[jettio]

A lot of court cases involve disputes about the facts that make up the story of "what happened?"

Each side gets to tell its own story about "what happened" and ask the fact-finder, the judge or jury, to believe their description about "what happened".

It seems like the prosecutor and the alleged victim, the freshman wrestler, feel like the defendant, the senior wrestler, intentionally shoved two fingers up his azz for no good reason.

The defendant does not dispute that he intentionally shoved two fingers up the freshman's azz, he claims that he has some sports related justification for doing it.

If I were the fact-finder, I might think that a senior wrestler should be able to handle a match against a freshman wrestler well enough that he would not have to resort to such extraordinary measures in a practice match. I would think there is a good chance that the freshman wrestler's contention that the senior wrestler had bad intentions would seem believable.

This seems like the kind of thing that should be decided in court. People that complain about something like this being a court case should explain what the freshman kid should do to seek vindication if he is right that the guy was not doing a legit wrestling move but was being a prick.

Should the freshman wrestler get a baseball bat and beat the senior wrestler's brains out so that he could be the one to go to court for that?