[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“1. David makes much of the fact that Zimmerman may have continued to follow Martin despite a dispatcher’s admonition to the contrary.”

The dispatcher did not “admonish” Zimmerman. He did not even “advise” Zimmerman; and he certainly did not “order” Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

The dispatcher said: “We do not need you to do that.” Taken literally (which is how everything spoken by a 911 dispatcher should be taken) — that is nothing more than a statement of what the dispatcher does or does not need. A perfectly reasonable response would have been: “that's okay, I don't mind continuing to follow him”.

911 dispatchers, like air traffic controllers, space ground controllers, etc. need to speak in clear, unambiguous language. Polite circumlocutions, and other ambiguities, can cause deaths.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote, in "Outliers: The Story of Success" about how polite, ambigious language has killed airline passengers and crew. Here's a link to one of many articles on the subject:

http://www.academicinfo.net/blog/patrick-woessner/2009/02/10/educations-power-distance-index

[Cyber Liberty]

It wasn’t a 911 call or operator.

[cynwoody]

911 dispatchers, like air traffic controllers, space ground controllers, etc. need to speak in clear, unambiguous language. Polite circumlocutions, and other ambiguities, can cause deaths.

Quite so.

I'll bet Sean wishes he could have reached through that communication line and reeled Zimmerman back into his truck!