Why are people not outraged about this?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
So your reply showing someone running away in a thread about Martin/Zimmerman didn't imply anything to do with Martin/Zimmerman?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Martin didn't have to testify in court.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
So your reply showing someone running away in a thread about Martin/Zimmerman didn't imply anything to do with Martin/Zimmerman?

---

Correct. The challenge alanleroy2 dreamed up wasn't about Martin/Zimmerman, and neither was my response.

---

Of course Alan's challenge had everything to do with Forkush's interpretation of assault, specific to this case. Forkush back tracked. You back tracked. Say something stupid and claim it wasn't about the subject being discussed.

Where in proximity to Zimmerman's vehicle did the physical confrontation and shooting occur? Where was he being chased and by default, assaulted according to you and Forkush?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: ChilcootHere, tell you what. I'll put something blinky in my signature so you'll remember to read it a few more times. When you see the blinky light, that'll be a special signal to you that there may be some nuance in the post, and that you'll want to read it a few times to see if what you think it says really is what it says.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Zimmerman didn't have to testify in court.

---

I know Zimmerman didn't have to testify. The Fifth Amendment is pretty well known, even by me. I'm merely stating that he didn't testify.

---

His video testimony was presented by the prosecution. It had nothing to do with the 5th amendment

Quote

---

Originally posted by: ChilcootYet somehow you claim to know exactly how the fight went down. Which you don't.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
His video testimony was presented by the prosecution.

---

You don't know what testimony is.

In legal contexts like the one we're discussing here, "testimony" is a statement given under oath. What was played to the court was an unsworn interview. Zimmerman wasn't under oath, and wasn't under threat of perjury should it later be shown that his statements were knowingly false. It wasn't testimony, and the jury never saw any testimony about that night from Zimmerman.

No matter how simple I try and make this, I can't find words simple enough for you to understand.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
It had nothing to do with the 5th amendment

---

The reason that the prosecution did not force Zimmerman to testify has EVERYTHING to do with the 5th Amendment. Without the 5th Amendment, the government's prosecutors would have called Zimmerman to testify, to impeach him, to elicit inconsistencies between his statement to police and what he says under oath, under threat of perjury, in hopes of perhaps exposing Zimmerman as a liar who concocted the version he told police.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
I don't know exactly what happened and never claimed to.

---

So now you're going to claim you "don't know exactly what happened and never claimed to"? Do I have to quote your words of a couple hours ago back to you?

I guess I do.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him to stop following Martin. Martin didn't have a "duty to retreat" because any perceived threat was removed. He didn't even have to run away. All he had to do was keep walking away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman was walking away from him. Instead he turned around after talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone and went after Zimmerman.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BAGIANT
I don't understand why everyone is getting their shorts in a knot for. He was tried in front of a jury of his peers and found not guilty...end of subject.

---