Replies

This is an excellent article -- except for this:

" and asserted – despite considerable evidence to the contrary – that Zimmerman wantonly disregarded the 911 dispatcher’s instructions to stop following Martin."

The dispatcher gave no "instructions". He simply informed Zimmerman that "we don't need you to do that". Instructions are in the form of an imperative sentence; the dispatcher used a declarative sentence, which simply informed Zimmerman of what the dispatcher didn't need. Apparently, police and 911 dispatchers need refresher courses in clear communication. A 911 call is no place for polite ambiguities.

Not once but twice earlier in the conversation the dispatcher told Z to keep an eye of TM. How could he keep an eye on him if he didn't follow him?

If she didn't want Zimmerman to follow she should not have told him to keep an eye on Martin.

It's the dispatcher's fault!!!!.../sarc

What race is the dispatcher? Now that we know the Z is black, if she's white it's most certainly is her fault. ///sarc

Instructions are in the form of an imperative sentence; the dispatcher used a declarative sentence, which simply informed Zimmerman of what the dispatcher didn't need. Apparently, police and 911 dispatchers need refresher courses in clear communication. A 911 call is no place for polite ambiguities.

It doesn't even matter. A police dispatcher cannot order a free American around anyway. Zimmerman could choose to take the advice of the dispatcher or not, with no legal ramifications either way.

A 911 call is no place for polite ambiguities.

With all due respect, George Zimmerman never made a 911 call (no matter how many times the media tells us that he did). Zimmerman called the nonemergency dispatcher.

The charging affidavit for second degree murder is careful not to call it a 911 call, although the same affidavit refers to the 911 calls made by others (such as the one on which a voice is heard yelling for help).

The City of Sanford's FAQ letter carefully makes the distinction several times:

"In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the subdivision, and the non-emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman . . .

"[The telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow."

Nope. Not a 911 operator. A 'telecommunications call taker" at the "non-emergency" number.

Obviously, I'm not poking at you. I just found your post a convenient place to hang this factoid.