you are saying a cell phone hit you at this moment? don't know

was he standing at this time? are you saying he stood and turned or turned and stood? don't know

when you look at defense exhibit was he standing here or sitting? look at these pictures! where and when did he turn around and when did he stand up? ok

State, " in this frame he is standing, in this fraem he is sitting."
Reeve, " no, in the second photo he is out of frame."

out/

State" the fact that you didn't shoot your hand is a fabrication."
Reeve, "a fabrication---- for you"

Source of statistic?

Attached File

Still waiting for where the seat kick is supported by evidence or testimony.

State last item to cover " you second guessed yourself."
Reeve, Anyone that cares about life woudld second guess them selves."


Redirect.
Going ask about handi cap sticker.
State objects. (sustained i believe.)

That’s Mr. Knucklehead to you.

Defense shows the " missing frames presented to the defendant on the popcorn frames with Chad's hand in them an then the first attack.
Defense rest.

The thread started with the OP posting basic minutes of the trial.
Then all the knuckleheads joined in with their “expert” legal opinions.
Maybe we can get back to just reporting on the trial proceedings.

It’s not acceptable to me.
Once the screen announcement is made to silence or turn off cellphones.  Maybe folks should observe the notice.  Then the lights are dimmed and the previews begin.
If you can’t live without your cellphone for the 2 hours of the previews and movie maybe you shouldn’t go to a theater and be rude by annoying everyone else there. Attached File

Then why did you say it was okay to have your phone out during the previews?

Who went and got a gun?

Attached File

Clearly the punishment for this rudeness is death.  Who could possibly say otherwise?

Unfortunately, this is our legal system today!

Pretty much the same thing these days.

People seem far less receptive to ANY request to do something they think is none of your damn business, regardless of how nicely you ask.
I've never seen such arrogant territoriality in all my years.

Yes who could say otherwise?  Certainly not Chad.

SO "idiotcracy" is or is NOT a documentary???
Attached File

The theaters don't seem to think it is.  

You contradict yourself.  It's okay, then it's subjective, then it's okay again.  Well what is your stance without the flip flopping?

You are the one that can't grasp that something being permissable and something being debatable are two entirely different things.  I sure wouldn't want my stance to be it's okay to ruin the good time of everyone around me and if they call me on it I get to assault them.

As for the phone being out after the message I don't know.  It was still out during the previews via testimony.  Every theater I've been in has the message both before and a reminder after previews

permissible/prmisb()l/
adjective
permitted; allowed

You said it was okay to have your phone out during the previews.

OK1
/k/
an authorization or approval


Forgive me for using synonyms.

Eta the lights dim when the previews start.

Reeve testified that Chad had the phone out for about 10 minutes before the previews started. Reeves only ask him to put it away after the lights dimmed and the previews started.  Didn't head to get the manager until "3/4" of a minute after asking. He let Chad know what he was doing.

I don't see Reeve as the kind of guy to throw a fit about the phone. He worked 11 year for Busch Garden in security. He said their goal was to help the consumers have the best experience. He reported to management and issue that they should handle. Even told the manager he hated to be the guy to complain.

In my opinion the cross by the state was horrible, They made it out that his original statement was the only statement he could make and it had to be chronological and precisely worded. I guess they hope to convince the Jury that any mistake he made is  not allowed and proves guilt.

State really pushed his "second guessing" everything. Trying to turn it into he didn't hit you.

Yeah you missed it. Testified to by at least one witness before today and again by Reeves just today.

Lots of witnesses said that the no phone message played before the previews. Even if it didn't and Reeves was just a dick, asking someone to put their phone away isn't an instigation of violence.

Self defense laws aren't a contest between who is good and who is bad. They are society saying you can't use violence for any reason other than to defend yourself or others. You're not allowed to hit and smack someone around because they are wrong and you are right. You're not allowed to use violence just because you feel offended. It's supposed to be a case of if I didn't do this that person was going to hurt me.

I hate persecutors like the unethical dickbags in this case. If Reeves never pulled his gun they'd have been using all the same evidence they are downplaying heavily in this trial to prosecute Olsen. Every time he made contact with Reeves they'd call it battery and rightly so. He'd have been charged with assault and battery on someone over 65 and instead of calling it a disagreement they'd be calling it a violent attack.

I think this defense is really overestimating the intelligence of the jury. I think every lawyer should have to serve on a grand jury to understand just how stupid some people can be and how if you don't specifically use certain words they'll miss everything.

