Author Topic: Zimmerman vs. Travon  (Read 4351 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2012, 08:14:51 AM »
Jesus Christ man. Really?

the defense is free to introduce as many theories as it wants.  They do it all the time.  Most of the time, jurors dont' see it as credible.  The prosecutors make their case.  The defense attacks that, and maybe introduces their own weird theories.  The prosecution is under no obligation to address & disprove every silly theory the defense can come up with.

They tell the jury what happened, and the jury has to believe it or not beleive it.  That's it.

So yea, zimmerman can say he was attacked, he can say aliens did it, he can say it was the one-armed man.  And the prosecution DOES NOT have to prove there wasn't a one-armed man running hte streets.  They only have to show an angry, armed man chased a kid 2 blocks in the dark. 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2012, 11:49:40 AM »
Nothing unusual.  It's a nationwide story.  Of course there will be numerous threads about it.  Big deal.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39901
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2012, 11:52:13 AM »
Nothing unusual.  It's a nationwide story.  Of course there will be numerous threads about it.  Big deal.

Got to love Hugo - pops in every now and then to complain about the threads while rarely or never offering ones of his own.    ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39901
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2012, 10:33:53 AM »
Dershowitz: Prosecutor Should Drop Charges Against Zimmerman
 The New American ^ | 23 May, 2012 | R. Cort Kirkwood

Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:51:56 AM by marktwain

Leftist Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says special prosecutor Angela Corey should drop the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, the Hispanic man who shot Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Florida.

The evidence that Zimmerman told the truth when he said Martin attacked and tried to kill him, Dershowitz wrote in the New York Daily News, is too much to ignore. And the only right thing for the prosecutor to do, he concluded, is forget about nailing Zimmerman for murder.

Dershowitz has been speaking out about the case since the prosecutor released an affidavit that Dershowitz said fell fall short of what is legally required. Most notably, it lies by omission, he implied.

Prosecutor Unethical

The Harvard law professor unbosomed his opinion after prosecutors released the evidence in the case, including photos and a report about Zimmerman’s injuries sustained in the fight for his life against the enraged 17-year-old football player.

As The New American reported last week, the medical evidence backs up the account Zimmerman gave police: that Martin brutally attacked him, breaking his nose and bashing his head into the ground, before Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot the teenager.

The medical report showed that Zimmerman had a “closed fracture” of the nose, lacerations on his head and a minor back injury. Photos confirm the written report.

As well, the autopsy on Martin showed Zimmerman shot him at close range, which is, again, consistent with Zimmerman’s account, and that Martin had an abrasion on one of his fingers and trace amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his system. Whether Martin was stoned when he attacked Zimmerman is unclear.

Dershowitz says the time has come to drop the case. “If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professional,” he wrote, adding,



There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

Dershowitz also reprised earlier his remarks of a few weeks ago, which suggested that the prosecutor’s affidavit was faulty because did not contain exculpatory evidence. “She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense,” he wrote.

A few weeks ago, Dershowitz noted that such affidavits must contain “all relevant information,” and that not including evidence that would prove Zimmerman’s innocence is “unethical,” “immoral” and “irresponsible.” He even called the affidavit “stupid.”

This week, Dershowitz explained more:



The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events.

Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.



Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

Dershowitz is highly concerned that Corey said her job was to get “justice for Trayvon Martin” but not for George Zimmerman. That, Dershowitz wrote, is not a prosecutor’s job. Nor he wrote, is her job to get a conviction to avoid racial troubles that might arise should Zimmerman go free:



As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”

But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means. …

The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim.

As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins ... when justice is done.”

Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.

Evidence Likely Means Acquittal

Corey charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in early April. At the time, legal experts wondered how she would get a conviction given the high standard of evidence required to prove such a crime. That evidence must include proof that the accused “evinc[ed] a depraved mind regardless of human life.” The defense experts concluded that she “overcharged” to force a plea deal from Zimmerman.

But then the prosecutor released the affidavit, which suggested they had no case. Dershowitz noted as much at the time: The evidence, he said, is “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge.” He also called the affidavit a “grave ethical violation” because of what it didn’t include: the evidence supported Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him.

Indeed, Dershowitz confidently said the evidence was so weak Zimmerman would be probably be acquitted, and he accused Corey of trying to score political points with the charge. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged,” he said. “f the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit — this case will result in an acquittal.”

Now Dershowitz flatly calls on Corey to drop the case.


Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2012, 11:03:24 AM »
Quote
Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

This is it, right here.
240, go end yourself.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2012, 11:05:03 AM »
If the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit — this case will result in an acquittal.”

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

That's fine.  If we have seen 100% of the damning evidence against Zimmerman, then yes, it's weak.

But methinks the republican prosecutor hasn't released everything she has ;)


Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2012, 11:09:50 AM »
If the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit — this case will result in an acquittal.”

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

That's fine.  If we have seen 100% of the damning evidence against Zimmerman, then yes, it's weak.

