten up 100 feet of distance between her and the gold truck. That doesn’t sound like tailgating to me, that sounds like someone going a lot faster than the vehicle in front of them and probably not paying enough attention. So that characterization of tailgating by Lacy’s lawyer really isn’t accurate and makes me wonder why he would characterize it that way when he has all the data.

But as the officer’s begin their investigation, remember they don’t have any of this data. What they have is one, maybe more, statements from witnesses that say that a green Dodge Charger illegally passed 4 cars at once on a two lane road, caused the gold truck to brake which caused the car behind him to swerve and drive head on into the victim, and that the green Dodge Charger then drove off. This then biased the investigation going forward as the officers take that and work to prove that story rather than trying to objectively find the truth. That doesn’t make them racist cops trying to frame an innocent person necessarily. Heck, we don’t know at what point the troopers even knew the driver of the Charger was black. Or at least not from what’s linked here.

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

Thanks for the reasonable take, which unfortunately is not possible for many FBG's.

Huh? Isn't this what everyone seems to say what happened? The only thing being speculated was why the cops let the woman (who carries the vast majority of blame) off so easy?

Agreed. And why they tried so hard to immediately pin it on the rash drivng black kid who was a football field and another car (which had time to stop easily) behind the accident

 

[Desert_Power]

Fwiw, I think the most likely truth is:

Lacy was driving like a reckless jerk and illegally passed 4 cars at a high rate of speed. He got back over in time to not hit the gold truck, but it was obviously enough of a concern that the gold truck hit his brakes in some capacity to make sure they didn’t crash head on. The woman behind the gold truck wasn’t paying attention so when the truck hit his brakes, she recognizes it too late, slams on her brakes, swerves, and hits the victim head on. The woman driver carries the vast majority of the blame IMO, but this accident also never happens if Lacy’s reckless passing doesn’t cause the truck to brake. This in no way supports the level of charges brought against him. But I can easily see how lazy police work gets to the wrong conclusion based on the first stories they get on-site rather than it being racist railroading.

I had a back and forth a bit about it with @3C's elsewhere and kinda came to the same conclusion. And the bold is key.

 

[El Floppo]

I must have the directions of the cars wrong.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

The sooner we get self driving cars the better. They can at least stay in their lane.

At least it's in its lane. Riiiight.

 

[Corporation]

I must have the directions of the cars wrong.

Just for illustrative purposes, I'm going to say it is east - west. I don't know for sure what direction the road is and I don't know which way he was travelling, but I think it will help with the orientation of the cars.

Lacy was travelling "west" and passed 4 cars in a no pass zone. He was able to get back in his lane. A truck headed "eastbound" wasn't sure if Lacy was getting back in his lane, and applied brakes (how hard he did is unclear to me, perhaps he tapped them or maybe he jammed them on). A lady travelling eastbound behind that truck while eating Funyons doesn't respond in time and swerves into oncoming traffic, I believe hitting one of the cars that Lacy passed. The lawyer says the accident was behind Lacy because he had already passed the cars illegally (and perhaps recklessly). His argument is that it was 100 yards behind him so his passing played no role in the accident. It doesn't take long to get 100 yards away at a high rate of speed.

To me it sounds like charges were trumped up against Lacy, but he IMO had some contributory negligence to the accident. The lady who wasn't paying attention and swerved into oncoming traffic bears more of the responsibility. It is definitely shady that the police were coaching her on what to say.

 

[El Floppo]

I must have the directions of the cars wrong.

Just for illustrative purposes, I'm going to say it is east - west. I don't know for sure what direction the road is and I don't know which way he was travelling, but I think it will help with the orientation of the cars.

Lacy was travelling "west" and passed 4 cars in a no pass zone. He was able to get back in his lane. A truck headed "eastbound" wasn't sure if Lacy was getting back in his lane, and applied brakes (how hard he did is unclear to me, perhaps he tapped them or maybe he jammed them on). A lady travelling eastbound behind that truck while eating Funyons doesn't respond in time and swerves into oncoming traffic, I believe hitting one of the cars that Lacy passed. The lawyer says the accident was behind Lacy because he had already passed the cars illegally (and perhaps recklessly). His argument is that it was 100 yards behind him so his passing played no role in the accident. It doesn't take long to get 100 yards away at a high rate of speed.

