As it should be? You can’t convict someone without physical evidence. Ex partners can be spiteful, mine would love to put me in jail. If she could just walk up to a judge and say “he hit me” and get me thrown in prison, she would. We can’t allow a justice system like that.
Interesting settlement: “The court said Zverev must pay 200,000 euros (£170,000), with 150,000 euros going to the German state treasury and the rest to non-profit organisations.”
Both sides have agreed to discontinue with proceedings, and Zverev is basically paying the bill to the courts for their time so far.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-tennis-player-zverev-agrees-to-settle-assault-case/a-69298930
"I think it's important to continue living without any further blame," Lüders told the court. "That is what has been agreed here. It's a good ending, it's a success."
"Alexander Zverev has agreed to this discontinuation via his defense lawyer, solely in order to shorten the proceedings, above all in the interests of their child. Alexander Zverev is considered innocent."
“ the ex-girlfriend's lawyers said that they wanted to avoid the trial dragging on for months.”
I don’t know Rick, it looks fake to me. They’ve been on this process for years! And now they just want to close it? It sounds fishy
["I told you so from the start. I told everybody. I'm happy that it's over.Yeah, nothing else more to say. That's it. Four years"](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240607-tennis-star-zverev-wants-to-move-on-after-assault-case-dropped#:~:text=%22I%27m%20happy%20that%20it%27s%20over.%20Yeah%2C%20nothing%20else%20more%20to%20say.%20That%27s%20it.%20Four%20years.%20I%27m%20happy%20about%20that.%22)
Here’s what the trial was about
> The case has gone to trial because Zverev is contesting a penalty order and fine of €450,000 ($489,000) that were issued in October last year in relation to the alleged incident. He maintains the presumption of innocence until the trial is complete.
Hmm, wondering what is the point of paying the treasury? Like why is treasury “earning” money for this case?
For me, it should be either the ex-girlfriend or nonprofit orgs…
False accusations aren’t that common, and he’s been accused by two different women. I’ve seen his behaviour on court. If he’s allowed this deal to make sure truth doesn’t come to light, I’m still allowed to have an opinion based on what’s publicly known - I believe the multiple women.
Uh I think they were referring to the rape accusation first and foremost, the sniffing and creepy behavior around women and children is additional.
Also, his own daughter talks about him molesting her in the shower...
buttery males literally cannot fucking help themselves. doesn't matter when or where or what the topic is. are we investigating widespread lead poisoning or are we all gonna pretend that people haven't gotten at least 15 iq points stupider in the last 10 years?
Every proven false accusation is reported because it is rare and thus generates public interest. If anything, it has been proven time and time again that the reputation and money of celebrity gets likely abusers off the hook
On the other hand, Zverev has been scrutinized every which way for years by numerous lawyers, judges and investigators and has not been found guilty. You'd think that if he really did it there would be *something*, especially in a high profile case like this.
False accusations are actually decently common but I think in this case it was more of a nuanced situation that the two parties interpreted very differently.
I hope everyone can find their peace now and move on with their lives.
On court behaviour obviously doesn't mean anything. If that's your criteria then at least 20% of all tennis players are abusers and Rublev is Hitler.
I dont understand how 2 women make it more likely he’s guilty. If there’s not enough evidence for the prosecution and they say, “but two people accused him!” you really think the judge would by that?
hint: you still need evidence to find him guilty so you can have 100 v 1, if there’s not enough evidence to find him guilty, he’s not guilty, understand?
>I dont understand how 2 women make it more likely he’s guilty.
2 being bigger than 1 is how it seems more likely. I am not claiming anything about his guilt in absolute terms.
I'm not saying it does, I'm responding to your original question. Not sure if you're trolling me by being purposefully obtuse or really lack basic reading comprehension, but I wasted enough of my life trying to engage with you already, have a nice day.
I don't have the statistics for domestic violence but I do know that false reports for rape are about 8-10%, which I consider common. The fact that multiple independent and state investigations cleared him of wrongdoing certainly points in that direction as well.
I went by Google. There's numbers for a few countries and it ranges from 5 to 10% with most being around 8%. To me that's pretty common but maybe you have a different definition for what common is.
Tell me you don't understand how power and money works, without saying you don't know how power and money works. He could be innocent but generally when there are multiple accusations there is some fire to the smoke (Cosby, Weinstein, P Diddy, Kevin Spacey, R Kelly). For me R Kelly was the big one--there was SO MUCH physical evidence and it took a lot of determined people to put him away. Money can make a lot of things like physical evidence go away, and there are a lot of people invested in looking the other way because of the gravy train or simply because they don't want to believe that someone is capable of something like this.
People are so desperate to cry that any woman coming forward is a gold digger and Zverev is innocent but that’s an opinion an here’s mine- I think he’s a disgusting, abusive man and his on and off court behaviour is enough for me to never want to see him on my screen again.
Other than being defaulted for hitting the umpire chair to intimidate him (which i agree he should have been defaulted for) what other on court behavior are you referring to?
Edit: also i think you meant his ALLEGED off court behavior. Just gotta correct you there
this isn't a result. this is essentially the courts saying the trial never happened. the judge's summary explicitly states that this decision is a declaration of neither guilt nor innocence.
Considering the fact that Serena Williams is no longer an active player and isn’t being accused of domestic violence right now I’d have to say this is the dumbest example of whataboutism I’ve seen recently
"Whataboutism" is a fake reddit term. I'm only talking about on-court presence. If that's what decides your opinion on a player, you would hate a good amount of players.
not really, I still think he’s a disgusting abuser who’s going to rot in hell just like you chose to lick his backside- we’re all entitled to an opinion
I saw him lying about having diabetes when his ex tried to kill herself with his insulin to make her out to be a liar, I saw the evidence she provided against him, I saw the scratches on his neck, I saw him assaulting the umpire, I see the way he behaves to other players who don’t worship him, so yeah I’ve seen enough
because I saw the other proof of what he did to his other ex, including lying and saying he didn’t have diabetes when it turns out she’d tried to kill herself with his insulin then admitting it when he wanted good PR, I’ve seen the way he behaves on court, and again I’m not a judge or jury nor do I have any real power over his life so no, I don’t have to think he’s innocent
The fact the ex-girlfriend got absolutely nothing speaks volumes of evidence that would support your opinion. Regardless, people like you will continue to smear Sasha and wish him harm - abhorrent behavior, objectively.
