WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf
27east.com

Story - News

Dec 3, 2009 12:11 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Defense seeks mistrial; Judge rejects motion

Dec 3, 2009 12:11 PM

Comments posted at the Press News Group’s website, 27east.com, have become an issue as the jury considers the fate of Anthony Oddone, a Farmingville man accused of second-degree murder in the death of a Hampton Bays man in a fight at a Southampton Village tavern.

On Thursday morning, defense attorney Sarita Kedia asked Suffolk County Court Judge C. Randall Hinrichs to declare a mistrial based on comments posted on a story published at 27east.com on Wednesday detailing the closing arguments in the case earlier in the week. The judge denied the motion. She then asked the judge to poll the jury, which began deliberating on Wednesday afternoon, to determine whether they were considering the case in good faith, or had already made a determination as to Mr. Oddone’s culpability in the death of 40-year-old Andrew Reister at the Southampton Publick House in August 2008. That motion also was denied by Judge Hinrichs.

Finally, Ms. Kedia asked the court to subpoena The Press News Group in an effort to identify the person who posted the comments. Once again, the judge rejected the motion.

The Press News Group allows comments on stories by web readers who identify themselves only with a screen name and place of residence. Comments placed by someone using the screen name “mflgs” of Long Island suggested that the author was familiar with the jury’s deliberations, and implies that the jury is “tainted.”

At 7:05 p.m. Wednesday, “mflgs” posted the following comment: “Unfortunately, this jury has already made up their [sic] mind to make a conviction. Which [charge], I’m not sure. From day 1 many of the jurors already had him convicted—which is why the first juror was kicked off. The 2nd juror was thought to be ‘against conviction,’ which is why she was dismissed. Did you notice any other jurors dismissed before closing arguments? All of you that know he’s guilty and want him convicted—rest comfortably. Unfortunately, justice will not be served since the jury is so tainted.”

Judge Hinrichs has dismissed two jurors in the case, the most recent on Monday. The first juror was dismissed because the judge believed he may have discussed the case with a family member; no reason was publicly given for the dismissal of the second juror.

When another commenter suggested the remarks were “pure speculation,” “mflgs” replied, “Wrong—I was with the jurors.” A subsequent comment asked “mflgs” to clarify how he or she knew what had been posted earlier, and whether or not the commenter was a jury member, “mflgs” offered a reply: “Related to ... but I’m not making any more comments on this site. So sorry—we’ll see if I know what I’m talking about.”

In an earlier story, another commenter, identified only as “username1” of Bay Shore, had posted the following comment about the dismissal of a female juror, identified as Juror No. 10, on Monday: “Yes, in secret was interrogated and she revealed she may be capable of independent thought, thus the last stronghold of those above the law released her in his latest attempt to control the verdict and protect the home team at the cost of justice. In response, “mflgs” had posted the following comment early Wednesday afternoon: “You have no idea how accurate you are with what happened to #10.”

Based on reporting by staff writer Michael Wright.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Wow! Somebody READS our comments other than we!? I am shocked.
By highhatsize (4146), East Quogue on Dec 3, 09 12:32 PM
2 members liked this comment
Highhatsize, I am just as stunned...however, if you think about it, IMHO, any good attorney would be foolish not to read these comments!!
By mystcstar (51), Quogue on Dec 3, 09 1:10 PM
It was most likely someone who posts on these boards that notified the authorities.
By fcmcmann (417), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 1:30 PM
Report from staff writer Michael Wright:

Another note from the jury at around 12:30 p.m. today (Thursday). The jury members are asking the judge's instructions relating to "justification," the legal term that means acting in self-defense. They also asked to hear the 911 tape again--it was played for the first time in court during the prosecution's closing argument on Wednesday--and to review some of the photos submitted into evidence.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 12:40 PM
To clarify: Asking to once again hear the judge's instructions relating to "justification."
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 12:41 PM
More of a fishing expedition for the defense. I credit the defense for trying something because nothing can obscure the fact that Tony choked Mr. Reister for over two minutes and she knows it. I expect the jury to be back by dinner with the guilty murder verdict or a great miscarriage has occured.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 12:44 PM
I concur, and if the Karma police don't come in for this one.. I sure hope the Boondock Saints do...
By The Royal 'We' (198), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 12:49 PM
Under the circumstances, I suggest all comments on this case be closed until the verdict is delivered. That way, there can be no more deliberate attempts by certain commentators to cast doubt on the jury pool. Let them decide without the nonsense from last minute desperate tactics.
By EQme (112), East Quogue on Dec 3, 09 1:04 PM
2 members liked this comment
Good idea, however we all are very well aware, living on LI, how the media can try you find you guilty.

