Joe McKnight's shooter, Ronald Gasser, released from custody

[bcking 3,157]

It must be racist. Got to be. ??

Do you actually know the answer to my question though?

I figured bringing up race would lead to people giving single line meaningless responses. What is wrong with actually having a mature discussion about it? I didn't say it was racist, I just brought it up as a question. I'm not used to read stories about someone being shot and killed and the shooter being let go, regardless of race. This is the first story I've read like this. I'm trying to figure out why.

Edit: Trayvon Martin (sp?) Shooter, forget his name, didn't get to go home that night/next day, did he?

Edited December 3, 2016 by bcking

[Dashinka 26,252]

it was a question, i don't understand it myself.

Then wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the entire story before making assumptions?

[Dashinka 26,252]

Do you actually know the answer to my question though?

I figured bringing up race would lead to people giving single line meaningless responses. What is wrong with actually having a mature discussion about it? I didn't say it was racist, I just brought it up as a question. I'm not used to read stories about someone being shot and killed and the shooter being let go, regardless of race. This is the first story I've read like this. I'm trying to figure out why.

Edit: Trayvon Martin (sp?) Shooter, forget his name, didn't get to go home that night/next day, did he?

Maybe the police have more evidence than the media about how this really went down. I have to admit it seems strange the guy was let go so quickly while the investigation was still ongoing, but if they have video evidence of how things went down it may explain it.

[bcking 3,157]

Maybe the police have more evidence than the media about how this really went down. I have to admit it seems strange the guy was let go so quickly while the investigation was still ongoing, but if they have video evidence of how things went down it may explain it.

If they have video evidence showing this many wasn't the shooter. Maybe.

If the video evidence proves he shot the guy, I don't think it's the police's job to decide if someone acted in self defense. Doesn't that need to be decided by a court/judge? Even if it is in self defense, if you murder someone you are arrested for it and go to court. Then I'd the evidence shows you had cause you could go. Or maybe a judge could decide to let him free in bail. But regardless I always thought the police gather the evidence for the murder, and then the courts decide if it was first, second, self defense etc...

As I said if the guy turned over his gun they could pretty quickly prove that gun was used to kill the kid. At that point they have enough evidence to make an arrest. The shooters motives or the exact scenario would be decided later.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Prudent, yes. But you know that's not how things are done here in CEHST!!

What I have read thus far is that the eyewitness lied about Gasser standing over McKnight and shooting him, as well as lying about having a video. Gasser was in his car when the shooting took place, with McKnight standing outside the open window. All three shots that were fired hit the victim, and three casings were found in the car (if there were additional shots fired, it hasn't been mentioned in about 5 different news sources yet). Gasser waited on police, handed over the gun, admitted to shooting McKnight... And then was released because they couldn't hold him without charging him. So there has to be more to it than a simple open and shut case of murder or road rage. Only one gun was found, Gasser's.

(Me postulating): Probably, Gasser is no flight risk. The victim was well known to the police, someone in the department helped raise him, so I don't think they are just blowing the shooting off. It sounds like if McKnight was standing outside the window when he was shot, he may have been the aggressor, and Gasser acted in self defense.

And as I said before, and Bill posted below, we need more facts to know why the case is being handled in this way. It is certainly not normal to just release someone who admits they "did the deed".

Then wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the entire story before making assumptions?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Do you actually know the answer to my question though?

I figured bringing up race would lead to people giving single line meaningless responses. What is wrong with actually having a mature discussion about it? I didn't say it was racist, I just brought it up as a question. I'm not used to read stories about someone being shot and killed and the shooter being let go, regardless of race. This is the first story I've read like this. I'm trying to figure out why.

Edit: Trayvon Martin (sp?) Shooter, forget his name, didn't get to go home that night/next day, did he?

Mature discussions require too much typing and we all already know what each other think most of the time

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Prudent, yes. But you know that's not how things are done here in CEHST!!

What I have read thus far is that the eyewitness lied about Gasser standing over McKnight and shooting him, as well as lying about having a video. Gasser was in his car when the shooting took place, with McKnight standing outside the open window. All three shots that were fired hit the victim, and three casings were found in the car (if there were additional shots fired, it hasn't been mentioned in about 5 different news sources yet). Gasser waited on police, handed over the gun, admitted to shooting McKnight... And then was released because they couldn't hold him without charging him. So there has to be more to it than a simple open and shut case of murder or road rage. Only one gun was found, Gasser's.

(Me postulating): Probably, Gasser is no flight risk. The victim was well known to the police, someone in the department helped raise him, so I don't think they are just blowing the shooting off. It sounds like if McKnight was standing outside the window when he was shot, he may have been the aggressor, and Gasser acted in self defense.

And as I said before, and Bill posted below, we need more facts to know why the case is being handled in this way. It is certainly not normal to just release someone who admits they "did the deed".

And in America you don't or aren't supposed to hold people in Jail until there is enough evidence to charge them

Do you actually know the answer to my question though?

