So sure, maybe Z lied about being on the bottom, but again: evidence and testimony seem to support it. Another cop testified that when he got there, Z had grass clippings on his back. And other than his broken nose, all Z's damage was to the back of his head.
In any case, whether it supports it or not, it certainly does not support the other way around."
[WS:] OK, I see it now. All that matters is who got better of whom during a cock fight and thus had the right to self defense. So I plead nolo contendere to your claims. But for a moment, please focus on a broader social context of this case and answer the following question, which I have been asking time and again:
Do you think that justice has been served by acquitting Z of any wrongdoing in this case?
Please answer this question only. Thank you.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."