I have found that most media repeats other news articles, almost word for word, facts become twisted, and to begin with no one fact checked any of the information.
By mystcstar (51), Quogue on Dec 3, 09 1:16 PM
Still trying to defend yourself and still unwilling to take any responsibility for your ill-thought out actions.
By fcmcmann (417), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 1:28 PM
No, but I certainly have something to say about your continued insistence being a complete and total "Tool"
By fcmcmann (417), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 3:43 PM
2 members liked this comment
WOW! well since we all hide behind Internet screennames/addresses and profiles I cant believe anyone would take anything said here seriously! That is truly the defense grasping at straws!! I notice mflgs is gone.... maybe got scared they used the word subpeona... afraid they might find out he/she is nothing but a bag of hot air.
Im with you Highhat, cant believe anyone else reads this or takes these comments seriously.
By Sam (252), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 1:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
Another update from Reporter Michael Wright:

The jury is back in the courtroom to review the material it requested. The photos are of the tap room and bar at the Southampton Publick House, as well as photos the camera of Anthony Oddone's friend who was with him that night. A contact sheet shows the time each photo was taken.

Defense attorney Sarita Kedia maintains that the photo times are not accurate. She said the jury members should be asked if they want the testimony that talks ...more
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 1:28 PM
mystcstar...ummm this isnt about you...your 15 minutes was up last week.
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Dec 3, 09 1:49 PM
She has as much of a right to post as you.....
By NSea (10), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 2:34 PM
I never said she didn't. I simply stated that its not about her...
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Dec 3, 09 2:47 PM
PStevens: If your intention wasn't to muzzle Ms. Genovese, then what was it?
By Frank Wheeler (1818), Northampton on Dec 3, 09 3:08 PM
Coming from the man that attacks everyone on the boards while hardly ever commenting on the subject without insults. By the way, did you just respond to psstevens without commenting on the article. The asylum is giving you and Frank way too much computer time.
By fcmcmann (417), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 7:08 PM
Actually I was born an raised in the village of Southampton. I no longer reside there. I'm sure everyone knows what I meant by my comment. In as far as the case being air tight... I just want to see Mr. Oddone held accountable for his actions. I don't care if it was Murder 2 or Manslaughter. He killed someone. There is definitely something off about an individual who can do what he did. Was he so caught up in the moment that he didn't realize that the threat was neutralized? He should not ...more
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Dec 4, 09 9:22 AM
How come they didnt mention MY name at the trial?? I feel so shorted!! My posts werent compelling enough... oh well. Ha ha.... kidding.
By Sam (252), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 1:59 PM
Hiding behind the internet, we might not know who you are, and interact with you.. But, you knowingly interact with you Sam, and you're clearly a coward.. Then, you must also know this, yourself...

To post something so lame, about something so horrendous... The fact that something posted here effected a courtroom is bad enough...
By The Royal 'We' (198), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 3:37 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thanks for the updates, Joe and Michael.
By PBR (4945), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 4:46 PM
1 member liked this comment
To Royal my only response to you is to laugh & laugh.
By Sam (252), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 5:20 PM
Here we go-------
Its obvious what's happening here, The defence will grab at any straw to derail the trial. Any one of Oddone's sympathizers could have written that for the sole purpose of a mistrial, this way a plea could be offered in order to avoid the cost of another trial.

mflgs should be careful, he could end up on the wrong side of the law.
By pjcd (24), Smithtown on Dec 3, 09 6:02 PM
Absolutely, the defense should defend her client with every legal mean necessary. But grabbing at straws is grabbing at straws, the judges decision to deny her request speaks for itself.


By pjcd (24), Smithtown on Dec 3, 09 7:51 PM
Publius....

I have been following your comments on the deliberations phase of this trail, and I am wondering what you make of the information the jury asked for today, such as the repeated request for definitions of "justification"?
By observer (7), Sayville on Dec 3, 09 6:41 PM
That is like reading tea leaves. It is easy for me and anyone else here to pontificate about what the verdict should be, but we don't carry the responsibility of that verdict for the rest of our lives.

From what I have read here, after seven weeks of testimony, the jury is doing what it is supposed to do. Ask for charges it requires, ask for that evidence it thinks is important, and work their way through it.

