Quote
Originally posted by: ChilcootQuote
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.
Testimony does not have to be made under oath on the witness stand. If it did, the video would have been inadmissible evidence. It's that old Miranda thing - anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. The jury did see and hear Zimmerman's testimony about what happened that night. The prosecution presented it as evidence. No matter how superior you believe yourself to be, your condescending jabs only show you to be a small person with major self esteem issues.
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
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.
The prosecution could have called Zimmerman to the stand. They didn't. If he was guilty, and his testimony to the police was all lies, surely putting him on the stand and showing him declining to answer any questions would have placed major doubt in the minds or the jurors. Zimmerman told the truth in the video.
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
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.
How can you possibly claim, after that, that you don't know what happened and never claimed to?
If you have even a rudimentary understanding of what just happened in that courtroom, you sure hide it well.