Where is the proof that he's abusive? I think most would agree that harm toward someone who is abusive and harmful to others is necessary in some form within the confines of the law. But, we have zero proof that Sasha is abusive. No money went toward the accuser, which means she knew she couldn't convince the legal system of abuse. So, if you're accepting of the facts then your logic is grounded only in emotion. Cancel culture lives off of this kind of thinking, and it's a dangerous path to be on. I recommend studying world war 2 propaganda to understand further.
Why the fuck are you bringing the Nazis into a post about a wife beater? Two women accusing him, one of whom didn’t ask for money and the other whom tried to have this done anonymously and hasn’t spoken out against him in the media is enough for me. You’re clearly intent on living up his arse- that’s your opinion. Mine is that he’s a dangerous abuser and I hope he faces karma in this life or the next.
remember when he said he didn’t have diabetes cos his ex girlfriend (who provided proof, not the court ex but a different ex he allegedly strangled) tried to kill herself with his insulin but then it turned out he did? the boy’s a liar and I’m not judge, jury nor his mother so I don’t have to believe him
Is there any point at which the evidence submitted will be made public?
From a public interest and ethical standpoint, the relevant question is whether he strangled the girl. She is still maintaining he did; he is saying he didn't. Something was submitted to allow the court to initially conclude that he did.
The opaque nature of this settlement just sucks.
Remember when his other ex girlfriend tried to kill herself with his insulin because of the way he treated her and he said she was a liar and he isn’t diabetic but turns out he is actually diabetic so who’s the liar here?
great so he gets off basically consequence free again, and the ATP will have learned nothing so we'll still not get an abuse policy. super cool and fun!
No one has proven it one way \*or\* the other, but the accusation was considered credible enough for him to be fined as part of the initial judgement. Even if that wasn't the case, you're overlooking sapdieyv's point about the ATP. Putting Zverev completely aside, their lack of attention to this issue is insulting.
Right, because \*both\* sides agreed to settle. That is not the same thing as the court retracting its initial position of there being enough credibility in the accusation to impose the fine/court order. In the same way that this settlement is not an admission of guilt on the part of the accused, it's not an admission of innocence on the part of the accuser or the court.
But Zverev said it is, which is just factually incorrect. He's insatiable when it comes to his ego on a beyond-Novak level. He can claim he is innocent, that's fine. But to claim that this settlement is equivalent to anyone \*else\* claiming or proving or admitting he is innocent is just. not. true.
The two sides being Zverev and the German government. It is a legal fact that the previous fine is null and void due to the government giving up the case.
I dont think anyone, including Zverev, saying he did or can prove he is innocent understand the law. The two possible verdicts are guilty and not guilty. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Does anyone read? The agreement involved the accuser's lawyers as well.
Regardless, when the court declares the defendant has been proven innocent, call me. Until then, I can believe anything I want and so can his sponsors. Hell, even after a verdict of not guilty, there's a reason OJ never worked again. That's how this stuff works, whether anyone including me or you likes it or not, and that's really the point I'm making.
The accuser’s lawyer is not a party, but was consulted. By saying “court declares the defendant has been proven innocent,” you display a misunderstanding of the basic functions of law so we are done here.
The settlement would not have happened without that consultation.
Statement from the very court whose decision you all are hoisting up as vindication of this man: “**The decision is not a verdict and it is not a decision about guilt or innocence. One decisive factor for the court decision was that the witness has expressed her wish to end the trial**.“
I understand the basic functions of law perfectly. You're the one who implied presumption of innocence is some kind of moral obligation or axiom of humanity rather than a legal principle. "One is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes, by a COURT. Not by the public. The verdict of "not guilty" is not a verdict of innocence (if you think it is, YOU don't understand the basic functions of law). Innocent in the eyes of the law is not the same as proven innocence, it simply means they cannot punish you because you were not proven guilty, because the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, not the defense. Of course there is no such thing as proof or declaration of innocence. If you acknowledge that, you're acknowleding that he has not been proven innocent. That's why, absent any verdict, I can believe whatever I want and so can you.
Did you read the part where I said "putting Zverev completely aside"? I'm talking about the \*future\*.
Murray feels the same way btw: [https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/24/andy-murray-calls-for-atp-tour-to-create-domestic-abuse-policy](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/24/andy-murray-calls-for-atp-tour-to-create-domestic-abuse-policy)
Christ, even the NFL has a policy. So does the NBA and MLB. Look it up. Does anyone on this sub do any of their own research or do they spend all their time with their noses up Zverev's butt.
I did answer it. I’m not obligated to paste the entirety of other sports’ policies here. You obviously don’t think there should be one. Look up the NFL’s and the MLB’s and you’ll have your answer. Hell, even by the standards the CURRENT rulebook he should've been suspended, but this sport's officials HAVE no "integrity": "The ATP Tour rulebook allows for a provisional suspension of a player who is charged with a civil or criminal offense that is “contrary to the integrity of the Game of Tennis”
I’m kind of frustrated that there’s no resolution from this. I was hoping a court would find he either did it or did not do it. Now it’s all still gray.
Might be for the best for Patea that it's still gray if she was willing to settle. Pulled out of court this week amid health. If it was due to mental health, would've affected her ability to care for her child properly. She wanted anonymity for both parties but was unable to get that.
If people wanted justice, there are other forms of it. Zverev is still very unlikely to secure the quantity and quality of sponsorships available to other tennis players. He might have an Adidas one, but he's locked into that and the terms of that deal are never going to reach the numbers that other stars will receive due to the public nature of the allegations. Wikipedia page is still going to list history of alleged domestic violence, and articles existing of it.
Obviously it's not an ideal outcome if there was a good chance of him being found guilty. But he'll still have public relations consequences.