This is not going to happen fast. It is a big deal to authorize the ...more
By Publius (358), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 6:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
I understand that patience is key, and I am not asking your thoughts on guilt or innocence, merely your thoughts on what has been asked for and the order in which it was asked for.

This is purely speculation, but it seems that yesterday the jury was asking for the legal definition of Murder 2. Today they have moved on to ask for the definition of justification. In earlier posts I believe you noted that justification, or self-defense, can not be considered in a Murder 2 or Man 1 charge, ...more
By observer (7), Sayville on Dec 3, 09 7:06 PM
The jury was instructed on self defense as it relates to both Murd 2 and Man 1.

It was MY own analysis that if the jury concluded that the defendant intended to kill Mr. Reister, the use of deadly force could not be justified because he had not been threatened with deadly force. You can't use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force.

With respect to Man 1 MY analysis was that when one person chokes another it is either with the intent to kill (guilty of Murd. 2) or to ...more
By Publius (358), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 7:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
Ok, I got ya. My questions were merely a brain picking of someone that seems to know a lot more about the law then I do (or is able to Google with better search queries..haha)

Personally I am fascinated with the legal issues around this case, (not to mention any other case I have the time to follow/observe) and your legal analysis is what I based my questions off of. As you can probably tell I have absolutely zero background in law, but its just a topic that I cant help but explore. ...more
By observer (7), Sayville on Dec 3, 09 8:09 PM
From our staff member Brendan O'Reilly, who is at the courthouse:

The jury was dismissed at 6:30 p.m. and will continue deliberations tomorrow morning.

Before ending the day's deliberations, the jury asked to review several of the medical documents in the case, including records from both Southampton Hospital and Stony Brook University Hospital, related to Andrew Reister's injuries, which proved fatal. They also sought a copy of the report from Mr. Reister's autopsy.

Judge ...more
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 7:09 PM
Why would the autopsy not be included ?
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 3, 09 7:36 PM
What is this jury thinking? Open and shut guilty, this isn't tv. This jury needs to wrap it up in the morning.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 3, 09 7:42 PM
OK --- for those of us that dot our i's & cross our ts --- why won't the autopsy be entered into evidence ?
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 3, 09 7:43 PM
fix-it,

Apparently because no one made the request after a witness had discussed/authenticated it. If the judge is right on this, it could be a crucial slip up on the part of the defense attorney, as the autopsy found an enlarged heart, I think?, among other possible causes of death.

Each piece of evidence is first marked for identification, then a witness testifies about it (laying a foundation for is admission into evidence), then it is admitted based on this testimony. BUT, ...more
By PBR (4945), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 8:01 PM
Sometimes a piece of evidence has both good and bad in it, such that neither party wants to put it into evidence.

You can bet both attorneys made an assessment, and made a conscious decision not to offer it into evidence. I would be surprised it it was an oversight.
By Publius (358), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 8:09 PM
Well you would think one or the other would have gone for it.
Thanks for the input.
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 3, 09 8:13 PM
each side wants to stack the deck --- & in ends up even tougher for the jury
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 3, 09 8:21 PM
My vote is for a slip up on the defense attorney's part. If I recall the medical testimony correctly, the enlarged heart and Reister's heart condition could have caused his death, not the choke hold, or at least not as the ONLY cause of death. Just one factor in lots of evidence. Publius could of course be correct. Hard to know from here.
By PBR (4945), Southampton on Dec 3, 09 8:23 PM
Guess this case was not as cut & dry as so many thought. He sounds guilty of murder to me. However I am well aware of how difficult it is to be a juror: emotionally, physically, mentally, morally, legally, etc. It might seem a slam dunk from the outside but jurors must take their verdict very seriously and be able to go home without doubting it so they can sleep at night.
By Sam (252), Westhampton Beach on Dec 3, 09 8:38 PM
Anybody else recognize a plot from Oddone's friends to have a mistrial declared? The two bloggers in question were admitted "close friends" of Oddone's, one of whom claimed to have been with him that night (username1). So perhaps the lawyer felt that if someone, anyone, claimed that the jury was tainted then a mistrial would be awarded. I think there might be some type of scheme between his friends and his lawyer on this one. Anyone else have those thoughts? What a terrible group of people ...more
By AlwaysLocal (292), southampton on Dec 4, 09 12:32 AM
I have been wondering the same thing. I am sure we are not alone in wondering...

