Thanks so much for posting these two interviews-- I feel better after watching them and having Judge Greenland reaffirm that the defense still needs to prove that Oscar's response to the "bump in the night" meets the test for "reasonable" behavior. Just because physically disabled persons might have a heightened "fight, flight or freeze" response when a threat is perceived, does not mean they are incapable of the same rational or reasonable interpretations as anyone else.
The defense has, IMO, failed with their assertion that Oscar should be entitled to an irrational and exaggerated response to perceived threat stimuli as a result of his purported previous experiences as a crime victim (PTSD/hyper-vigilance), and now after also failing with Dr. Vorster's diagnosis that his GAD excused his over-reactions, they are now trying to prove that as a physically disabled person, the heightened fight or flight responses of the primitive brain overwhelm his rational mind and compel his behavior beyond his control (borderline automatism/temporary insanity?).
As Judge Greenland pointed out, however, these claims should be Step #2 of the defense strategy-- what I would consider mitigating factors. Step #1 should be for them to prove that under the circumstances surrounding the events that night, Oscar behaved in the way we should expect a reasonable person to respond. Judge Greenland commented that no one actually believes that physically disabled persons are unable to reason-- and also, it is safe to presume, they are equally able to reasonably interpret the nature and degree of a perceived threat. Derman's testimony, with his series of "startles" that triggered OP's fight response, was simply a desperate attempt for the defense to link some mental incapacity to Oscar's physical disabilities and justify his actions that night.
I trust the court will focus on what Judge Greenland described as Step#1 and that Oscar will be held accountable for his own rational or irrational "perception" of the sounds in his bathroom that night. And as many have repeatedly asked, was it reasonable for Oscar to interpret the quite normal sounds of someone in his bathroom as a deadly threat when he was sharing his bed and bathroom suite with an overnight guest? Would a reasonable person have perhaps asked "Who's there?" instead of screaming "Get the **** out of my house" and firing four rounds at an unidentified target?
I, for one, am getting weary of the defense reaching to excuse the actions of a reckless, hot-tempered, trigger-happy, self-centered, sniveling jerk who, as a trained marksman, failed to properly identify and assess the perceived threat before using deadly force. (Forgive my emotional opinion.)