[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.
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.
I’m not making allegations, I’m expressing my opinion.
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.
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!
I think it is in this case.
At this point, Zimmerman had already acted recklessly and in a manner that might inspire fear.
I disagree with your interpretation of my point.
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.
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?
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")., I don’t see how he should be held culpable for following Martin - he wasn’t following him.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
And then you go on to say -
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.
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”.
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.