Continued Prayers for strength and peace go out to Stacey and family!
By wondering (63), Southampton on Dec 4, 09 4:54 AM
This made natiional news so perphaps a trial in another country would make the defense lawyer happy! Maybe it was one of her friends planting this so she could try to use it? WHo knows but the judge did a sensible thing the jurors are supposed to stay away from the media while in trial. Just think they could have bee sequestered.....
By North Sea Citizen (561), North Sea on Dec 4, 09 6:33 AM
1 member liked this comment
"Sequestered" is what it should have been !
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 4, 09 10:57 AM
These jurors think they are on an episode of CSI or remaking 12 Angry Men. Some things are cut and dry and when somebody chokes somebody for over two minutes as a group is telling him to stop by hitting him and yelling at him that mis MURDER. God Bless the Reister family.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 8:50 AM
1 member liked this comment
alwayslocal: SHAME ON YOU.

I am one of Tony's best friends and I know none of his friends would do anything like that. All of us that are friends with Tony are good kids who have never been in trouble and stay around positive people. Tony is not a bad person and if you met him you would know this. That night was a terrible tradegy, not just for the Reister family.

And the fact that you say his friends and lawyer are plotting to say this stuff to get a mistrial???


I ...more
By friend4life (17), Ronkonkoma on Dec 4, 09 9:20 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 9:35 AM
Friend4life, not sure if you read my post on the previous article, but I think you are doing what any friend would do, which includes anyone interested in this case. You've stood by your friend and have acknowledge the tragedy the Reister family has had to endure. You have never been biased one way or the other and wish the best for EVERYONE that was involved. Like I said, your heart seems to be in the right place and if your friend is found guilty, well, he's lucky to have a friend like you who ...more
By SHres (18), Sag Harbor on Dec 4, 09 9:35 AM
1 member liked this comment
I bet, friend4life, that you would have told me (before this incident) that Tony was not capable of killing another man also-- wouldn't you have? So why would I take your word for it about his friends (who have danced all over Andy's grave on these blogs) not being capable of something that terrible?

As far as that night being "a terrible tragedy, not just for the Reister family" you are correct, it was a terrible tragedy for this community. Don't you dare suggest that your friend was ...more
By AlwaysLocal (292), southampton on Dec 5, 09 12:47 AM
friend4life- you beat me too it.

alwayslocal- you dont know tony nor his friends to say something like that. This is very hard for both sides
By yanks09 (4), Shirley on Dec 4, 09 9:57 AM
I know Tony, he is a punk, told a bouncer "F??K U," and choked him to death or over two minutes as recounted by EVERY witness and the way his friends are disrespecting the Reister family by trying to portray Andrew as some angry lurch is wrong. He has every right to call Tony and his friends this by the way they are acting on this message board.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 10:07 AM
fact: there was no identification on his shirt that he worked there so how anyone tell he was a bouncer?

My whole heart and deepest sympthies have always gone out to the reister family.
By yanks09 (4), Shirley on Dec 4, 09 10:37 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 10:51 AM
You guys amaze me. Tony is the victim here? This is very hard for both sides? Get a clue. Your friend killed our friend, the only reason it is hard for him is because he is being reprimanded for it. That deserves zero compassion. Tony was the murderer, NOT THE VICTIM.
By AlwaysLocal (292), southampton on Dec 5, 09 12:39 AM
Wait a minute, if someone isn't wearing a nametag on their shirt you can curse them out? What kind of a mentality does your group of friends have? Is this common for you guys? Unbelievable.
By AlwaysLocal (292), southampton on Dec 5, 09 1:01 AM
From reporter Michael Wright at about 10:30 a.m.:

