Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 64 14.7%

  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 6 1.4%

  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 109 25.0%

  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 79 18.1%

  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 178 40.8%
  • Total voters
    436
Kosher Salt said:
Reasonableness is one of the elements, and it wasn't a reasonable use of force. I don't believe the defendant's claim that he was under a violent attack. I believe the number of witnesses who said that his outburst was not one of fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, but an outburst of anger at the indignity of having popcorn thrown in his face. There was no violent attack. He didn't have a scratch on him - his only injury was self-inflicted, after he was being interviewed by the cops and rubbed popcorn salt into his eye. Then there was some redness.

Was it an assault? Yeah. Felony assault even, because the guy was old. Haul Chad to court and lock him up forever. But you can't shoot without fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, and the popcorn toss didn't pose that threat.

If George Zimmerman hadn't had a single scratch on him, he'd have probably been convicted too.
Click to expand...
Reasonableness takes everything into account. If we looked at the popcorn toss in a vacuum, sure, it's not reasonable to shoot Olsen. Reeve's testimony and the video suggest that, prior to the popcorn toss, Olsen had thrown or smacked him in the face with his phone. It's compounded by the fact that the phone was found at Reeves' feet with no state explanation of how it got there.

Also, if the popcorn was the sole instigating factor, Reeves drew and shot from concealment in under a second. I don't pretend to be an ooper8or, but I can't do that. I don't think old man Reeves could, either. He probably has his draw primed. Why would he have his draw primed? He was annoyed with Olsen and was looking for an excuse to shoot him? Witnesses said Reeves wasn't agitated, even when karen'ing to the management. Alternatively, he'd just been smacked in the face by a younger, larger, very angry man, and was worried about what might happen next considering he was 71. Reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't call it a good shoot. It was a stupid shoot. But it seems ultimately reasonable.
 
TheClappening said:
Reeve's testimony and the video suggest that, prior to the popcorn toss, Olsen had thrown or smacked him in the face with his phone. It's compounded by the fact that the phone was found at Reeves' feet with no state explanation of how it got there.
Click to expand...
As I stated, I don't believe his story. He had no bruising or abrasion consistent with being struck in the head by an object of approximately similar mass to a cue ball. Nothing. And the allegation that Chad hurled an expensive and fragile cellphone at him in a rage simply seems on its face absurd - perhaps more absurd even than the claim that it struck him in the head hard enough to daze him without leaving the slightest bruise or scratch.

I was fairly puzzled over the security video, because that seems to show something, but it initially looked more like it was attached to Reeves - and I knew that it wasn't something in his hands, because he was holding the popcorn in his lap, and the movement clearly wasn't there. I couldn't explain it until the state showed that his shoes were reflective under the night vision and the movement was him lifting his foot and crossing it over his other leg.

It's easy to explain how the phone got there after Chad was shot. It simply fell there.
TheClappening said:
Also, if the popcorn was the sole instigating factor, Reeves drew and shot from concealment in under a second.
Click to expand...
It definitely wasn't. He was already getting primed to shoot the instant Chad popped up out of his chair. That doesn't mean he had justification though. He was responsible for evaluating the evolving threat and making the decision whether lethal force was reasonably justified. It wasn't.

As the state said in its closing argument, if Chad threw the popcorn and then came throwing hands or climbing over the chair to get at Curtis, sure. Then it'd have been a justified shoot. But for all we know Chad was going to let Curtis take the next swing, and Curtis could've de-escalated the situation by simply not allowing himself to be baited into the fight.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: snoot booper
I've never seen such a hilarious 80 year old injun lady.
I'd lpost this to Vivas YT but I'm temporarily out of unshadow banned accounts.
On her Twitter account "Trampled Lady" she has announced
"After being trampled by horses by Trudeau I will be moving to Florida wth my family"
 
Kosher Salt said:
As I stated, I don't believe his story. He had no bruising or abrasion consistent with being struck in the head by an object of approximately similar mass to a cue ball. Nothing. And the allegation that Chad hurled an expensive and fragile cellphone at him in a rage simply seems on its face absurd - perhaps more absurd even than the claim that it struck him in the head hard enough to daze him without leaving the slightest bruise or scratch.

I was fairly puzzled over the security video, because that seems to show something, but it initially looked more like it was attached to Reeves - and I knew that it wasn't something in his hands, because he was holding the popcorn in his lap, and the movement clearly wasn't there. I couldn't explain it until the state showed that his shoes were reflective under the night vision and the movement was him lifting his foot and crossing it over his other leg.

It's easy to explain how the phone got there after Chad was shot. It simply fell there.

It definitely wasn't. He was already getting primed to shoot the instant Chad popped up out of his chair. That doesn't mean he had justification though. He was responsible for evaluating the evolving threat and making the decision whether lethal force was reasonably justified. It wasn't.

As the state said in its closing argument, if Chad threw the popcorn and then came throwing hands or climbing over the chair to get at Curtis, sure. Then it'd have been a justified shoot. But for all we know Chad was going to let Curtis take the next swing, and Curtis could've de-escalated the situation by simply not allowing himself to be baited into the fight.
Click to expand...
I don't find the phone throw absurd. The man starting yelling profanity at a boomer because he asked him to turn off his phone, and got up out of his seat after he Reeves got back. He seemed angry enough to do that.

At the end of the day there's too much ambiguity, which should fall in favor of the defendant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JJLiautaud and A big guy (for you)
TexOffender said:
Man state gets the last word, just like that? That's fucked. Should make them flip a coin like in football.
Click to expand...
Yes. They always do. They have the burden of proving guilt. State gives its closing argument, defense gives its closing argument, and state gets to offer its rebuttal.

Rebuttal is supposed to be limited in scope to only cover what the defense mentioned in its closing argument, but we've seen cases like the Kim Potter trial where the state basically just used it as a second chance at a closing argument.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: TexOffender
Kosher Salt said:
Rebuttal is supposed to be limited in scope to only cover what the defense mentioned in its closing argument, but we've seen cases like the Kim Potter trial where the state basically just used it as a second chance at a closing argument.
Click to expand...
It didn't help that they blatantly mistated the law and Chu didn't correct them.

EDIT: Concerning Florida's old people, look at the gallery
1645822769128.png
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Kosher Salt
TheClappening said:
I don't find the phone throw absurd. The man starting yelling profanity at a boomer because he asked him to turn off his phone, and got up out of his seat after he Reeves got back. He seemed angry enough to do that.
Click to expand...
If you believe Curtis Reeves, sure, the guy was completely out of control, yelling in a crowded movie theater while battering him in the head with various hard objects. But in the totality of the evidence it seems more like he was speaking with a slightly raised voice - somewhat louder than you'd expect between two people conversing in a movie theater, loud enough to be perceived as a disturbance by the people around them, but it wasn't even loud enough that the people in the seats around them all clearly heard what he was saying.
 
Open season on people who don't turn their phones off after the message on the screen imnsho.
 
Car Won't Crank said:
Nick also mentioned that after the whole shooting happened, Chad's kid asked the wife if he went to jail again. Pretty suspect and interesting detail on the character of Chad.
Click to expand...
Hmmm., we usually get some info about the.....not calling him a victim in deference to Judge Schroder......deceased
None of the lawtubers mentioned his history
I wonder what I can find
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back