Dispatcher's always have to be careful about liability. Following a suspicious person can be dangerous, I agree. The dispatcher made clear the police didn't need him to follow the suspicious guy because he if Zimmerman ended up getting shot, he didn't want some plaintiff's attorney suing the department saying they encouraged Zimmerman to risk his life.
But Zimmerman wasn't shot - Martin was. The door swings both ways here, which is why the dispatcher told him not follow him first and foremost, because it is sound advice and common sense, and is the first thing any thinking human being would tell another in the situation to do. We agree on this. It is not, however, the
dispatcher's position (or concern for that matter), of whether or not an attorney is going to come through after the fact, that is a ridiculous assertion to make.
It is a
fact that their are armed citizens out there every bit as much as it is a fact that their are dangerous people that could have shot Zimmerman in this situation Again, this standard applies both ways, you are only applying it to Zimmerman here.
Following a suspicious person can be dangerous, yes.
Agreed. Which is why they advised him not to do it.
But it certainly isn't unlawful.
Nobody is questioning whether or not it was lawful. YOU keep saying this. Are you seriously suggesting his defense is going to challenge whether or not the dispatchers advise was binding or not, or that(even more laughable)that the prosecution would
even try to claim the dispatcher's advise was legally binding? How do you not see how ridiculous this sounds?
And as it is not unlawful, what the dispatcher said, and what Zimmerman did up until the point Zimmerman and Martin finally came face to face, have nothing to do with whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman.
It was sound advise in the interest of BOTH parties involved as I pointed out earlier, and that a reasonable person would have heeded that advise, thus avoiding either one of them being hurt. This most certainly has something to do with whether or not Zimmerman was criminally culpable in Martin's death, and could be the prosecution's angle in this in a trial.
This is an important step. I'm glad you guys are finally starting to grasp the essential facts. Unwise/Unsound/Unsafe does not equal Unlawful. The former may have relevance in a civil lawsuit, but they can never be used to justify criminal charges.
Unwise/Unsound/Unsafe can equal a manslaughter charge at minimum if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin as appears to be the case.
Nobody agreed with you, I've had a handle on the facts since the beginning, as I've only been questioning the events up to the point Zimmerman got out of his car, because THAT is where Zimmerman's actions are in question with regard to self-defense, NOT whether or not the dispatchers advise was legally binding, it is only you that continuously brings up this non-point, as everyone agrees it isn't legally binding.
Zimmerman was armed, and in no danger from Martin at this point. Things escalated because he got out of his vehicle and followed him. This is a different story for Martin, who also should have been protected by the very same standard you applied to Zimmerman. That is what is at issue here.