I mean based on this thread, I would say plenty of people still support him which is sickening. I guess there is a silver lining with him not getting as much sponsorships but abusers never stop abusing and I feel it's only a matter of time before it happens to someone else. Granted that would probably happen regardless of a trials outcome
Sports fans are constantly spouting “innocent until proven guilty”. It’s such bullshit. Two different accusers coming forward AND seemingly not to get money proves guilt to me. Should that be enough to prove guilt in the courts? Hell no, but I can make judgments without the court ruling. Do these same people believe that OJ was innocent? It just baffles me that they act as though the court ruling innocent means they’re innocent when you need 95% proof (beyond a reasonable doubt, in the US) that a crime was actually committed for them to be guilty, and domestic abuse and sexual abuse are so difficult to prove
And in this case, there was no court ruling so he's neither guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law. He's established a pattern on and off the court that gives me a bad feeling about him. Victims of domestic violence rarely come forward and rarely go through a trial, it's really a shame and now we have to deal with this asshole. Except we all know it's going to happen again...
I’m a little late, but courts very rarely find that someone didn’t do a crime. The verdicts are guilty (the evidence proved they did it beyond a reasonable doubt) and not guilty (the evidence didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). People who are not guilty very often intact did commit the crime they are accused of. And people who are guilty sometimes didn’t commit the crime they were convicted of.
Technically yes, but the sequence of events is:
1. Court said he had to pay a fine and from the collected evidence said he was guilty
2. Zverev contested and moved it to trial
3. Settled out of court
Your presumption of innocence comes from a technicality, when a case goes to court there’s a presumption of innocence until the judge/jury decision is out. Zverev and his team played to this tune, moved the process to court, pushed for settlement and now can forever claim that he hasn’t been proven guilty.
> Technically
The best kind of correct.
> can forever claim that he hasn’t been proven guilty
That means "innocent", due to the presumption of innocence "until proven guilty". If he wasn't proven guilty, well...
And this wasn't a settlement with the person involved. It was a criminal case. So it was the state. If the state didn't go forward with a high profile case involving domestic abuse, it just means there wasn't enough proof for _conviction_.
I said you were correct because of a technical aspect of the law, not because he’s proven innocence. Technically is only innocent because the e trial didn’t go ahead, not because he proved innocence. However he’d already been fined, so this is a bit of a loophole he exploited
There's far more nuance to it than that. The reason a defendant not declared guilty is declared "not guilty" is because the burden of proof is on the proseuction, which means only two things can occur: proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or no proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is why some cases are so easy for the defense to win: because they don't prove innocence. They don't have to. They don't have to prove anything. All they have to to is introduce \*just enough\* doubt in the jury's mind of the defendant's guilt. But absence of proof of guilt does not magically become the presence of proof of innocence. It simply is the bar to clear for a guilty verdict. And absent a trial, a settlement isn't a verdict at all, because you can't have a verdict without a trial and you can't have a trial without a presentaiton of evidence.
And it \*was\* a settlement with the person involved because she was the one that pressed charges and it was \*her\* lawyers that had to agree to settle. What we don't know (what hasn't been proven....which means.....**finish it with me.....we in the court of public opinioin can presume whatever tf we want**) is whether she received money as part of the settlement.
Yo why so many downvotes on this comment?! Like he literally said he had trust in the system and settling out of court looks guilty af, are we forgetting the Diddy and Cassie of it all? Why would you settle outside court if you're innocent is what I don't understand.
Not a bad choice for who exactly? If you wanted to clear your name then you go through a trial to prove it. Plus he made a big point that the trial matters not to him so then why settle? If you're not afraid then let the justice system work, especially since abuse cases are hard to prove.
Settling out of court is practical and is not an admission of guilt, and you shouldn't infer guilt from it.
Of course, you can do so if you wish. Trials are really expensive, and they take a very long time. These two reasons, for me, seem good enough to go for it.
As I see this payout: it's cheaper than the original fine, does not serve as a fine, is simply cost fees (money goes to state), and it saves time.
I agree with you in that the best scenario would be to secure a bona fide not guilty verdict, but this course of action is perfectly logical and valid as well
Legally I understand, but the settlement is just icing on a really fucked up cake lol like the dude gives me the creeps and has done since before the allegations started, so while it's not an admission of guilt, it certainly looks suspish.
Hey, as other people have pointed out, there have been examples of high profile celebrities settling outside of court that were later confirmed to have been guilty!
It's fine to not like the dude, that's your prerogative. You're allowed to think he did it!
However, any law academic would scrunch their nose at the idea of inferring any suspicion or guilt from an agreed trial discontinuation.
I don't see anything suspicious surrounding the discontinuation, so I, personally, won't infer anything from it at all :)
Just saying, if the guy wanted to have his name cleared and had nothing to be afraid of, then there's not a whole lot of reason to settle. However the ATP had proven it won't take action and I do acknowledge that then having a child together would affect settlement as well. I just know that most domestic violence cases don't make it to trial, especially given the public nature of it all and it's traumatic for the alleged victim(s). I get what you're saying and that's within your right not to draw conclusions and I appreciate you not being a dick about your opinion as I feel alot of zverev supporters on this thread are just being trolls. While it's not an admission of guilt, it's also not proving his innocence either and the context of everything involving him just is not a good look from my pov
This is terrible reasoning. People get abused every day, would be a shame if yourself or someone you knew was a victim, then you'd probably be less likely to defend anyone who's been accused of something of that nature.
Zverev didn’t settle. After testifying for 2 hours Patea claimed she was sick. Next day her lawyers and prosecution want to settle. His lawyers agreed. If Patea and the prosecution had such a great case they would not have settled. I think this is a rare case in which she made stuff up out of spite and to keep him from their daughter.
Didn’t he say he was going to appeal the original fine (450k) so that the courts would clear his name? An out of court settlement where he is fined 150k and donated 50k to charity doesn’t sound like someone who was completely innocent …
I know everyone wants him to be guilty but he’s super rich dealing with a nasty legal case that’s been going on for nearly a year.
Regardless if he’s innocent or guilty the smart thing to do would be pay the money and make it all go away vs keep fighting for who knows how long
You’re guilty of being absolute trash and you are a vile human being.
Oh sorry, because it was never found to be not true we’ll never know if that’s the case.