Like the cross examination of Reeves ended with the prosecutor taking 2 stills where you couldn't see Olsen and pointing out to the jury that this doesn't fit the defendants statements. The defense then grabbed all the other stills that the persecution didn't show because they showed exactly what the defendant said. The defense failed miserably by not clearly stating that and hoped instead the jury would catch on. That's a really stupid hope because there are a lot of people in this country who are too stupid to grasp anything that isn't outright told to them.

If you ever had to watch a movie with someone too stupid to understand anything without you explaining it to them you know trusting individual jury members to come to the right conclusion themselves is absolutely idiotic. "Why is that man beating that other guy?" "That's the guy who just 30 seconds ago in the movie was raping his daughter." "But he didn't say anything and he just started beating him up for no reason." "Yes the producer greatly overestimated the intelligence of people like you and thought by including the rape all of 30 fucking seconds ago you would still be able to follow along."

Those types can just as easily end up on a jury as annoying anyone trying to watch a movie with them. A defense lawyer really should understand that you have to dumb things down for your audience or they'll end up just as lost as when they watch a movie by themselves. If you don't outright accuse the prosecutor of trying to mislead the jury they are going to miss it and I can guarantee there's someone on that jury who totally missed the point.

The defense has done it multiple times in the trial and I think it's going to end up costing them a guilty verdict.

Apparently the "put your phone away" message carries as much weight as the "no firearms allowed" sign on the door

I had a couple problems with CR's testimony today, he had some inconsistencies that seemed a little too convenient.

Also the explanation of the reflective shoe makes sense, it looks exactly like his right shoe moving down from his left knee to the floor.

That said, the prosecution is still a bunch of slimy fuckers and I haven't seen them disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you clarify that please?

"First, he wasn't using his cellphone during a movie (which we can agree is probably rude),"
If using your phone during the movie is only "probably" rude then the theater was rude to play that message, made the first "contact" and escalation, and gave Oulson the right to beat the shit out of the employees, management, and owners of the theater.  Let's try being reasonable instead.

Even if we were to pretend that screwing with the phone after the lights go down, but before the actual movie starts, shouldn't be presumed to be rude we can agree that responding to a request by someone who does want to watch the previews in a dishonest, profane, and hostile manner and continuing to use the phone is rude.


Pointing out multiple flaws in one idea/philosophy is not "bouncing around".

Reeves was covered under LEOSA.  He testified extensively on how he qualified on both pistol and revolver.  The prosecutors tried to make loading magazines out to be a difficult task.

I’ve watched the entire trial.  The prosecutors are even more slimy than those in the Rittenhouse trial, and this judge make Schroeder seem like a genius.

getting started.

court in session

IT guy

theater camera angles
putting in black background for the orginal blue ones
running the vid
notated for space between actual footage recorded (running the vid in actual time)
cameras independent of each other? yea all motion cameras do that

Prosecution just admitted in closing that the Sheriff's Office did a "crappy investigation".  They literally said a "crappy investigation".  


WOW

ok got side tracked again

*sigh*

closing arguments

Messed up the quote up. link to time stamp. discussion on him saying he is surprise he didn't shoot his own hand.
State or , is it your trying to justify a shooting that is unlawful?"
Reeve, "  That would be a fabrication."
State, " correct"
Reeve, " for you."

https://youtu.be/Lp1NMfptdGs?t=20544

Well it is Pasco SO after all.

I haven't been following. The defendant took the stand?

shiny objects

bad collecting and keeping of evidence by the state

best practices? not really. But it still works

Reeves not bad people at all.

people witnessing in favor of Reeves are biased though.

daughter cried.

kayak paddles stuck together.

Reeves a fragile guy who could be killed by thrown popcorn. or a fist.

words don't mean anything. Actions mean things. the video

what could the defendant do. biking. Kayaking. Mowing. washing cars. shooting clays. lawn maintenance. tree stands. long drives.

incredible shiny objects.

fragile egg of a guy

testimony of the doctors. They are paid well.

something thrown may hurt someone. He has bias. $450 per hour

popcorn flicking. hand wound from drawing hand back when shot.

why no stippling? fingers outside of cone of powder debris

how is it that the ME got it wrong? court reporter got it wrong



x-rays

aging doctor

they all got it wrong.

if he had a herniated disc then he could have killed him. Would have been vulnerable.

did he tried to deescalate? no leaned in twice. he escalated.
he went up in trees.
drives.
chose back row.

not a single thing the defendant said makes sense.