Another jury note: The jury has asked the judge to again read the criteria for all of the charges under consideration in the case. This is the third time they've asked for all of the charges to be reviewed, and the fourth time the criteria for second-degree murder has been outlined for the jury.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 10:31 AM
P.S. Also worth noting: Today is defendant Anthony Oddone's 27th birthday.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 10:33 AM
Joe, here is to hoping that everyone who reads your PS will reflect on where they were in their life or would like to be on their 27th birthday, & leave it at that.
By fix-it-now (216), sag harbor on Dec 4, 09 11:16 AM
2 members liked this comment
What I am about to say has nothing to do with the case so relax.... I was best friends with tony only a few short years ago in college. he has done nothing but put himself through school, and supported himself since he was 17. To do this, he has been working manual labor jobs ever since I have known him. He has always been popular, and has had many friends. He always has a beautiful girl on his arm. he has always been there for me when I needed him, and he would do anything for his friends. ...more
By italianstallion (10), north salem on Dec 4, 09 10:51 AM
4 members liked this comment
I can not agree/disagree with any of the above as I did not know Tony. I knew Andrew just from being the same age and living in the next town over, so through school and sports I got to know him and we would run into one another every so often in town and exchange hellos. It was always pleasant and he always had a smile on his face. As I stated, I can't disagree with your friendship with Tony and won't throw stones as so many do.
I do however agree with you that it was a terrible tragedy for ...more
By SHres (18), Sag Harbor on Dec 4, 09 11:07 AM
1 member liked this comment
We should only refer to him by his full name, as it is listed on the court documents.. All this Tony talk makes me sick... Your 'Tony' friend killed somebody... I've been attending the Publick House for over 10 years, without incident.. Let alone handled myself accordingly, no matter how many microbrews I had...
Nobody ever killed anyone on our nights out for what's that word, oh yeah, fun...
There is nothing fun, about your friend 'Tony'... And all those Bridge fools are complete toolbags, ...more
By The Royal 'We' (198), Southampton on Dec 4, 09 12:17 PM
kind of man I want my son to be ?

are you insane?

Anyone who can choke someone to death like that is clearly a sociopath. Which fits in with the rest of his persona that you were alluding to. the popular, beautiful girl on his arm charming friend one moment, a cold and vicious murderer the next.

By C Law (349), Water Mill on Dec 4, 09 12:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
Another update from reporter Michael Wright:

The jury also asked for copies of three articles from medical journals that defense attorney Sarita Kedia had submitted during her cross examination of the county medical examiner. One had to do with causes of hemmorhages around the yes, and the other two were related to law enforcement's use of choke holds. But the judge denied the request, since those articles were never submitted as evidence in the case, only for identification.

I'm ...more
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 11:23 AM
> "causes of hemmorhages around the yes"

That would be "eyes," perhaps?
By Frank Wheeler (1818), Northampton on Dec 4, 09 11:29 AM
Indeed--sorry. The dangers of trying to get an update on the site as quickly as possible!
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 11:39 AM
The introduction into evidence of a document or a picture is ordinarily a two step process. First the item is marked for identification. Then questions are asked about that item in order to provide the foundation for admissibility and it can be referred to by counsel by its Identification number and the stenographer can record that, and the item is part of the record.

The second step after it has been marked for identification is to ask the questions and get the necessary testimony that ...more
By Publius (358), Westhampton Beach on Dec 4, 09 12:16 PM
I think we all understood what Joseph meant to say. No need to point it out. Thanks for all the updates, Im sure this is something that we all would like to be over with(pending the right outcome).
By nytractor (15), hampton bays on Dec 4, 09 11:38 AM
1 member liked this comment
It was "pointed out" in case he wished to correct it.

Apparently not even he can modify a comment once it is made.

No big deal.
By Frank Wheeler (1818), Northampton on Dec 4, 09 1:54 PM
Joseph - I'm going to answer what you asked for - the difference between something being admitted into evidence and just for identification and why the items the jury asked for were not entered into evidence.

In a criminal trial, an item can only be admitted into evidence when the proper foundation has been laid (someone already basically said this). So what happens is first, the item is marked for identification - so that later that item can be referred to again but at least that item ...more
By eclipse (7), Dix Hills on Dec 4, 09 12:10 PM
2 members liked this comment
Thanks to both you and Publius for more clearly explaining the situation.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 12:36 PM
Depending on how smart you are, or what you might think is " The Correct Thing To Do".......... Ask yourself this Question. IF the jury allready had it in their heads that he is guilty, this case WOULD have been done and over with But the Longer they sit in that small room, fighting each other, the less chance this "Person" get the 25- life that he deserves. BUT no matter what happens, he will do sometime "UPSTATE" and hopfully they will send him to a "SUPERMAX" prision. Were he will be locked ...more
By KAZ (26), HAMPTON BAYS on Dec 4, 09 1:21 PM
Kaz: its obvious that you dont know nor care to understand the type of person tony is. This was a tragic accident. if he does time he will not join a gang. He will stay out of trouble, mind his own business, and then come home to the support of all of us who support him and care about him.
By friend4life (17), Ronkonkoma on Dec 4, 09 1:57 PM
1 member liked this comment
yeah maybe he can meet ur grandkids
By HB 4 Life (72), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 2:06 PM
I just wanted to step in and say once again:

I realize this is a very emotional topic. But let's please stop insulting people. The purpose of commenting is to allow a broad range of comments, and we're making an effort to let things go as much as we can. But I'd ask for a little decorum. Let's be civil and respectful.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 2:20 PM
Hallelujah to that Mr Shaw!!
By Sam (252), Westhampton Beach on Dec 4, 09 2:48 PM
I'm coming in late but have read the articles. one thing that I feel important is whether Mr Oddone was trained in law enforcement or any martial arts. And, i can't find a clear timeline. Someone trained can render their opponent unconcious in less than 30 seconds. If not trained, this can take a while, in this instance is where death is more likely.