See how this doesn’t work? Do you like bearing the brunt of it?
Maybe some of you should think about that. For the record, I don’t personally think any of the above of you.
That’s a dramatic response to my rather mild comment. I like facts, and the facts say that he settled instead of going to trial. He was not declared guilty or innocent. I don’t believe I personally insulted anyone in my original comment, but if I did, that wasn’t my intention.
No, it’s disguised as a mild comment. There is expressly a settlement where there is no admission of guilt. That is the fact. It is absolutely right to say he’s not guilty.
People are free of course to continue to believe that he’s guilty etc but I think those people are even worse, because they destabilise the justice system which is an integral part of our social fabric, to show that actions, if proven, have consequences. None of these people in the subreddit could cope if it happened to them.
Zverev is a manipulative narcissistic scum of a human being. Also a manchild that is completely out of touch with his own emotions. Many men like him around, so I'm not even too concerned.
What I'm concerned about though, is that when you do such a noble and prestigious activity like tennis for a living, and when it gives you influence and some popularity, you can do so much good by setting an example of a certain standard of behavior. It's not even that hard, for starters you can try not abusing women. Yet what we have here is another famous prick putting "me, me, me" over everything else.
Does anyone have a good reference for what has actually happened in law here? The German legal system seems so weird: how can you buy your way out of a criminal case by "settling"?
It is based on §153a StPO.
This basically says that the, if charges have been preffered, the court, in aggreement with the public prosecution office and the accused, might terminate the proceedings under the condition that the accused has to fulfil certain conditions (in this case the payment of 200k €).
So all 3 parties involved (prosecution, accused and court) have to aggree that the trial is not worthwhile to pursue any further.
idk man he seems like a nice guy, his recent manner is way different than the image of what people keep hating on. hopefully y'all can see it. that being said hope he wins tonight!
No he's shown plenty of times he's an absolute child, violent as well. I will never like this guy. Did Nadal, Federer or others ever hit the refs chair like a little 4 year old kid with anger issues ?
Proven or not, i 100% believe the women as well in this case.
The NOT GUILTY crowd have nothing to prove. That’s not how accusations work. And reading between the lines, if the accuser got none of this settlement (which I think is less than the original “ruling”), then he is the clear “winner” in legal proceedings. Willing to be corrected on my understanding but this is how it reads to me.
Amazing that these people are now screaming that the court is saying he’s innocent. NO! The post about his innocence is his lawyer’s statement. The court can’t affirmatively say he’s innocent because of the settlement.
He was not proven guilty. If he was not proven guilty - and the settlement just means that there was reasonable doubt about that, because if there wasn't and the proof was absolute, they wouldn't have settled -, that means the presumption of INNOCENCE remains.
Drop your pitchforks, woke friend. The legal system worked here. And concluded they couldn't convict him. So they settled.
That’s anticlimactic, a settlement out of court, no admission of guilt, no public presentation of evidence
This was always the most likely outcome I think though DV cases are notoriously hard to get a guilty verdict on without literal video of it
As it should be? You can’t convict someone without physical evidence. Ex partners can be spiteful, mine would love to put me in jail. If she could just walk up to a judge and say “he hit me” and get me thrown in prison, she would. We can’t allow a justice system like that.
Then why did he object and decided to go to trial, then after his girlfriend was about to testify decided nah let’s go back to that fine settlement 🤔
There was no fine settlement... The 450k fine before the trial was deleted. He just had to pay 200k for the court's time for having the trial.
yes, and that's not a license to over-correct. I mean...he absolutely did it, but in *general.*
The reality is that this often happens with such cases, no? Similarly with Ronaldo
When you're filthy rich, you're immune to the law. You can literally get away with murder.
Interesting settlement: “The court said Zverev must pay 200,000 euros (£170,000), with 150,000 euros going to the German state treasury and the rest to non-profit organisations.”
The 200k are *not* the settlement, it's a payment to the court. The terms of the settlement are not public.
Both sides have agreed to discontinue with proceedings, and Zverev is basically paying the bill to the courts for their time so far. https://www.dw.com/en/german-tennis-player-zverev-agrees-to-settle-assault-case/a-69298930 "I think it's important to continue living without any further blame," Lüders told the court. "That is what has been agreed here. It's a good ending, it's a success." "Alexander Zverev has agreed to this discontinuation via his defense lawyer, solely in order to shorten the proceedings, above all in the interests of their child. Alexander Zverev is considered innocent."
That second quote isn’t coming from the judge, it’s Zverev’s own legal team’s statement.
i love how the people post that quote dont add that in
“ the ex-girlfriend's lawyers said that they wanted to avoid the trial dragging on for months.” I don’t know Rick, it looks fake to me. They’ve been on this process for years! And now they just want to close it? It sounds fishy
Wasnt years, max 1. Might be confusing with his previous allegation (i still believe olya)
["I told you so from the start. I told everybody. I'm happy that it's over.Yeah, nothing else more to say. That's it. Four years"](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240607-tennis-star-zverev-wants-to-move-on-after-assault-case-dropped#:~:text=%22I%27m%20happy%20that%20it%27s%20over.%20Yeah%2C%20nothing%20else%20more%20to%20say.%20That%27s%20it.%20Four%20years.%20I%27m%20happy%20about%20that.%22)
Here’s what the trial was about > The case has gone to trial because Zverev is contesting a penalty order and fine of €450,000 ($489,000) that were issued in October last year in relation to the alleged incident. He maintains the presumption of innocence until the trial is complete.
Hmm, wondering what is the point of paying the treasury? Like why is treasury “earning” money for this case? For me, it should be either the ex-girlfriend or nonprofit orgs…
False accusations aren’t that common, and he’s been accused by two different women. I’ve seen his behaviour on court. If he’s allowed this deal to make sure truth doesn’t come to light, I’m still allowed to have an opinion based on what’s publicly known - I believe the multiple women.
[удалено]
Bro wtf are u talkin about, Joe Biden labeled abuser for sniffing? Vs a dude who choked and beat up two women and humiliated them
Uh I think they were referring to the rape accusation first and foremost, the sniffing and creepy behavior around women and children is additional. Also, his own daughter talks about him molesting her in the shower...
