Dear Health,
I only have an old print with me. Too tedious. Same with online. IY”H next time I have a new print handy.
I do not see a reason to get into the believing the witness versus clarifying through witnesses, question. By mortals, a witness is by definition a bystander.
Similarly, a judge would have to hold office. Judgeship is also relevant as matter of prestige, like a king. One has to actually be actively recognized as a judge. It cannot be an ad hoc tribunal. If you could just hold spurious court, what prevents the defendant from presiding over the ‘judge’? If you would say that, yes, the defendant can simultaneously judge the ‘judge’, that is lawlessness. Which makes the whole idea of having a courts more redundant than this paragraph.
But even in your fantasy, at what point did the cop judge the case? While he was getting out of his car? Restraining him? The next day? Today? Did he talk to the clerk at any point?
The clerk told him it was not good, after he left the store. At the time of the transfer it was given intentionally.
This thread has not been about defending Floyd. Is Chauvin a Tzaddik?