Another important issue that i missed is how big is Mr. Oddone? It can take a little guy longer to subdue someone thereby increasing ...more
By jpcamaro70 (3), Southampton on Dec 4, 09 2:58 PM
he has no training whatsoever
By yanks09 (4), Shirley on Dec 4, 09 3:11 PM
This alone makes this case not cut and dry. I have no training, and if i tried to subdue someone without hurting or killing them, I may not know when to stop, when the threat is neutralized. That is of course if Mr. Oddone felt threatened by Mr. Reister.

I do not know either party and am just throwing this out there.
By jpcamaro70 (3), Southampton on Dec 4, 09 3:20 PM
Mr. Shaw, in a perfect world that would be nice.... It would be great to get on here and discuss our feelings of the logistics of the case...but it becomes so personal on here too quickly... Above I tried to stay away from the case as much as possible and then CLaw gets in the act and gets all upset....these insulting posts wont be finished until the verdict comes out
By italianstallion (10), north salem on Dec 4, 09 3:04 PM
I understand that. There have been many strong comments on both sides, and I think that's okay. I think when the comments begin to be directed toward other commenters rather than to the issue at hand, we're losing the focus and turning what might otherwise be a lively and worthwhile exchange of ideas into a simple slugfest. Many sites welcome that...we're trying to keep this site from deteriorating into such an ugly scene.

I can't stop people from doing it. We can only police the site ...more
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 09 3:54 PM
2 members liked this comment
why are they calling this a "fight" ? this was clearly no "fight"
By local (106), north sea on Dec 4, 09 6:04 PM
It's been a struggle, in the coverage since the event occurred in August 2008, of how to characterize it when we refer to it.

For the record, we've described it variously as a "fight," a "physical altercation," etc. We're not trying to imply anything in using those terms, but simply trying to find an acceptable term in referencing the incident. Apologies if anyone finds those words inappropriate.
By Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor (206), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 09 11:01 AM
Stop bickering back and forth.... go have fun at the Publick House.
By Disgusted (45), Sag Harbor on Dec 5, 09 6:14 PM
What do you work at there or something? You keep talking about peace and how anger isn't good for anyone, yet you're making your underhanded cheeky comment about the Publick House on every thread here. What's your point? Can't be a good one. How about you take your own advice, or maybe just step way from the comments section for a spell.
By maryb123 (84), east hampton on Dec 5, 09 8:22 PM
Never mentioned anything about peace & how anger isn't good for anyone.
By Disgusted (45), Sag Harbor on Dec 5, 09 9:00 PM
I don't work at the Publick House...just trying to add a little humor and lighten things up a bit. Its not worth it...the Jury is in charge. Its in their hands.
By Disgusted (45), Sag Harbor on Dec 5, 09 9:05 PM
Mr. Oddone, chose to drink, chose to get on the table, chose not to listen to security in a private establishment, chose to put his hands/arm around the neck of security, chose not to let go.. murder ,second degree... as opposed to millions of people who that night chose not do drink, not to get up on a table, not to strangle anyone... regardless of what Mr. Oddone was FEELLING.. he chose behaviors and now needs to pay the consequences of his chosen behaviors....
By grimag (38), southampton on Dec 7, 09 8:40 AM
this just keeps going and going. Oddone felt threatened - no one at anytime had on identifying Security garb.

Reister was a trained gurad he knew how to difuse and how to incite. he chose to incite - why - we will never know. maybe he was trying to impress someone at the bar - maybe he had a bad day at work - maybe he was a bully.
he was 6'4", 285lbs - picked out a 6' 170 lbs target.

as a prison guard i am 99% sure he was prohibited from working as a bouncer. all the witnesses ...more
By shamrock (22), brooklyn on Dec 18, 09 6:26 PM
Hot Tubs,SALE, Southampton Village, SouthamptonFest weekend