But methinks the republican prosecutor hasn't released everything she has ;)



.....


Quote
The Harvard law professor unbosomed his opinion after prosecutors released the evidence in the case, including photos and a report about Zimmerman’s injuries sustained in the fight for his life against the enraged 17-year-old football player


Quote
suggested they had no case. Dershowitz noted as much at the time: The evidence, he said, is “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge.” He also called the affidavit a “grave ethical violation” because of what it didn’t include: the evidence supported Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him

Quote
Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2012, 11:11:12 AM »

The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events.

Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

. . .

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

Dershowitz is highly concerned that Corey said her job was to get “justice for Trayvon Martin” but not for George Zimmerman. That, Dershowitz wrote, is not a prosecutor’s job. Nor he wrote, is her job to get a conviction to avoid racial troubles that might arise should Zimmerman go free:


Why didn't the prosecutor include this information when she charged Zimmerman?  Probably because, as Dershowitz says, she is trying to get "justice" for Martin but not Zimmerman.  

The prosecutor has admitted they have no evidenced Zimmerman started the fight?  How the heck are they going to prove murder?  Talk about an abuse of power.  Scary stuff.  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2012, 11:16:44 AM »
The shoot itself was legal.  I've said that for over a month now.


But since he did everything he could to cause the situation where he could be a hero, taking down the thug as police arrived, and he was an angry prick busybody..

Lock him up!

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2012, 11:19:47 AM »
The shoot itself was legal.  I've said that for over a month now.


But since he did everything he could to cause the situation where he could be a hero, taking down the thug as police arrived, and he was an angry prick busybody..

Lock him up!
Legal shoot means he didnt break any laws fucknuts.

Its very clearly laid out for you - someone can initiate a fight and still kill someone in self-defense.

This is your personal opinion of how the world SHOULD work, in 240 land. Not how it actually works. Thanks for proving my point.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2012, 11:54:24 AM »
Legal shoot means he didnt break any laws fucknuts.

Its very clearly laid out for you - someone can initiate a fight and still kill someone in self-defense.

This is your personal opinion of how the world SHOULD work, in 240 land. Not how it actually works. Thanks for proving my point.

juries 'correct' moral injustices all the time.

a kid is dead because this jackass manipulated the law and exaggerated shit to law enforcement...
a kid is dead because this jackass didn't have the self-control to just wait in truck...
a kid is dead because of zimmerman.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2012, 12:05:09 PM »
juries 'correct' moral injustices all the time.

a kid is dead because this jackass manipulated the law and exaggerated shit to law enforcement...
a kid is dead because this jackass didn't have the self-control to just wait in truck...
a kid is dead because of zimmerman.
1.Proof. You keep saying this, but not ONE time have you proven that "Juries correct "moral" injusticies all the time." (Especially considering thats not there fucking job).
There job is justice in the eyes of the law. Not to punish others based on their view of morality (which is different person to person). I sure hope one day you wind up on the other end of a jury enforcing their version of "morality" just so you can know what its like to not break any laws and still wind up in jail and your life ruined.

2.Inconsequential, why the fuck would he have to stay in his truck?

3.Only true thing in your whole statement.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2012, 12:11:00 PM »
Oh, zimm was exaggerating shit on that 911 call. 

"Proof"?   My bullshit detector.  Jurors have them too.  He was making it up as he went along.

"The guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about"

yeah, he's making it up as it goes.  Listen to it.  He's bullshittin'

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2012, 12:16:14 PM »
Oh, zimm was exaggerating shit on that 911 call. 

"Proof"?   My bullshit detector.  Jurors have them too.  He was making it up as he went along.

"The guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about"

yeah, he's making it up as it goes.  Listen to it.  He's bullshittin'

*shakes head, leaves building in amazement of the display of utter idiocy.*

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2012, 12:22:29 PM »
*shakes head, leaves building in amazement of the display of utter idiocy.*

Did ya listen to the tape?  ZImm is full of shit.  He just wants police there to check out a person he doesn't like the looks of.

He's using the police for his own little investigative mission, profiling a kid just walking home from the store with a snack.

And if he's full of shit about what happened right before the shooting, it's a safe bet he's lying about the shooting too.  Oh, and the inconsistencies with the story that are coming out confirm that too.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2012, 12:24:05 PM »
Did ya listen to the tape?  ZImm is full of shit.  He just wants police there to check out a person he doesn't like the looks of.

He's using the police for his own little investigative mission, profiling a kid just walking home from the store with a snack.

And if he's full of shit about what happened right before the shooting, it's a safe bet he's lying about the shooting too.  Oh, and the inconsistencies with the story that are coming out confirm that too.
Youre convicting a man BASED ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL BULLSHIT DETECTOR.

I cant even begin to come up with how retarded that is.

You should never, ever be allowed on a jury.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2012, 12:28:05 PM »
Youre convicting a man BASED ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL BULLSHIT DETECTOR.