That makes Biden a creep then, and what does this have to do with Z being a domestic abuser?
Is this what you're referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation
Because people let their political party blind their judgement
I think he would have less support if it wasn't the orange man on the other end.
buttery males literally cannot fucking help themselves. doesn't matter when or where or what the topic is. are we investigating widespread lead poisoning or are we all gonna pretend that people haven't gotten at least 15 iq points stupider in the last 10 years?
Not for the regular person, but for celebrities false accusations seem to not be uncommon.
Every proven false accusation is reported because it is rare and thus generates public interest. If anything, it has been proven time and time again that the reputation and money of celebrity gets likely abusers off the hook
Free Z
Z roll his ankle again challenge
On the other hand, Zverev has been scrutinized every which way for years by numerous lawyers, judges and investigators and has not been found guilty. You'd think that if he really did it there would be *something*, especially in a high profile case like this. False accusations are actually decently common but I think in this case it was more of a nuanced situation that the two parties interpreted very differently. I hope everyone can find their peace now and move on with their lives. On court behaviour obviously doesn't mean anything. If that's your criteria then at least 20% of all tennis players are abusers and Rublev is Hitler.
Source for false accusations being "decently common?" He was accused by 2 different women.
I dont understand how 2 women make it more likely he’s guilty. If there’s not enough evidence for the prosecution and they say, “but two people accused him!” you really think the judge would by that?
Try thinking really, really hard. Hint: 2 > 1
hint: you still need evidence to find him guilty so you can have 100 v 1, if there’s not enough evidence to find him guilty, he’s not guilty, understand?
>I dont understand how 2 women make it more likely he’s guilty. 2 being bigger than 1 is how it seems more likely. I am not claiming anything about his guilt in absolute terms.
thank god you’re not in control of the judiciary system. The amount of women does not matter in the case if they don’t have evidence
I'm not saying it does, I'm responding to your original question. Not sure if you're trolling me by being purposefully obtuse or really lack basic reading comprehension, but I wasted enough of my life trying to engage with you already, have a nice day.
my original comment wasn’t a question, just a statement calling out that no matter the amount of accuser’s, it doesn’t affect the outcome of guilt
I don't have the statistics for domestic violence but I do know that false reports for rape are about 8-10%, which I consider common. The fact that multiple independent and state investigations cleared him of wrongdoing certainly points in that direction as well.
False reporting for sexual violence is not common and it's NOT 8-10%, stop lying.
I went by Google. There's numbers for a few countries and it ranges from 5 to 10% with most being around 8%. To me that's pretty common but maybe you have a different definition for what common is.
Tell me you don't understand how power and money works, without saying you don't know how power and money works. He could be innocent but generally when there are multiple accusations there is some fire to the smoke (Cosby, Weinstein, P Diddy, Kevin Spacey, R Kelly). For me R Kelly was the big one--there was SO MUCH physical evidence and it took a lot of determined people to put him away. Money can make a lot of things like physical evidence go away, and there are a lot of people invested in looking the other way because of the gravy train or simply because they don't want to believe that someone is capable of something like this.
People are so desperate to cry that any woman coming forward is a gold digger and Zverev is innocent but that’s an opinion an here’s mine- I think he’s a disgusting, abusive man and his on and off court behaviour is enough for me to never want to see him on my screen again.
At least from all my tennis friends that is our belief as well.
💯
Other than being defaulted for hitting the umpire chair to intimidate him (which i agree he should have been defaulted for) what other on court behavior are you referring to? Edit: also i think you meant his ALLEGED off court behavior. Just gotta correct you there
> I think he’s a disgusting, abusive man Objection, hearsay.
Opinion evidence. Generally not admissible
Huh? 99% of this sub hates him and always has assumed him guilty
Wait. Before people were jumping on the trial result. Now the result came. Not guilty. Lawsuit dropped. NOT GUILTY.
this isn't a result. this is essentially the courts saying the trial never happened. the judge's summary explicitly states that this decision is a declaration of neither guilt nor innocence.
It also does not mean he did do it. There is absolutely zero evidence to support anything. So, **presumption of innocence** remains.
If guilty --> Rot in hell you piece of shit! The courts have convicted him! If not guilty --> Rot in hell you piece of shit! The courts are corrupt!
^ this person wouldn’t say a word about Serena Williams on court behavior
Considering the fact that Serena Williams is no longer an active player and isn’t being accused of domestic violence right now I’d have to say this is the dumbest example of whataboutism I’ve seen recently
"Whataboutism" is a fake reddit term. I'm only talking about on-court presence. If that's what decides your opinion on a player, you would hate a good amount of players.
Half of this sub just lost their reason to exist
💯
not really, I still think he’s a disgusting abuser who’s going to rot in hell just like you chose to lick his backside- we’re all entitled to an opinion
No evidence
Who said there's no evidence? Dude literally just quietly settled lol.
I’ve seen enough plus the court fining him the first time and him being on the hook for the costs is enough for me
You saw. LMAO.
I saw him lying about having diabetes when his ex tried to kill herself with his insulin to make her out to be a liar, I saw the evidence she provided against him, I saw the scratches on his neck, I saw him assaulting the umpire, I see the way he behaves to other players who don’t worship him, so yeah I’ve seen enough
Thanks, judge.
I’m not the judge or jury which is why I can believe whatever the fuck I like about him
innocent until proven guilty, i don't know why people think someone is guilty without real proofs
because I saw the other proof of what he did to his other ex, including lying and saying he didn’t have diabetes when it turns out she’d tried to kill herself with his insulin then admitting it when he wanted good PR, I’ve seen the way he behaves on court, and again I’m not a judge or jury nor do I have any real power over his life so no, I don’t have to think he’s innocent
You know him personally? You saw what he did? Mind your own business.
The fact the ex-girlfriend got absolutely nothing speaks volumes of evidence that would support your opinion. Regardless, people like you will continue to smear Sasha and wish him harm - abhorrent behavior, objectively.
I do wish him harm. I wish harm on every abusive man. The fact he had to pay the court costs and out to charity speaks volumes to me.