To me it sounds like charges were trumped up against Lacy, but he IMO had some contributory negligence to the accident. The lady who wasn't paying attention and swerved into oncoming traffic bears more of the responsibility. It is definitely shady that the police were coaching her on what to say.

Iirc from the video, Lacy is the second car to arrive at the accident after it happened...so the accident was ahead of him. According to the lawyer, he had pulled back into his lane 100 yards before rhe accident which happened after he had traveled another 20-30 yards or so. Thats not a lot of time going at passing speed, but he also had time to slow down to safely come to a stop before passing the scene.

I had misunderstood he was travelling the same direction as gold truck and funyons. Opposite direction, i now see how gold truck would have seen him coming and hit his brakes ("not enough to leave skid marks") to slow to significant amount below speed limit (28 vs i think 50, given that funyons was going 49) and how Funyons didnt see in time and swerved to avoid rear ending gold truck.

So Lacy caused gold truck to slow significantly, but funyons wasnt driving safe/aware enough to realize it and slow down in time... based on that for me caused the accident.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I must have the directions of the cars wrong.

Just for illustrative purposes, I'm going to say it is east - west. I don't know for sure what direction the road is and I don't know which way he was travelling, but I think it will help with the orientation of the cars.

Lacy was travelling "west" and passed 4 cars in a no pass zone. He was able to get back in his lane. A truck headed "eastbound" wasn't sure if Lacy was getting back in his lane, and applied brakes (how hard he did is unclear to me, perhaps he tapped them or maybe he jammed them on). A lady travelling eastbound behind that truck while eating Funyons doesn't respond in time and swerves into oncoming traffic, I believe hitting one of the cars that Lacy passed. The lawyer says the accident was behind Lacy because he had already passed the cars illegally (and perhaps recklessly). His argument is that it was 100 yards behind him so his passing played no role in the accident. It doesn't take long to get 100 yards away at a high rate of speed.

To me it sounds like charges were trumped up against Lacy, but he IMO had some contributory negligence to the accident. The lady who wasn't paying attention and swerved into oncoming traffic bears more of the responsibility. It is definitely shady that the police were coaching her on what to say.

Looking at the transcript, I don’t see where the lawyer says the accident was “behind” Lacy. It was in front of him. Lacy didn’t pass Hall (the victim) before the crash. Those four passed cars would have been behind Lacy.

(Also, Lacy and Hall were going south while gold truck and Funyun woman were going north. Just for clarity.)

Regardless, I think I still mostly agree with your conclusion. I’ll admit though that I don’t know how the law should decide such cases. Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted. However, legal and moral aren’t always the same.

 

[El Floppo]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

 

[djmich]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

I consider myself a pretty aggressive driver. Hard to imagine a scenario where I’d pass four cars simultaneously. To do that while cutting it close enough that cars on the other side of the road are hitting their brakes? That seems like the definition of reckless to me.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

We have all had moments of being distracted even if it hasn’t caused an accident. From a moral point of view, I guess it would depend on frequency of distraction. In the extreme, I think you’re right. We do get the impression that she was a very bad driver.

 

[El Floppo]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

I consider myself a pretty aggressive driver. Hard to imagine a scenario where I’d pass four cars simultaneously. To do that while cutting it close enough that cars on the other side of the road are hitting their brakes? That seems like the definition of reckless to me.

I understand your point. He merged back into his lane 100 yards clear... a football field. it's not a little- but it's also not a lot when you're on a two lane road going 50ish from opposite directions. from the video, he wasn't screeching in behind that first car to the accident- it was very controlled, which tells me he was less reckless than he was aggressive during the pass. I know I've passed multiple cars at once- hard not to if the lead car is going slow enough below the speed limit to have the cars behind it stacked too close behind. that's ime- no idea what the actual situation was here. and I know I would ever attempt such a thing if I could even see an oncoming car that wasn't far, far out.