I cant even begin to come up with how retarded that is.

You should never, ever be allowed on a jury.

Jurors are always given TWO versions of events.  At least one of them is false.  Sometimes both. 

Jurors are trusted to take the evidence and theories into consideration, using their brains, common sense, and bullshit detectors, and reach a conclusion.  The 12 of them sit down, talk it out, decide who is the liar, who is credible, and they reach their verdict.

And if I was a juror, I would listen to the tape and say "oh, that dude lyin..."

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2012, 12:30:50 PM »
Jurors are always given TWO versions of events.  At least one of them is false.  Sometimes both. 

Jurors are trusted to take the evidence and theories into consideration, using their brains, common sense, and bullshit detectors, and reach a conclusion.  The 12 of them sit down, talk it out, decide who is the liar, who is credible, and they reach their verdict.

And if I was a juror, I would listen to the tape and say "oh, that dude lyin..."
Thats why you shouldnt ever be on a jury.
Bullshit detectors are NOT an approved way to determine if someone is telling the truth or not in a court of law... Jesus fucking Christ.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2012, 12:44:18 PM »
Thats why you shouldnt ever be on a jury.
Bullshit detectors are NOT an approved way to determine if someone is telling the truth or not in a court of law... Jesus fucking Christ.

phrase it any way you like.  Jurors hear two stories and deem at least one of them NOT CREDIBLE.

You can call it bullshit detector, you can call it "believing it not to be credible". 

Every single time, the jury finds at least one of the theories presented - from the defense and/or the prosecution - NOT CREDIBLE.   Or, as I like to call it, bullshit.

The prosecutor will say ZImmerman profiled then chased trayvon thru the yards and got into a fight and shot him.  They'll point out inconsistencies in his testimony, and deem him not credible.  They'll show evidence and witnesses that support that. 

The defense will do the opposite - pointing out evidence and witnesses they think helps sell their story that zimm's anger all went away and he was talking back to truck and was attacked and shot in self-defense.

Then, 12 Floridians will have to enter a room and talk about it.  They'lll determine one of the stories is believable, and one is not. 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2012, 12:47:07 PM »
I think a reasonable juror would look at the set of FACTS - Zimmerman said trayvon had run away from him.   The distances from truck shows trayvon had run at least 2 blocks.  Zimmerman walked himself 2 blocks on his own two feet.  

Jurors have to decide who they believe started the fight.  Which one was using profanity and pursuing the other.  They jury doesn't need 100% anythng - they convict ppl all the time without videotapes of shooting.  hell, often they'll only have a body with zero testimony, and they'll have to weigh evidence and decide what happened.  This fcked up visoin people have - that without a videotape of the shooting PROVING zimm wrong, he walks...

Well, they charged his ass.  That says a lot.


This is wrong. They can't base their verdict solely on a personal hunch. It has to be based on PROOF.

I am sure that there were jurors who believed that based on her actions Casey Anthony killed her daughter. But, there wasn't enough evidence or strong enough evidence by the prosecutor connecting her to the murder.

There is no evidence here showing who started the fight, but there is evidence that Zimm got his butt whuped and may have felt his life was in danger.

There isn't any solid evidence as to who began the fight. Therefore, Zimm is free to go. Like it or not.

Casey's case seemed to have a greater chance of a guilty verdict than this case when it began.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2012, 12:55:05 PM »
There isn't any solid evidence as to who began the fight. Therefore, Zimm is free to go. Like it or not.

If someone chases me 2 blocks in the dark with a gun while calling me a punk and an asshole...
and I run away from him...

oh, his ass has already started a fight by making me fear for my life.




Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2012, 01:01:02 PM »
If someone chases me 2 blocks in the dark with a gun while calling me a punk and an asshole...
and I run away from him...

oh, his ass has already started a fight by making me fear for my life.





Quote
Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2012, 01:10:31 PM »
If someone chases me 2 blocks in the dark with a gun while calling me a punk and an asshole...
and I run away from him...

oh, his ass has already started a fight by making me fear for my life.





Really?

Have you beaten people up for just staring at you?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #48 on: May 24, 2012, 01:19:12 PM »
Really?

Have you beaten people up for just staring at you?


Dude with a gun chases you two blocks at night while calling you punk and asshole...

and you don't fear for your life?  lol!

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Zimmerman vs. Travon
« Reply #49 on: May 24, 2012, 01:20:54 PM »

This is wrong. They can't base their verdict soley on a personal hunch. It has to be based on PROOF.

I am sure that there were jurors who believed that based on her actions Casey Anthony killed her daughter. But, there wasn't enough evidence or strong enough evience by the prosecutor connecting her to the murder.

There is no evidence here showing who started the fight, but there is evidence that Zimm got his butt whuped and may have felt his life was in danger.

There isn't any solid evidence as to who began the fight. Therefore, Zimm is free to go. Like it or not.

Casey's case seemed to have a greater chance of a guilty verdict than this case when it began.

+1