I figured bringing up race would lead to people giving single line meaningless responses. What is wrong with actually having a mature discussion about it? I didn't say it was racist, I just brought it up as a question. I'm not used to read stories about someone being shot and killed and the shooter being let go, regardless of race. This is the first story I've read like this. I'm trying to figure out why.

Edit: Trayvon Martin (sp?) Shooter, forget his name, didn't get to go home that night/next day, did he?

Yes he did but was later recharged after much outside pressure including the white house.

As it turns out it was the right call because he was found not guilty based on the evidence

[bcking 3,157]

And in America you don't or aren't supposed to hold people in Jail until there is enough evidence to charge them

Yes he did but was later recharged after much outside pressure including the white house.

As it turns out it was the right call because he was found not guilty based on the evidence

If he admits to doing it, isn't there enough evidence to charge him? I'm not saying he is or isn't going to be acquitted based on the evidence of self defense, but that has to be handled in court. I don't think the police can just say "Ah well looks like self defense, that's fine". Right? I actually don't know. I just feel like it isn't the police's place to decide in the case of a murder.

The shooter (Zimmerman, looked up the name) was not guilty of second degree murder. He still killed the kid though. If you kill someone it has to be properly investigated and I feel like you have to be charged and then acquitted. You can't just skip that part. But maybe I'm wrong.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If he admits to doing it, isn't there enough evidence to charge him? I'm not saying he is or isn't going to be acquitted based on the evidence of self defense, but that has to be handled in court. I don't think the police can just say "Ah well looks like self defense, that's fine". Right? I actually don't know. I just feel like it isn't the police's place to decide in the case of a murder.

The shooter (Zimmerman, looked up the name) was not guilty of second degree murder. He still killed the kid though. If you kill someone it has to be properly investigated and I feel like you have to be charged and then acquitted. You can't just skip that part. But maybe I'm wrong.

Just because you kill someone does not mean you committed (legal) murder or should be charged.

The bottom line is none of us no what happened, and the police felt they did not have enough evidence to charge him at this time. I am sure they did not do that lightly or without consulting with the DA. At this time we have to trust, that they are investigating and that if more evidence comes to light they will arrest him and charge him

[bcking 3,157]

Just because you kill someone does not mean you committed (legal) murder or should be charged.

The bottom line is none of us no what happened, and the police felt they did not have enough evidence to charge him at this time. I am sure they did not do that lightly or without consulting with the DA. At this time we have to trust, that they are investigating and that if more evidence comes to light they will arrest him and charge him

Didn't realize that. I always figured when you kill someone you have to be charged and then the court/judge decides if it was in self defense. Didn't realize cops have the right to decide that and not charge in the first place.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

One can typically be held without charges for up to 72 hours (typically, varies by state). Only the prosecutor can bring said charges, which may allow for a longer incarceration.

You can read more here:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/how-long-may-police-hold-suspects-before-charges-must-be-filed.html

https://rhodeslegalgroup.com/criminal-law/jail-charges-release-72-hour-rule/

The cops don't charge, they just arrest based on what they see or come to conclude. They arrested Gasser based on the fact that he admitted to the shooting, but released him soon after. I would imagine next week there will be more going on with this, when a judge and prosecutor get involved. He may end up back in jail or not, but for sure there will be an arraignment in short order.

Didn't realize that. I always figured when you kill someone you have to be charged and then the court/judge decides if it was in self defense. Didn't realize cops have the right to decide that and not charge in the first place.

Edited December 3, 2016 by LFEHFN

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Didn't realize that. I always figured when you kill someone you have to be charged and then the court/judge decides if it was in self defense. Didn't realize cops have the right to decide that and not charge in the first place.

You obviously did not read my post

[smilesammich 10,727]

finally

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/12/joe_mcknight_gasser_arrest.html

[bcking 3,157]

You obviously did not read my post

No I did. My confusion is with the fact that he admitted to killing the man. I don't see how they don't have enough evidence to at least charge him for the murder if he admitted to it. He may turn out to have acted in self defense, but I always figured if you are caught killing someone you are charged with murder and then acquitted later if it was in self defense. I didn't realize in the first 24-48 hours the cops can decide that it looks like self defense and therefore not charge you.

They let someone who just shot and killed someone walk out of the police station. While it may prove to have been in self defense, if they really lack the evidence of that but do have sufficient evidence to prove he killed the man, I would hold him. I don't really think "innocent until proven guilty" applies when you admit to shooting someone. I think at that point you are guilty until the evidence shows you have justification.

Was he held for the 48-72 hour limit? I thought he was sent home quite quickly. Is it possible it won't even go to court? I just always figured murdering someone in self defense would always be decided in a court, but maybe the DA can decide not to prosecute at all if it is completely clear?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Bcking - "Sheriff Normand indicated during a press conference last week that the probe of McKnight's shooter includes consideration of Louisiana's stand-your-ground law. The law says a person does not have "a duty to retreat" when the prospect of life-threatening or great bodily harm appears imminent. "

Looks like they kept looking into it and decided it was manslaughter now. So he can be formally held and charged. It's the lesser charge of manslaughter as opposed to second degree murder.