Pug - you keep saying that it's better to question Zimmerman later, cos he's more likely to get caught out with any of his lies (assuming there are any) than being questioned straight away, with his lawyer present.
Surely it's better to get a statement in the immediate aftermath, which would get expose any discrepancies later on. The more you leave things, the greater chance there is of him figuring his story out and get the narrative straight.
He's gonna have his lawyer present later anyway, so what does difference does it make if it's straight away?
I don't know if this is a British thing (and the fact that guns, thank God, aren't part of our culture) but the idea that someone could shoot an unarmed man, and not be taken in for questioning in the immediate aftermath is bizarre to me.
Let's face it - the decision not to take him in wasn't some clever tactical ploy so his lies would be exposed (as per Pug's explanation) - it's cos this was gonna get swept under the carpet.
Surely it's better to get a statement in the immediate aftermath, which would get expose any discrepancies later on. The more you leave things, the greater chance there is of him figuring his story out and get the narrative straight.
He's gonna have his lawyer present later anyway, so what does difference does it make if it's straight away?
I don't know if this is a British thing (and the fact that guns, thank God, aren't part of our culture) but the idea that someone could shoot an unarmed man, and not be taken in for questioning in the immediate aftermath is bizarre to me.
Let's face it - the decision not to take him in wasn't some clever tactical ploy so his lies would be exposed (as per Pug's explanation) - it's cos this was gonna get swept under the carpet.
Comment