# George Zimmerman - In the news again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480 "2014-07-31T13:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/281 "2014-08-04T18:09:26Z")
[quote=“Shodan, post:277, topic:694480”] [list=A][li]Recommendations of an NEN operator do not carry the force of law.[/li][/quote] In this case, disregarding the operator was reckless. > [@](#): > > Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in hand, and reason to believe that he did not. And even if he didn’t, following in a truck and then getting out to look for him in the dark might reasonably inspire fear. > [@](#): > > As opposed to your allegations, for which there is no evidence at all. I’m not making allegations, I’m expressing my opinion. > [@](#): > > You seem to be rejecting things for which there is evidence in favor of things for which there is no evidence at all. There is evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, disregarded the operator, got out of his truck, and then shot Martin. So there is evidence that Zimmerman behaved recklessly and in a manner that might reasonbly inspire fear in Martin. > [@](#): > > Then don’t try to craft laws to punish people for acting legally. I won’t. I agree with this. We should start a club together for folks who support not making laws to punish people who don’t break the laws! > [@](#): > > Disobeying the instructions of the NEN operator is not evidence of a reckless disregard for life. I think it is in this case. > [@](#): > > Also, Zimmerman was obeying the instructions of the NEN operator when Martin doubled back and attacked him. At this point, Zimmerman had already acted recklessly and in a manner that might inspire fear. > [@](#): > > I get your point, but it’s a stupid point. Your ideal law punishes people for acting legally, when somebody else acts illegally against them. I disagree with your interpretation of my point. > [@](#): > > You are walking in an unfamiilar neighborhood, and get lost. You stop a stranger to ask for directions. Are they morally justified in trying to kill you? If they try to kill you, and you kill them, should you be convicted and go to prison under a law that makes asking for directions retroactively illegal? No. And you’re still missing my point, which is about how the law should be modified for the future. If someone follows a young man (for no valid reason) in the night in a vehicle, then disregards a police operator and continues following, and then gets out of his vehicle and looks for the guy, and then there’s a fight and the follower shoots the guy, then he is morally culpable to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/282 "2014-08-04T18:11:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wrong. No, you are wrong. (FUTURE TERR POST): No you are wrong. (FUTURE iiandyiiii POST): No you are wrong. (FUTURE TERR POST): No you are wrong. (FUTURE iiandyiiii POST): No you are wrong. There. Now we don’t have to keep going. We can just pretend it goes like this forever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/283 "2014-08-04T18:12:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > At this point, Zimmerman had already acted recklessly and in a manner that might inspire fear. Do you make room for the possibility that other people might not share your conviction on this point, and that their view is a reasonable one, even if you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/284 "2014-08-04T18:14:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you make room for the possibility that other people might not share your conviction on this point, and that their view is a reasonable one, even if you disagree? No one who disagrees with me on anything is reasonable. Except for my lovely wife. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/285 "2014-08-04T18:15:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In common parlance, and language as it is commonly used in things like phone conversations, what the operator said (“we don’t need you to do that” after Zimmerman said he was following Martin) can reasonably be interpreted as instruction to discontinue following. Not quite - it was not phrased as an instruction because the operator did not have the authority to issue instructions. And again - Zimmerman then said something (“these assholes - they always get away”) that indicated contemporaneously that he had lost contact with Martin, and was thus unable to follow him. This is backed up by what Martin told Dee Dee (that they had lost sight of each other) as well as Zimmerman’s subsequent actions in trying to arrange a place to meet the police. So Zimmerman’s actions were entirely legal even though the NEN operator had no authority to direct him. And since Zimmerman cceased following Martin (after Martin “got away”, when Dee Dee reported Martin as telling her "[that he lost the guy").](http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/), I don’t see how he should be held culpable for following Martin - he wasn’t following him. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/286 "2014-08-04T18:18:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not quite - it was not phrased as an instruction because the operator did not have the authority to issue instructions. > > And again - Zimmerman then said something (“these assholes - they always get away”) that indicated contemporaneously that he had lost contact with Martin, and was thus unable to follow him. This is backed up by what Martin told Dee Dee (that they had lost sight of each other) as well as Zimmerman’s subsequent actions in trying to arrange a place to meet the police. > > So Zimmerman’s actions were entirely legal even though the NEN operator had no authority to direct him. And since Zimmerman cceased following Martin (after Martin “got away”, when Dee Dee reported Martin as telling her "[that he lost the guy").](http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/), I don’t see how he should be held culpable for following Martin - he wasn’t following him. > > Regards, > Shodan Zimmerman told investigators that he left his truck to try and see which direction Martin went. That sounds like following to me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/287 "2014-08-04T18:24:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You can say it a dozen times, still doesn’t make it true. [How about you reading it instead?](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html) > [@](#): > > Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok > Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here? > Dispatcher: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else. > … > Dispatcher: Are you following him? > Zimmerman: Yeah > Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that. > Zimmerman: Ok ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/288 "2014-08-04T18:25:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m a Hispanic guy – what rules should I follow? When you go to your Republican convention, try not to get deported. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/289 "2014-08-04T18:25:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In common parlance, and language as it is commonly used in things like phone conversations, what the operator said (“we don’t need you to do that” after Zimmerman said he was following Martin) can reasonably be interpreted as instruction to discontinue following. There is nothing reasonable about your interpretation. “We don’t need you to do that”, means that “We”, the speaker, doesn’t need you to do whatever “that” is. You are still free to do whatever you wish to do. The operators request has all the authority of my telling you that “We don’t need you to post in this thread”. You’re free to do whatever you wish to do and I’m pretty sure you’ll keep posting. I wouldn’t call your action reckless. