1. Yeah, Zimmerman should have used his "third eye." That one doesn't require line of sight to be accurate. 2. He directed the police to where he was-- something about "near the guest house." To lie requires a deliberate mis-leading. I drive a route to work every day. Yesterday I was giving a friend directions to come to my school and I couldn't accurately name the last two streets you turn on. One I completely drew a blank on and the other I got partially correct; it DOES begin with an "S." I've driven that route more than 174 times....
I don't know exactly what happened that led to the confrontation. I do know a couple of things. 1. Zimmerman should have done what he was told by the dispatcher. That would have saved Martin's life. 2. In retrospect Martin should have called 911. That may or may not have saved his life depending on who started the confrontation and how that played out. I've been followed and thought I was being followed. I've had people try and scare me with veiled threats that they were going to rob me. I didn't call 911 in either case. I was robbed once with completely open and honest threats. I did call the police after that incident. But it wasn't an emergency so I didn't call 911. I don't think calling 911 is a normal thing to do. Especially if there is a reason to have a natural distrust of the police.
How can you state with absolute certainty that TM would be alive if he had followed dispatch advice? Via wiki: He was never told not to follow him, told we don't need you to. Totally different.
No it isn't totally different at all. Much of the language we use is not in fact literal. A dispatcher telling Zimmerman that after Zimmerman saying he was going to follow is in fact equivalent of telling him not to. Only a person with mental injury or inability to comprehend at a normal level would believe otherwise. This is especially true when hearing the whole conversation on the tape. It is clear to anyone willing to use their brain and standard language comprehension skills. For you to claim it's "totally different" is showing your bias.
Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[98] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. What world do you live in? What you said happened didn't. He was already following him on foot to the point that he lost him, then the dispatcher asked if he was following him. Stupidity at its finest.
Totally Different? No. Different enough to make the argument irrelevant, yes. Unfortunately, you and the media do not get the right to interpret the operators meaning. And yes, the language we speak is indeed literal, especially in this manner. Whether the speaker implied something different is a complete different argument. Your bias is further reinforced when you insist the operator said not to follow him. If you actually believed your nonsense, you would use the operators actual context, not your interpretation.
Are you accusing yourself of stupidity? I can understand that if asked by an authority if I'm following someone and I say yes and they say "We don't need you to do that" They are in fact telling me not to. I'm sorry you are not capable of understanding that. But that doesn't really excuse you lashing out at others. I'll do my best to help you get past your comprehension difficulties with a tip that often helps third graders and elementary children learn. There is something called context which can add or alter the meaning of the exact words. If you only look at the exact words you are going to miss the meaning of a lot in this life. If you're just trying to rationalize and make excuses and are actually capable of understanding what most elementary students above 4th grade can, then that speaks for itself. It's either one or the other because you've clearly missed the meaning here.
Any reasonable person can infer the meaning of the operator. Elementary school children can understand that meaning in the context. The language is at times literal but there are many differences because of context, body language, non-verbal signals. Should the dispatch have been more explicit? Probably. Was what he said clear enough for people with a minimum of education and understanding? Yes, but apparently not on this board. I'm using the operator's actual context. "Are you following him?" (listen to the operator's tone on the tape. Does that sound like an approving tone, or is there a hint of caution?) Martin responds "Yes". Immediately in response to Martin affirming that he is indeed following Martin, the operator responds "We don't need you to do that" (again listen to the tone of the operator which again says it in a way as to make sure that the instructions are understood while still being friendly.) Obviously too much emphasis on customer service and not being demanding could have been a problem in retrospect. But there should be no doubt to anyone actually using the context especially when listening to the tape that Zimmerman was being told not to follow Martin.
The dispatcher is NOT an authority. Here is the full transcript: Any logical person can see, the person who instigated the thing is TM by coming at GZ. Then when he runs GZ gets out of the truck walks over to see where he is, he can't see him and the dispatcher says he doesn't need to follow him which to a sane person means you do it at your own risk but do what you think is best. He tells the dispatcher to have the officer call him when he gets there and the dispatcher says ok, they could have told him to go back to truck but didn't. At that point, they end their call and shortly after 911 calls come in with people hearing fighting and then one gun shot.
Are they the representative to the public who works for the city fire/ambulance/law enforcement or not? I've read it and listened to it. I referenced the context in the call with Zimmerman and when the disputed dialogue happened. What? There's nothing at that point that shows Martin coming at GZ unless you mean when GZ thinks Martin is going to check him out. That isn't coming at someone, and Zimmerman was obviously wrong and that didn't happen. Zimmerman loses sight of him after that point. Again. Listen to the tape of the call. Would you like me to link you to some studies on communication and how much of it is the actual words used vs. tone of voice, body gestures etc.? I don't mind looking that up and linking it. If you'd like a place to start, though you can look up Albert Mehrabian. Yes in hindsight the dispatcher should have been more explicit. The poor dispatcher just didn't realize what kind of moron GZ was though, and was overly sensitive about having a good customer service politeness to his instructions.
You don't seem to understand the dispatcher gave GZ a suggestion not a command -- arguing that GZ should have immediately stopped because of the dispatcher's comment will never hold up in court.
I don't think dispatcher's command people to do anything. Caller's to 911 aren't working for the dispatcher, and aren't under their command in a branch of the military. They do tell callers what they should do in situations. That's what happened in this case. I think that it would be pretty easy for that to hold up in court.
a dispatcher is just a civilian trained to handle emergency and dispatches. they don't have any authority or legal powers. And the dispatcher did suggest him not to follow him. What GZ did in following TM was not illegal, although we don't know what exactly happened in between this phone call and the gun shot yet but we'll see. Arguing that GZ was in the wrong to go against the dispatcher and continuing following him really has no merit as that's not illegal.
It has merit because what Zimmerman did was ****ing stupid and ultimately it resulted in someone's death. Following someone isn't illegal but it's certainly intimidating and provoking to the person being followed, especially when they're a minor.
Yes, I tend to think that harping on the legality of grown men following minors in the dark is pretty damn stupid. In fact, I urge you to follow children and women in the dark and see how that works out for you.
first of all, it was dark and GZ didn't know he was a minor. Your arguments are dumb, TM isn't like an 8 year old kid but he was an athletic build 17 y/o who knows how to fight. You pretty much convicting GZ of a crime even before hearing all the facts.
Seriously? TM was scrawny, and there's a difference between getting into fights and knowing how to fight. Given the facts we do know, GZ should be guilty of manslaughter. For him to be charged with second degree murder, that means that the undisclosed facts aren't in his favor.
Sure, because skinny kids don't know how to fight. You have no facts. We do not know for certain what happened. All we have is Zimmermans testimony which states he was ambushed. Personally, I do think he filled in the gaps or left out details, but I certainly don't think Martin was innocent in this situation. I would put a wager that Martin could pound your ass as most of the others in here defending him.
I never once said GZ broke the law by ignoring what the dispatcher told him. I wasn't making that claim and never once said that. I said that the dispatcher was the representative of the cities authorities. That's true. I do agree that we don't know what happened. It could be that Martin did attack Zimmerman. That might not be the case. Ignoring the instructions of 911 dispatch is not a crime in and of itself. I have no problem acknowledging that.
