> 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.
I don't agree that this is an adequate summary of the concept of self-defense, but whatever.
> 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:
Thinking about the broader context is fine, but you've just been making up facts that aren't grounded to reality and fitting them into a (convoluted!) narrative that seems to please you; like I said, you've been in the Court of Wojtek, where surely you are king. I will say however, that I don't think this case HAS a broader social context. I don't think it represents a precedent, a trend, or Something Important to watch for. A dark night, bad decisions, tragic actions, dozens of shattered lives. End of story.
I think it's been a big waste of time, frankly.
> Do you think that justice has been served by acquitting Z of any
> wrongdoing in this case?
I know that you know that this is not what happened. Trials are about a particular thing, there's no such thing as a trial that ends with "acquitting Z of any wrongdoing" ... he was acquitted of the particular charges brought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies
/jordan