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/290 "2014-08-04T18:28:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [How about you reading it instead?](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html) Did. “we don’t need you to do that” is not an “instruction” that was “disregarded”. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/291 "2014-08-04T18:28:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Possibly. But the fact that Zimmerman was following in his truck, and then got out of his truck to look for him, might reasonably be enough on its own to inspire fear for life in Martin. For that fear to justify Martin in the use of physical force, he would have had to reasonably believed that the force was necessary to defend himself against Zimmerman’s _immiment_ use of unlawful force. Being followed doesn’t meet that standard. I’ve seen it suggested that perhaps Zimmerman tried to grapple with or restrain Martin, which would meet that standard, but it’s something for which there is some, but not much, evidence (Rachel Jeantel said she heard someone say “Get off, get off!”, initially she wasn’t sure who it was; at trial, she was sure that it was Martin’s voice). > [@](#): > > Addressed in my last post – in context, I don’t see how this can be interpreted as anything but an instruction to stop following. It’s awfully indirect for that, though. If that is indeed what the NEN dispatcher intended, he did a very poor job of communicating this. > [@](#): > > But if they follow someone at night, and then disregard a police operator’s instructions to stop following, they are at least partially culpable for any resulting confrontation, in my opinion. Sure, and Zimmerman’s actions were reckless and contributed to a tragic outcome. A law that criminalized his pre-shooting actions, or that only criminalized them retrospectively based on the outcome, would likely do more harm than good, however. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/292 "2014-08-04T18:28:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > There is nothing reasonable about your interpretation. “We don’t need you to do that”, means that “We”, the speaker, doesn’t need you to do whatever “that” is. You are still free to do whatever you wish to do. > > The operators request has all the authority of my telling you that “We don’t need you to post in this thread”. You’re free to do whatever you wish to do and I’m pretty sure you’ll keep posting. I wouldn’t call your action reckless. In the context of a call to a police operator, it’s reasonable to interpret this as implied instruction to stop following. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/293 "2014-08-04T18:31:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not making allegations, I’m expressing my opinion. And you have no evidence to back up your opinion. > [@](#): > > There is evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, disregarded the operator, got out of his truck, and then shot Martin. And unfortunately for your opinion, there is even more evidence that Zimmerman ceased following Martin and did what the operator said. Yet you accept things for which there is no evidence, and reject things for which there is. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Then don’t try to craft laws to punish people for acting legally. > > I won’t. I agree with this. We should start a club together for folks who support not making laws to punish people who don’t break the laws! And then you go on to say - > [@](#): > > And you’re still missing my point, which is about how the law should be modified for the future. If someone follows a young man (for no valid reason) in the night in a vehicle, then disregards a police operator and continues following, and then gets out of his vehicle and looks for the guy, and then there’s a fight and the follower shoots the guy, then he is morally culpable to some degree. Following someone in a vehicle is not illegal, especially when you are the neighborhood watch in a high-crime area. Disregarding a police operator is not illegal, especially when you don’t disregard her. Getting out of a vehicle to look for someone is not illegal, especially when there is evidence that you are looking for a house number and not a suspect. Getting into a fight is not illegal, when you are attacked, and shooting a guy is not illegal when he puts you in a reasonable fear of death or serious injury by breaking your nose, blackening your eyes, knocking you down, spraining your back, and then sitting on your chest pounding your head against the ground because you asked him what he was doing. And yet your ideal laws punishes someone, because he did all these legal things. Sorry, but you are out of the club. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/294 "2014-08-04T18:31:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Zimmerman told investigators that he left his truck to try and see which direction Martin went. That sounds like following to me. Since Martin said he had lost the guy following him, Zimmerman had no one to follow. Maybe you’re thinking Zimmerman was “reconnoitering” the area? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/295 "2014-08-04T18:32:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Did. “we don’t need you to do that” is not an “instruction” that was “disregarded”. Too politely worded to be effective enough in hindsight, but an instruction from a representative of the police nonetheless. Would \*you \*have blown it off too? Why? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/296 "2014-08-04T18:33:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Too politely worded to be effective enough in hindsight, but an instruction from a representative of the police nonetheless. > > Would \*you \*have blown it off too? Why? We don’t need you to keep posting in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/297 "2014-08-04T18:35:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In the context of a call to a police operator, it’s reasonable to interpret this as implied instruction to stop following. I’m sure it’s reasonable to you. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I can tell the difference between “We don’t need you to do that” and “Do not do that”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/298 "2014-08-04T18:38:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > We don’t need you to keep posting in this thread. So, no answer, huh? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/299 "2014-08-04T18:39:49Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I can tell the difference between “We don’t need you to do that” and “Do not do that”. What would \*you \*choose, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/300 "2014-08-04T18:40:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So, no answer, huh? :dubious: Why are you disregarding my “instruction”? And yes, if the police told me that they don’t need me to do something, and I wanted to do it, I’d still do it. If the police instructed me not to do it, and I wanted to do it, I’d seriously consider not doing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=16)