I’m comparing “trying to see what direction he went” to “following”.
A junior mod is not a law-enforcement authority.
Is that what you’d tell the officers when they got there?
Yes. I should care what the police need me to do. I don’t really care what they don’t need me to do.
Zimmerman told investigators he got out of the truck to try and see what direction Martin went. That’s disregarding the operator.
Perhaps these things are not illegal now, but I was talking about the way I think it should be in the future. Collectively, these actions should be considered reckless and the laws should be written to reflect this.
And yet your ideal laws punishes someone, because he did all these legal things.
Then I’m starting a rival club. Phbthbhthbh
Say the guy who’s stuck in the corner and can say either that or “Oops, guess I was wrong”.
You’re leaving out the part about how you’d give them that explanation while face down on the ground, hands cuffed, and a boot on your back, and then again in the interrogation room. Would that prospect have affected your decision? :dubious:
Are you ignoring a lawfully issued request by a non-police-type person? How udder-ly reckless of you. :eek:
Not a good description of a 911 dispatcher there.
Please try to keep your bondage fantasies out of this thread. TMI, dude.
“Fantasy”? Try something like that yourself sometime and see what happens.
While on watch as the engineering duty officer in the engine room of the submarine late one night, I recall coming across a bored watchstander fiddling with an air compressor. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he was taking apart the compressor to see the fan blades. I said “You don’t need to be taking apart the boat, petty officer so-and-so”.
He said “aye sir”, and he put it back together.
Terr, can you agree that there is a contextual difference between you telling another poster “we don’t need you posting this thread”, and Zimmerman being told by a police dispatcher “we don’t need you to do that”?
Although perhaps not a police officer in a technical sense (do we know that, for sure?), the dispatcher represented a credible authority acting on behalf of the Police Dept. I think many (most?) people would have interpreted that as being told to back off.
You instructions in your quoted post here have no such implied authority here, unless you are a mod? Or pretending to be a mod. Which is frowned upon, you know.
Oh yes. I am sure the police will be telling me “We don’t need you to stand up.” instead of “Lay down on the ground, now.”
I don’t have the authority to tell him to stop posting. The police dispatcher has no authority to tell Zimmerman to stop following. What is the difference?
Basically following means “I see him, and I’m following him.”
“Trying to see what direction he went” means “I suck at following, so now I’m looking for him.”
Only the fact that most rational people would accept the guidance given to them by a police dispatcher.
Immediately and firmly engage the officer in a discussion of the precise semantic meaning of his instructions. They love that.
They’ll be telling you the latter because you will have shown yourself to be too thickheaded to have gotten the message the first time, yes.
You’re not helping yourself here.
Except there was no “guidance” to stop following. There was a statement that the police didn’t need him to follow. The police don’t need me to do almost anything (if not everything) I do throughout the day. Does that mean I should stop doing it?
W-a-a-a-y too thickheaded …
Human language sometimes contains idioms and turns of phrases that are not literal interpretations of the words within. For example, the phrase “we don’t need you to…” (and variations) doesn’t only mean the literal translation, it also can mean “you should not…”, depending on the context.
Human language is a wonderful and fascinating subject, with many interesting sub-topics. You can learn more on idioms here.