 

[El Floppo]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

We have all had moments of being distracted even if it hasn’t caused an accident. From a moral point of view, I guess it would depend on frequency of distraction. In the extreme, I think you’re right. We do get the impression that she was a very bad driver.

yeah... it definitely makes you think about your own behavior behind the wheel- grabbing a drink, snack, adjusting music, etc, and what that millisecond might mean. I try my hardest to be a defensive, aware driver... so would like to think I'm avoiding situations where that millisecond might have such profound consequences.

it's interesting that Lacy's lawyer kept talking about her tail-gating (based on the data). but it seems possible that gold truck slowed quickly enough that she just caught up to him too fast to react in time. I don't know that that's tail-gating, per se- but just not-aware or defensive driving.

 

[djmich]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

We have all had moments of being distracted even if it hasn’t caused an accident. From a moral point of view, I guess it would depend on frequency of distraction. In the extreme, I think you’re right. We do get the impression that she was a very bad driver.

yeah... it definitely makes you think about your own behavior behind the wheel- grabbing a drink, snack, adjusting music, etc, and what that millisecond might mean. I try my hardest to be a defensive, aware driver... so would like to think I'm avoiding situations where that millisecond might have such profound consequences.

it's interesting that Lacy's lawyer kept talking about her tail-gating (based on the data). but it seems possible that gold truck slowed quickly enough that she just caught up to him too fast to react in time. I don't know that that's tail-gating, per se- but just not-aware or defensive driving.

If you look at the data about safe distances to leave between vehicles based on different speeds, essentially nobody leaves sufficient amount of space on highways. And we know just about nobody follows posted speed limits. Add in distractions…it’s a dangerous place.

 

[El Floppo]

Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted.

going to disagree with you there.

driving recklessly and distracted... or reckless to the point of adversely affecting traffic around you- I guess. but the car ahead of him and Lacy were able to slow to a stop in a controlled manner (no screeching brakes/tires), which tells me he wasn't out of control or distracted.. I can see that he caused the gold truck to slow by passing 4 cars in a no-passing area- so that's a reaction. but in and of itself, it shouldn't have had any adverse affect if funyons had been paying the attention driving 50mph on a two lane road warrants. Give me somebody driving aggressively like that vs somebody not paying attention (and I'm not a fan of aggressive drivers either).

We have all had moments of being distracted even if it hasn’t caused an accident. From a moral point of view, I guess it would depend on frequency of distraction. In the extreme, I think you’re right. We do get the impression that she was a very bad driver.

yeah... it definitely makes you think about your own behavior behind the wheel- grabbing a drink, snack, adjusting music, etc, and what that millisecond might mean. I try my hardest to be a defensive, aware driver... so would like to think I'm avoiding situations where that millisecond might have such profound consequences.

it's interesting that Lacy's lawyer kept talking about her tail-gating (based on the data). but it seems possible that gold truck slowed quickly enough that she just caught up to him too fast to react in time. I don't know that that's tail-gating, per se- but just not-aware or defensive driving.

If you look at the data about safe distances to leave between vehicles based on different speeds, essentially nobody leaves sufficient amount of space on highways. And we know just about nobody follows posted speed limits. Add in distractions…it’s a dangerous place.

I'll never forget my HS driver's ed teachers saying you should typically be 2 seconds behind the car ahead of you (in open traffic, not stop and go city/town traffic). gives you adequate distance regardless of your speed. I've always tried to follow that, but get aggressive more often than not and end up closing that distance.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

seriously could not live in the South. I just could not. I'm sure it has its merits. It's not for me.

