So far I’ve taught Terr about the concept of death and about idioms in language.
You’re welcome, Terr.
Boy, doing good really can make you feel good!
Phbthbhthbh = Pontificating Home Bound Titans Hounding and Berating Healthy Terrestrials Having Big Heads? That sounds like quite a club. Can I join?
No, it’s Pontificating Home Bound Titans Hounding and Berating Healthy Terrestrials Having Big Horses. And you just failed the first test.
Of course. We don’t need to tell us that.
Let me help you, friend Terr. I think you meant “We don’t need you to tell us that”. But you’re getting there! Way to go!
(post shortened)
I don’t see the difference. Neither one is a lawful order. And you’re free to do as you wish.
You are just being obtuse. The “guidance” given is clearly to stop following.
I don’t want to join a club that berates and hounds horse owners. But keep me in mind for your next club. 
No, it is not clear.
There would be no reason for the operator to say “we don’t need you to do that” unless it was an implied instruction.
Not exactly, he was already out of his truck by then. It was the sound of Zimmerman running that prompted the dispatcher to ask if he was following Martin.
As to whether Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after hanging up with NEN, that’s unclear; he claimed that he did not. We know he was stationary at that point, because the sound of his banging his inoperative flashlight on a pole is audible in the recording. After hanging up, either Martin came back to Zimmerman’s location, Zimmerman came to Martin’s location, or they met in the middle, there’s at least some evidence to support each of those theories.
Maybe the dispatcher should have added “bless your heart”.
Berates? I can get behind that.
Hounds? Well, now sir, you have gone too far.
He also, later, told investigators that he got out of the truck to try and see what direction Martin went.
Note that iiandyiii et al keep saying that Zimmernam “disregarded police instructions”. Instead of, more accurately, “ignoring the dispatcher’s statement that they didn’t need him to do that”. There is a reason for iiandyiii saying one instead of the other. Because it makes his argument looks better. And to hell with accuracy.
Could it be that the reason the operator said that was because, you know, they didn’t need him to do that?
I’ll take this as a tactical retreat. I applaud you!
Indeed, that’s the flimsiest part of his narrative by far, the “exited my truck to look for street signs” bit, when it’s pretty plain from the recording that he exited his truck to follow Martin.
Point was, he can’t be said to have disobeyed the dispatcher since he’d already begun following Martin on foot before the instruction* was given, and claims to have ceased pursuit at that time.
You could argue that he disobeyed it by continuing to search for Martin after hanging up, but again, it’s quite unclear that he did so, though it’s certainly possible. So, in sum: pursued Martin via truck and on foot; yes. Disobeyed instructions to that effect; probably not.
- granting for the sake of discussion that it was an instruction.
Zimmerman already out of the truck when the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin. When Zimmerman said that he was the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that” and Zimmerman said “ok”. Zimmerman didn’t ignore any order as far as anyone can tell from the 911 call and it has been already pointed out at least 100 times it wouldn’t have been illegal if he did.
See, in the context of this thread, it is reasonable to interpret “inaccurate” as “incorrect”.