If Zim said it then it must be true. If this is true then how did TM know Zim had a gun?
I think that you are grossly misunderstanding me and most of those here and elsewhere who are sticking up for him. I am not saying that he was proven innocent by any means. That is not needed under the USA justice system. Under this system he needs to be proven guilty. As long as there is a reasonable possibility that it was self defense then he must be aquitted. In my opinion, and it seems to me that this is the opinion of many here, there was no more than shaky proof offered that it was not self defense. In that case he cannot be found guilty.
This is how OJ was aquitted. "If the glove doesn't fit you must aquit". Here the glove doesn't fit.