This isn’t a southern thing . Look at the Karen Read case in Canton MA and the state police. Then follow that up with Sandra Birchmore with a lot of the same cast of characters. This 2 cases have been a real eye opener for me

It's amazing how it's viewed as Southern. Well, the black population of most Southeastern states is about 30% for fairly obvious reasons. But only like 5% in the Northeast states and super low in the midwest/rockies. So, yes, there are more incidents in the SE. But if you want racism it is everywhere. When I drive through West VA, Western PA, and parts of Ohio, there are way more confederate flags there than when I go to NC SC and GA. The Appalachian mountains are full of it. And when I drive through SE DC as a white dude, well, it's safe to say racism works both ways. I got a ticket for going 36 in a 35. The message .. stay outta here.

 

[rockaction]

seriously could not live in the South. I just could not. I'm sure it has its merits. It's not for me.

This isn’t a southern thing . Look at the Karen Read case in Canton MA and the state police. Then follow that up with Sandra Birchmore with a lot of the same cast of characters. This 2 cases have been a real eye opener for me

It's amazing how it's viewed as Southern. Well, the black population of most Southeastern states is about 30% for fairly obvious reasons. But only like 5% in the Northeast states and super low in the midwest/rockies. So, yes, there are more incidents in the SE. But if you want racism it is everywhere. When I drive through West VA, Western PA, and parts of Ohio, there are way more confederate flags there than when I go to NC SC and GA. The Appalachian mountains are full of it. And when I drive through SE DC as a white dude, well, it's safe to say racism works both ways. I got a ticket for going 36 in a 35. The message .. stay outta here.

No doubt. I agree it isn’t limited to one region. It’s just the admixture of authority and in smaller pockets of certain areas, it is bad news.

 

[Corporation]

I must have the directions of the cars wrong.

Just for illustrative purposes, I'm going to say it is east - west. I don't know for sure what direction the road is and I don't know which way he was travelling, but I think it will help with the orientation of the cars.

Lacy was travelling "west" and passed 4 cars in a no pass zone. He was able to get back in his lane. A truck headed "eastbound" wasn't sure if Lacy was getting back in his lane, and applied brakes (how hard he did is unclear to me, perhaps he tapped them or maybe he jammed them on). A lady travelling eastbound behind that truck while eating Funyons doesn't respond in time and swerves into oncoming traffic, I believe hitting one of the cars that Lacy passed. The lawyer says the accident was behind Lacy because he had already passed the cars illegally (and perhaps recklessly). His argument is that it was 100 yards behind him so his passing played no role in the accident. It doesn't take long to get 100 yards away at a high rate of speed.

To me it sounds like charges were trumped up against Lacy, but he IMO had some contributory negligence to the accident. The lady who wasn't paying attention and swerved into oncoming traffic bears more of the responsibility. It is definitely shady that the police were coaching her on what to say.

Looking at the transcript, I don’t see where the lawyer says the accident was “behind” Lacy. It was in front of him. Lacy didn’t pass Hall (the victim) before the crash. Those four passed cars would have been behind Lacy.

(Also, Lacy and Hall were going south while gold truck and Funyun woman were going north. Just for clarity.)

Regardless, I think I still mostly agree with your conclusion. I’ll admit though that I don’t know how the law should decide such cases. Morally, I place more blame on Lacy. Purposefully driving recklessly is worse than being distracted. However, legal and moral aren’t always the same.

I've looked at a few other sites now and I would definitely amend my writeup. I've read so many conflicting reports that I really have no idea how it happened. I've seen the video that the police released that interviewed a witness on site (an African American, not that it should matter) who seems to confirm that Lacy passed 4 cars and in the witness's opinion, was the cause of the accident. Who knows for sure (not me). The things that seem to be consistent in all accounts are that Lacy passed 4 cars in one pass illegally, the gold truck applied brakes, and a distracted driver reacted late and swerved into oncoming traffic. Video evidence also seems to show the police leading witnesses (either intentionally or not).

I won't wade into reckless vs distracted driving morality. Speeding is reckless driving, and I've done it. I think we've all been distracted while driving (although I certainly try to limit that). Actions have consequences and they should have been applied equally to both Lacy and the other driver. I would venture (pure guess) that distracted driving results in more accidents and fatalities than pure reckless driving, I think they are pretty equal. I would put drunk (or even buzzed) driving as much worse than either of those 2.