Where is the proof that he's abusive? I think most would agree that harm toward someone who is abusive and harmful to others is necessary in some form within the confines of the law. But, we have zero proof that Sasha is abusive. No money went toward the accuser, which means she knew she couldn't convince the legal system of abuse. So, if you're accepting of the facts then your logic is grounded only in emotion. Cancel culture lives off of this kind of thinking, and it's a dangerous path to be on. I recommend studying world war 2 propaganda to understand further.
Why the fuck are you bringing the Nazis into a post about a wife beater? Two women accusing him, one of whom didn’t ask for money and the other whom tried to have this done anonymously and hasn’t spoken out against him in the media is enough for me. You’re clearly intent on living up his arse- that’s your opinion. Mine is that he’s a dangerous abuser and I hope he faces karma in this life or the next.
if you think 2 women instead of 1 claiming abuse is enough to make him guilty then you’re already starting out very bad
remember when he said he didn’t have diabetes cos his ex girlfriend (who provided proof, not the court ex but a different ex he allegedly strangled) tried to kill herself with his insulin but then it turned out he did? the boy’s a liar and I’m not judge, jury nor his mother so I don’t have to believe him
nice change of topic
Exactly. Paying any money is an admission of guilt.
As I lawyer a have to disagree with you,specially when you earn money with your image and the law system is slow
Very true. Any truly innocent person would want their day in court so they can be exonerated by the law.
Their minds are melting as we speak.
Looking at other post it seems like more than half lmao
loll
This is considerably worse than 9/11.
I'd rather see their bitter faces in their dark basements lol
Is there any point at which the evidence submitted will be made public? From a public interest and ethical standpoint, the relevant question is whether he strangled the girl. She is still maintaining he did; he is saying he didn't. Something was submitted to allow the court to initially conclude that he did. The opaque nature of this settlement just sucks.
Well we know from his on court efforts he's an experienced choker.
Remember when his other ex girlfriend tried to kill herself with his insulin because of the way he treated her and he said she was a liar and he isn’t diabetic but turns out he is actually diabetic so who’s the liar here?
great so he gets off basically consequence free again, and the ATP will have learned nothing so we'll still not get an abuse policy. super cool and fun!
Sorry but what has he done that’s been proven to have occurred?
Enraging at an umpire's chair.
cheating on a coin toss
No one has proven it one way \*or\* the other, but the accusation was considered credible enough for him to be fined as part of the initial judgement. Even if that wasn't the case, you're overlooking sapdieyv's point about the ATP. Putting Zverev completely aside, their lack of attention to this issue is insulting.
The fine he no longer has to pay.
Right, because \*both\* sides agreed to settle. That is not the same thing as the court retracting its initial position of there being enough credibility in the accusation to impose the fine/court order. In the same way that this settlement is not an admission of guilt on the part of the accused, it's not an admission of innocence on the part of the accuser or the court. But Zverev said it is, which is just factually incorrect. He's insatiable when it comes to his ego on a beyond-Novak level. He can claim he is innocent, that's fine. But to claim that this settlement is equivalent to anyone \*else\* claiming or proving or admitting he is innocent is just. not. true.
The two sides being Zverev and the German government. It is a legal fact that the previous fine is null and void due to the government giving up the case. I dont think anyone, including Zverev, saying he did or can prove he is innocent understand the law. The two possible verdicts are guilty and not guilty. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Does anyone read? The agreement involved the accuser's lawyers as well. Regardless, when the court declares the defendant has been proven innocent, call me. Until then, I can believe anything I want and so can his sponsors. Hell, even after a verdict of not guilty, there's a reason OJ never worked again. That's how this stuff works, whether anyone including me or you likes it or not, and that's really the point I'm making.
The accuser’s lawyer is not a party, but was consulted. By saying “court declares the defendant has been proven innocent,” you display a misunderstanding of the basic functions of law so we are done here.
The settlement would not have happened without that consultation. Statement from the very court whose decision you all are hoisting up as vindication of this man: “**The decision is not a verdict and it is not a decision about guilt or innocence. One decisive factor for the court decision was that the witness has expressed her wish to end the trial**.“ I understand the basic functions of law perfectly. You're the one who implied presumption of innocence is some kind of moral obligation or axiom of humanity rather than a legal principle. "One is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes, by a COURT. Not by the public. The verdict of "not guilty" is not a verdict of innocence (if you think it is, YOU don't understand the basic functions of law). Innocent in the eyes of the law is not the same as proven innocence, it simply means they cannot punish you because you were not proven guilty, because the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, not the defense. Of course there is no such thing as proof or declaration of innocence. If you acknowledge that, you're acknowleding that he has not been proven innocent. That's why, absent any verdict, I can believe whatever I want and so can you.
Not sure what you are wanting the ATP to do? Suspend him based on an accusation?
Did you read the part where I said "putting Zverev completely aside"? I'm talking about the \*future\*. Murray feels the same way btw: [https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/24/andy-murray-calls-for-atp-tour-to-create-domestic-abuse-policy](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/24/andy-murray-calls-for-atp-tour-to-create-domestic-abuse-policy)
I don’t care what Murray feels What are you proposing?
Christ, even the NFL has a policy. So does the NBA and MLB. Look it up. Does anyone on this sub do any of their own research or do they spend all their time with their noses up Zverev's butt.
Can’t answer a simple question. Move on
I did answer it. I’m not obligated to paste the entirety of other sports’ policies here. You obviously don’t think there should be one. Look up the NFL’s and the MLB’s and you’ll have your answer. Hell, even by the standards the CURRENT rulebook he should've been suspended, but this sport's officials HAVE no "integrity": "The ATP Tour rulebook allows for a provisional suspension of a player who is charged with a civil or criminal offense that is “contrary to the integrity of the Game of Tennis”
Heartbreak for r/tennis..🥺🥺 🤣🤣
I’m kind of frustrated that there’s no resolution from this. I was hoping a court would find he either did it or did not do it. Now it’s all still gray.
