• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did GZ make the RIGHT decision to give all the interviews and allow all the videos?

In hindsight, was GZ right in giving all the videoed interviews?

  • Yes, the videos and interviews allowed self-defense without taking the stand

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • No, an accused should never talk to police or allow videos

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,593
Reaction score
22,406
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While nearly everyone declared GZ an idiot for going so public over and over, I was praising it as a brilliant tactic. Plus complaining of everyone declaring once a person is accused of a crime that person should totally abandon free speech rights.

The videos of him with the police, on Hannity, etc all allowed him to make his self defense claim - without ever subjecting himself to having to take the stand and to cross examination. Those interviews and videos was GZ making his defense to the jury without ever taking the stand. Rather than answering to the adverse prosecutor, he was answering questions by the ultra-support Sean Hannity instead. Plus raised hundreds of thousands for his defense and living expenses.

Brilliant? His refusal to be muzzled worked? Dumb luck?

This may spark entire new pre-trial defense strategies.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,827
Reaction score
4,930
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Did GZ make the RIGHT decision to give all the interviews and allow all the video

Before the verdict, I would have said no... But he was able to get his entire story out without ever having to get on the stand and face the prosecutor's cross.

having said that, I will never talk to the police without a lawyer present, no matter how innocent I feel I am.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,593
Reaction score
22,406
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Did GZ make the RIGHT decision to give all the interviews and allow all the video

I don't agree. It isn't that simple.

It is NOT always wise to force police or a DA to make a decision in silence. For example, if your justification is "self defense" and you keep silent, with it fact you killed someone, the police/DA has no choice but to take you to trial - obviously. And if you then also remain silent in trial (don't testify) you will be found guilty as no self defense was ever presented.

What happened in the GZ case is revealing. He presented his self-defense case including himself telling what happened, without ever subjecting himself to cross-examination - and limiting is statement to a controlled time limit and to questions by either a favorable questioner (Hannity) or a neutral person (police officer).

How would this be different for you if you shot someone in self defense and there no witnesses?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Did GZ make the RIGHT decision to give all the interviews and allow all the video

While nearly everyone declared GZ an idiot for going so public over and over, I was praising it as a brilliant tactic. Plus complaining of everyone declaring once a person is accused of a crime that person should totally abandon free speech rights.

The videos of him with the police, on Hannity, etc all allowed him to make his self defense claim - without ever subjecting himself to having to take the stand and to cross examination. Those interviews and videos was GZ making his defense to the jury without ever taking the stand. Rather than answering to the adverse prosecutor, he was answering questions by the ultra-support Sean Hannity instead. Plus raised hundreds of thousands for his defense and living expenses.

Brilliant? His refusal to be muzzled worked? Dumb luck?

This may spark entire new pre-trial defense strategies.

What do you think?

I think if you're telling the truth? You don't have to have a good memory.

Zimmerman was telling the truth. It was brilliant. I didn't appreciate it until I realized there was absolutely no reason for Zimmerman to take the stand. He'd already told his story many times over. That's why his attorneys make the big bucks.
 
Top Bottom