“We don’t need you to do that” is not equivalent to “stop doing that”.
If a person in authority says to me “I don’t need you to do that,” I’m going to interpret it to say “I prefer you didn’t do that,” which is close enough for me to understand it as “I can’t force you to stop doing it, but stop doing it.”
It’s an indicator that he acted unnecessarily.
Add in the fact that he was armed and the evidence that he asked gave chase after Martin attempted to get away from him, and that shows he acted unnecessarily and recklessly.
These are ingredients for manslaughter, no?
OK, can we just agree that it was stupid of him to do the exact opposite of what the 911 dispatcher told him? Not illegal, but stupid?
I mean what is the point of calling 911 if you are going to disregard what they say and do what you want anyway? Noone is saying that it was illegal to not listen to the 911 operator, but it certainly was stupid and can definitely speak to his state of mind at the time.
Do you think that the fact that he went his own way contrary to what 911 said will not come up at trial at all?
They don’t have to be police officers to be an agent of the PD afaict.
And yet, 999 times out of 1000 they’re going to have the same effect. Close enough for a message board argument, I says.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
What is the legal significance of this fact?
[/QUOTE]
We’re not in court. I know we’re just going around and around in circles, but this seems like a dumb thing to keep constantly “correcting,” like it changes the case significantly.
A 911 operator has no authority over a caller.
Neither would a police officer, so what does it matter?
The same comment could be made about constantly bringing up the fact that the dispatcher told him not to follow and he did: it’s of no legal significance, so why constantly refer to it?
Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:
Do you think that this fact will come up in trial?
If so, then why is it not a relevant fact to the case as to his mental state at the time? Remember noone is saying that he had a duty to listen or that he was breaking a law by disregarding, just that it is a relevant piece of information to the case.
If not, why not? Is it inadmissible for some reason?
If I tell you that I don’t need you to wash the dishes but you do, you didn’t do the “exact opposite” of what I told you. Basically because I didn’t tell you not to do them. In fact, I may be pleased you did them.
Apart from which, no, there is no “stupidity” involved in ignoring what 911 dispatchers tell you. They are not where you are, they don’t know what you know, and they’re not perfect in their decisions either.
Goes to state of mind?
Someone in a position of authority told him not to do something, and he did it anyway.
People generally hold 911 operators in high regard, and obey their instructions. The fact that he didn’t says something about his own confidence that night.
Quibbling that the 911 operator is not a police officer, and that their “command” was given in a rather meek and polite manner is fine. The defense would be right to bring that up. But it’s getting trotted out here every 5 minutes like it’s more meaningful than it is.
You can interpret it however you want, but the meaning of the phrase is simply “We don’t have an active desire/expect that you do this”.
All of this also is ignoring the fact that Zimmerman did stop following Martin. Or at least we can tell from the audio that he stopped running.
He ignored the advice of someone who is trained to handle emergency situations. Are you seriously saying this is irrelevant in court?
If the dispatcher had instead asked Zimmy to follow the boy to prevent him from getting away, do you not think this would alter Zimmy’s culpability with respect to acting “unnecessarily and recklessly”?
It is not illegal to act unnecessarily or recklessly, and yet these are elements to deciding whether a homicide is justified or not.
Terr,
Are you saying that this fact is inadmissible in court than?
If so, why? If not, then why are you dismissing it as irrelevant? Surely the prosecution will bring it up if they are not prohibited from doing so, so how is it not a relevant point?
To insist that the phrase carries only its literal meaning is head-in-the-sand behavior.
It may. If it does, how would you prefer it was presented:
-
Zimmerman ignored police instructions not to follow Martin.
-
Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher’s statement that they didn’t need him to follow Martin.
A follow up question too - which of the two is more accurate?
We have no evidence he stopped following Martin.
I don’t particular care how it is presented, and how it is presented is not my point. If it is presented at trial, and I am pretty certain that it will, then it will be up to the jury to decide its significance, right? And if so, then can we all agree to stop dismissing it as irrelevant, since that is not your job to decide, not being on the jury and all?