Stand your ground denied...well crud I tried to link it but my phone linked something else. I'll be back LOL
Complete judges ruling at link
Link:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/l...e-theater-stand-your-ground-hearing-on-friday
Part of her ruling copied from link above (ruling in its entirety can be read at link):
This court does find issue with the Mr. Reeves testimony in support of the third factor, and denies this motion for the following reasons:
The physical evidence contradicts the defendants version of events. For instance, the defendant testified that he was hit in the outside corner of his left eye with a cell phone or a fist. The video evidence contradicts this assertion, clearly showing that there was no hit from a fist, and the item argued by the defense to be a cell phone was simply a reflection from the defendants shoes. Despite hours of testimony by the defenses crime scene reconstruction expert in an effort to prove that the reflections seen in the video were those of a cell phone, other images of the defendant in the movie theater clearly show the same rectangle-shaped reflection on his shoes. In addition, common sense and the credible testimony of the medical examiner casts grave doubt on the likelihood of anything hitting the defendant in the eye beneath his glasses in the manner the defendant described. Which begs the question, why did the defendant say he was hit in the left eye, to the point of being dazed, when the video images and basic physics indicate that he did not get hit in the left eye with anything? The logical conclusion is that he was trying to justify his actions after the fact.
AND MUCH MUCH MORE AT LINK
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Complete judges ruling at link
Link:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/l...e-theater-stand-your-ground-hearing-on-friday
Part of her ruling copied from link above (ruling in its entirety can be read at link):
This court does find issue with the Mr. Reeves testimony in support of the third factor, and denies this motion for the following reasons:
The physical evidence contradicts the defendants version of events. For instance, the defendant testified that he was hit in the outside corner of his left eye with a cell phone or a fist. The video evidence contradicts this assertion, clearly showing that there was no hit from a fist, and the item argued by the defense to be a cell phone was simply a reflection from the defendants shoes. Despite hours of testimony by the defenses crime scene reconstruction expert in an effort to prove that the reflections seen in the video were those of a cell phone, other images of the defendant in the movie theater clearly show the same rectangle-shaped reflection on his shoes. In addition, common sense and the credible testimony of the medical examiner casts grave doubt on the likelihood of anything hitting the defendant in the eye beneath his glasses in the manner the defendant described. Which begs the question, why did the defendant say he was hit in the left eye, to the point of being dazed, when the video images and basic physics indicate that he did not get hit in the left eye with anything? The logical conclusion is that he was trying to justify his actions after the fact.
AND MUCH MUCH MORE AT LINK
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