Might be for the best for Patea that it's still gray if she was willing to settle. Pulled out of court this week amid health. If it was due to mental health, would've affected her ability to care for her child properly. She wanted anonymity for both parties but was unable to get that. If people wanted justice, there are other forms of it. Zverev is still very unlikely to secure the quantity and quality of sponsorships available to other tennis players. He might have an Adidas one, but he's locked into that and the terms of that deal are never going to reach the numbers that other stars will receive due to the public nature of the allegations. Wikipedia page is still going to list history of alleged domestic violence, and articles existing of it. Obviously it's not an ideal outcome if there was a good chance of him being found guilty. But he'll still have public relations consequences.
I mean based on this thread, I would say plenty of people still support him which is sickening. I guess there is a silver lining with him not getting as much sponsorships but abusers never stop abusing and I feel it's only a matter of time before it happens to someone else. Granted that would probably happen regardless of a trials outcome
Sports fans are constantly spouting “innocent until proven guilty”. It’s such bullshit. Two different accusers coming forward AND seemingly not to get money proves guilt to me. Should that be enough to prove guilt in the courts? Hell no, but I can make judgments without the court ruling. Do these same people believe that OJ was innocent? It just baffles me that they act as though the court ruling innocent means they’re innocent when you need 95% proof (beyond a reasonable doubt, in the US) that a crime was actually committed for them to be guilty, and domestic abuse and sexual abuse are so difficult to prove
And in this case, there was no court ruling so he's neither guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law. He's established a pattern on and off the court that gives me a bad feeling about him. Victims of domestic violence rarely come forward and rarely go through a trial, it's really a shame and now we have to deal with this asshole. Except we all know it's going to happen again...
I’m a little late, but courts very rarely find that someone didn’t do a crime. The verdicts are guilty (the evidence proved they did it beyond a reasonable doubt) and not guilty (the evidence didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). People who are not guilty very often intact did commit the crime they are accused of. And people who are guilty sometimes didn’t commit the crime they were convicted of.
Absolute trust in the German justice system as we can all see
Do you really think you are better informed about this case lol
I mean, considering it was settled out of court, it's not exactly saying he's innocent, only that legally he's not guilty of anything.
Finish with me: If someone is not guilty said person is ....... Presumption of innocence.
Presumption of innocence is a legal principle, not some axiom in correct human behavior nor societal expectations.
Technically yes, but the sequence of events is: 1. Court said he had to pay a fine and from the collected evidence said he was guilty 2. Zverev contested and moved it to trial 3. Settled out of court Your presumption of innocence comes from a technicality, when a case goes to court there’s a presumption of innocence until the judge/jury decision is out. Zverev and his team played to this tune, moved the process to court, pushed for settlement and now can forever claim that he hasn’t been proven guilty.
> Technically The best kind of correct. > can forever claim that he hasn’t been proven guilty That means "innocent", due to the presumption of innocence "until proven guilty". If he wasn't proven guilty, well... And this wasn't a settlement with the person involved. It was a criminal case. So it was the state. If the state didn't go forward with a high profile case involving domestic abuse, it just means there wasn't enough proof for _conviction_.
I said you were correct because of a technical aspect of the law, not because he’s proven innocence. Technically is only innocent because the e trial didn’t go ahead, not because he proved innocence. However he’d already been fined, so this is a bit of a loophole he exploited
There's far more nuance to it than that. The reason a defendant not declared guilty is declared "not guilty" is because the burden of proof is on the proseuction, which means only two things can occur: proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or no proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is why some cases are so easy for the defense to win: because they don't prove innocence. They don't have to. They don't have to prove anything. All they have to to is introduce \*just enough\* doubt in the jury's mind of the defendant's guilt. But absence of proof of guilt does not magically become the presence of proof of innocence. It simply is the bar to clear for a guilty verdict. And absent a trial, a settlement isn't a verdict at all, because you can't have a verdict without a trial and you can't have a trial without a presentaiton of evidence. And it \*was\* a settlement with the person involved because she was the one that pressed charges and it was \*her\* lawyers that had to agree to settle. What we don't know (what hasn't been proven....which means.....**finish it with me.....we in the court of public opinioin can presume whatever tf we want**) is whether she received money as part of the settlement.
Well that's still a stupid rule to permanently adopt. It's not black and white.
No, but to say you have absolute trust in justice and then push for the trial to be private and rush to settle after that doesn’t scream innocent…
Yo why so many downvotes on this comment?! Like he literally said he had trust in the system and settling out of court looks guilty af, are we forgetting the Diddy and Cassie of it all? Why would you settle outside court if you're innocent is what I don't understand.
Exactly
Trials take a *really long time* If you can end it early with no negative consequence, it's not a bad choice
Not a bad choice for who exactly? If you wanted to clear your name then you go through a trial to prove it. Plus he made a big point that the trial matters not to him so then why settle? If you're not afraid then let the justice system work, especially since abuse cases are hard to prove.
Settling out of court is practical and is not an admission of guilt, and you shouldn't infer guilt from it. Of course, you can do so if you wish. Trials are really expensive, and they take a very long time. These two reasons, for me, seem good enough to go for it. As I see this payout: it's cheaper than the original fine, does not serve as a fine, is simply cost fees (money goes to state), and it saves time. I agree with you in that the best scenario would be to secure a bona fide not guilty verdict, but this course of action is perfectly logical and valid as well
Legally I understand, but the settlement is just icing on a really fucked up cake lol like the dude gives me the creeps and has done since before the allegations started, so while it's not an admission of guilt, it certainly looks suspish.
Hey, as other people have pointed out, there have been examples of high profile celebrities settling outside of court that were later confirmed to have been guilty! It's fine to not like the dude, that's your prerogative. You're allowed to think he did it! However, any law academic would scrunch their nose at the idea of inferring any suspicion or guilt from an agreed trial discontinuation. I don't see anything suspicious surrounding the discontinuation, so I, personally, won't infer anything from it at all :)
Just saying, if the guy wanted to have his name cleared and had nothing to be afraid of, then there's not a whole lot of reason to settle. However the ATP had proven it won't take action and I do acknowledge that then having a child together would affect settlement as well. I just know that most domestic violence cases don't make it to trial, especially given the public nature of it all and it's traumatic for the alleged victim(s). I get what you're saying and that's within your right not to draw conclusions and I appreciate you not being a dick about your opinion as I feel alot of zverev supporters on this thread are just being trolls. While it's not an admission of guilt, it's also not proving his innocence either and the context of everything involving him just is not a good look from my pov
It was an in court settlement.