last shiny object
cell phone DNA
why none?
-objection-
uninterpretable DNA on it. doesn't matter.
wife closed her eyes. really? how did no one else see the phone thrown.

easily bruisable. Thought he was hit with a fist. then changed to a phone.

changed his story. miranda statement popcorn falling. video shows popcorn in the air when shot took place.

changed his story about time lag of eight seconds.

barely a wound over his eye.

he lied. shiny objects

Oulsons date night. dropped off daughter. went to movies.

cell message came on. Boom! Reeves came after him.

demeanor of reeves towards Oulson. Leaned in twice.

why did he tell the guy he was going to the manager.

mumbling. agitation. rage culmination. "throw popcorn in my face"
Oulson- "leave me alone"
not saying he was yelling and screaming. sure witnesses said he wasn't. but still agitated demeanor.

Reeves trained in deescalation.
why not wait for manager? he could have waited.

goes back to the theater
oulson turned it off or put it away the phone

Reeves pokes him with hurtful words. Alpha male.
getting in last word.
Spiteful

you saw my photos
Oulson did not turn around in his seat

'bickering'
Freedoff said things were fine before talk with the manager.
then the great instigator came back and started it up again.

Freedoff never instigated contact with Reeves.
Oulson was the deescalator. told Reeves to leave him alone.

all of the training and his karate training. how could he feel intimidated?
we know it is about the popcorn.
because he said it after the shooting- "throw popcorn in my face"

did he beleive a punch to the face was going to fracture his orbital bone and drive it into his brain?

royal battle between Nicole and Chad? how did Reeves wife not see the battle.
Reeves killed Oulson and shot nicole's finger off. that's what happened.

the law. it's confusing

let's talk about jury instructions.
2nd degree murder
and assault on nicole

introduction to homicide
murder in the second degree. includes manslaughter. consider the circumstances. justifable?
instruction
law if necessarily done
have to be 100% sure
necessary to resist a felony. necessary?
excusable homicide under three circumstances:
*intentional? meant to stop an unlawful act- Reeves intentionally shot Oulson
* committed by accident. no dangerous weapon used

crime of murder 2nd degree
law built on elements- building blocks
highest crime charge- proven?
if not go to the next one

depraved mind

act reasonably certain to kill? shot him in the chest
act of indifference shooting someone in the chest? yes
done from ill will, malice, hatred, spite and evil intent? totality of circumstances. talked to the manager. powerful video

look at everything! ill will!
"throw popcorn at me!"
Reeves started it and ended it. Over popcorn toss.

Manslaughter- lets move on to it. interrogatories.
lesser crime. Oulson dead. intentionally shoot oulson? yes

what is the difference of 1st degree or 2nd degree? ill will and making a mistake
not a justifable murder

next crime aggravated battery
defendant intentionally touched or struck her intentionally.
cause great bodily harm? shot her finger off!
used a deadly weapon? yes

transferred intent- while shooting oulson shoot someone else. intent transferred to him for being a lawbreaker.

defendant says he acted lawfully
case is about whether reeves acted in self-defense

have to prove he shot him not the intent

all the words are important

"reasonably beleives"
had to kill Ouslon? absolutely not.

popcorn thrown battery? absolutley. a misdemeanor. But 65? a felony

shooting Oulson not necessary. he would not have suffered great bodily harm.
hand coming towards him was popcorn throw, not a punch.

reasonable? nope he started it.

force necessary? nope no imminent threat or commission of a felony

imminent commssion of crime? nope grabbed a popcorn.
popcorn already thrown when reeves shot him. pulling his arm back
all about the popcorn

judge by circumstances surrounding the killing
popcorn already thrown
shot because of the popcorn
danger facing reeves need not be actual
but  justify the appearance of danger to justify the killing of Oulson

so real? defendant instigated the conflict. hen popcorn grab. we know it's about the popcorn.

Road rage!!!

appearance of danger. textbook example but not popcorn.
made up a story in the cruizer. never beleived life in danger.

changed story to two attacks
story not credible. dispelled by witnesses
he killed another human being

why change the story? has to add an attack to justify it
virtually in my lap, leaning, reaching, etc.

no stippling on left hand on Oulson's left hand
common sense argument
killed him because he was mad about the popcorn
oulson staring at him? well he needed to deescalate
eight second attack? fist? phone in fist? phone?

how was he hit with a phone and not see it? why not his wife?
cellPhones thrown can't hurt you seriously

pictures

reeves picture left eyelid- touching eye witnesses said. does that look injured to you?

oulson picture look at him dead.

defense rests

*ten minute break*