“The 911 dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he had advised Zimmerman not to follow Martin.”
Then the dispatcher is a moron. He actually said: “we don’t need you to do that”. That’s a simple declarative statement about what police dispatch thinks they “need”. It’s not a clear advisory to not follow Martin. It certainly isn’t a command (as the MSM reports) to not follow Martin.
A study of airline accidents revealed the importance of clear, unequivocal language — in the cockpit, and in the control tower. Police dispatchers are also among those, who need to use clear, unequivocal language.
For more about the study on airline accidents, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
But then he said that Zimmerman should keep telling him what Martin was doing!!!
He also made a point, several times, that dispatchers are taught to NOT give orders, because doing so exposes the city to liability. Sean was fairly emphatic that what he said to Zimmerman was not in the nature of an order.
I don't know where in the spectrum of "unequivocal - equivocal" the term "advised" falls, and i think the paper is allowing the reader to substitute "ordered" for "advised."
“The 911 dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he had advised Zimmerman not to follow Martin.”
That is a big hit to the defense. Zimmerman’s lawyer better explain why it does not matter what the dispatcher says or Zimmerman is sunk! I have always thought that was the biggest mistake that Zimmerman made....not listening to the good advice of the 911 dispatcher.
Even without knowing what he said today, it’s a certainty that the writer got it wrong.