Doesn't mean he's innocent tho, you'd need an actual trial to prove that
Doesn't mean he is guilty. I can claim you abused me as well...
This is terrible reasoning. People get abused every day, would be a shame if yourself or someone you knew was a victim, then you'd probably be less likely to defend anyone who's been accused of something of that nature.
Zverev didn’t settle. After testifying for 2 hours Patea claimed she was sick. Next day her lawyers and prosecution want to settle. His lawyers agreed. If Patea and the prosecution had such a great case they would not have settled. I think this is a rare case in which she made stuff up out of spite and to keep him from their daughter.
Didn’t he say he was going to appeal the original fine (450k) so that the courts would clear his name? An out of court settlement where he is fined 150k and donated 50k to charity doesn’t sound like someone who was completely innocent …
Zverev is basically paying the bill to the courts for their time so far not a fine.
Way cheaper than $450k, and there is no stigma attached to paying this one. The greatest benefit is that it saves potentially huge amounts of time
I know everyone wants him to be guilty but he’s super rich dealing with a nasty legal case that’s been going on for nearly a year. Regardless if he’s innocent or guilty the smart thing to do would be pay the money and make it all go away vs keep fighting for who knows how long
He is abuser an still piece of shit to me. Hopefully he will stay loser forever.
So glad Alcaraz just won.
Justice has prevailed. These psychos have been tarnishing an honest man's name for far too long.
That’s not what this is. He wasn’t found guilty, but because we will never know the settlement terms it isn’t right to say he’s innocent.
You’re guilty of being absolute trash and you are a vile human being. Oh sorry, because it was never found to be not true we’ll never know if that’s the case. See how this doesn’t work? Do you like bearing the brunt of it? Maybe some of you should think about that. For the record, I don’t personally think any of the above of you.
That’s a dramatic response to my rather mild comment. I like facts, and the facts say that he settled instead of going to trial. He was not declared guilty or innocent. I don’t believe I personally insulted anyone in my original comment, but if I did, that wasn’t my intention.
wrong, he wasn't found guilty. hence, he's innocent.
No, it’s disguised as a mild comment. There is expressly a settlement where there is no admission of guilt. That is the fact. It is absolutely right to say he’s not guilty. People are free of course to continue to believe that he’s guilty etc but I think those people are even worse, because they destabilise the justice system which is an integral part of our social fabric, to show that actions, if proven, have consequences. None of these people in the subreddit could cope if it happened to them.
There’s a lot of assumption in what you’re saying. I think you’re emotionally invested in this, and I am not, so I’m going to go back to my day.
You just assumed I’m emotionally invested???
Wow
In situations like this would there normally be side payments between the two parties?
No, it was a criminal case and not a civil case so basically the parties were the German state and Zverev.
r/tennis in shambles
Zverev is a manipulative narcissistic scum of a human being. Also a manchild that is completely out of touch with his own emotions. Many men like him around, so I'm not even too concerned. What I'm concerned about though, is that when you do such a noble and prestigious activity like tennis for a living, and when it gives you influence and some popularity, you can do so much good by setting an example of a certain standard of behavior. It's not even that hard, for starters you can try not abusing women. Yet what we have here is another famous prick putting "me, me, me" over everything else.
Does anyone have a good reference for what has actually happened in law here? The German legal system seems so weird: how can you buy your way out of a criminal case by "settling"?
It is based on §153a StPO. This basically says that the, if charges have been preffered, the court, in aggreement with the public prosecution office and the accused, might terminate the proceedings under the condition that the accused has to fulfil certain conditions (in this case the payment of 200k €). So all 3 parties involved (prosecution, accused and court) have to aggree that the trial is not worthwhile to pursue any further.
This is interesting, and completely alien to the criminal law I am used to (Anglo/American).
now the hate can stop
Zverev is still a piece of shit nothing changes that
He absolutely is, but you people are still going to hate him for the thing that was never proven to him.
idk man he seems like a nice guy, his recent manner is way different than the image of what people keep hating on. hopefully y'all can see it. that being said hope he wins tonight!
No he's shown plenty of times he's an absolute child, violent as well. I will never like this guy. Did Nadal, Federer or others ever hit the refs chair like a little 4 year old kid with anger issues ? Proven or not, i 100% believe the women as well in this case.
why'd she take the money then? just curious
she took the money? i was under the impression the settlement money isn't going to either party but charities.
This neither proves or disproves his guilt. Hopefully the NOT GUILTY crowd will cool it a little with their misogyny.
The NOT GUILTY crowd have nothing to prove. That’s not how accusations work. And reading between the lines, if the accuser got none of this settlement (which I think is less than the original “ruling”), then he is the clear “winner” in legal proceedings. Willing to be corrected on my understanding but this is how it reads to me.
Did you study law at YouTube university ?
Nope. Old enough to have to been educated in a time when they taught facts, not ideology. That’s all.
[удалено]
Define woke for me please.
Apparently not…
The statement about his innocence is his lawyer’s statement to the court. Not what the court actually said 🤦♂️
Right. Misogyny’s not goin anywhere.
Amazing that these people are now screaming that the court is saying he’s innocent. NO! The post about his innocence is his lawyer’s statement. The court can’t affirmatively say he’s innocent because of the settlement.
He was not proven guilty. If he was not proven guilty - and the settlement just means that there was reasonable doubt about that, because if there wasn't and the proof was absolute, they wouldn't have settled -, that means the presumption of INNOCENCE remains. Drop your pitchforks, woke friend. The legal system worked here. And concluded they couldn't convict him. So they settled.
So that's why he's been acting so confident huh?
This is the second time he's been accused of this kind of behavior. His reputation is already tarnished.
LOLOLOL so much cope in this thread
Finally the accuses are shut down. I hope he learns about it and keeps his private live peaceful!
Ahhh....so THAT'S why he was serving so well today!!! 😃