[GilesB]

Here is the thing that startles me about this deal:
Many people are claiming that the words of the 911 operator constitutes a “direct order” from the police. In fact, Nancy Grace went apoplectic while screaming those very words at a guest (I know, she is Sheila Jackson Lee stupid, but still...).

There are two things wrong with that claim:
1) The dispatcher is NOT the police - just a citizen - and should be considered such.
2) Even if they were policemen - a policeman telling you something over the phone CANNOT prohibit you from doing something that is perfectly legal, and the policeman saying not to over the phone (NOT on the scene and observing the situation) does not place ANY legal burden on you to act or not to act.

Are people really this stupid??????

[ScoopAmma]

Unexpectedly, yes.

[Theoria]

Sure. But the dispatcher was simply giving a common sense suggestion.

Even trained officers one on one with someone will struggle. That's why more or less you have a partner. Now, a volunteer watch person, with probably less training than a officer might be put in a situation that is over his head.

[zeestephen]

Re: “Do Not Follow” Order

No emergency operator is going to tell a caller to pursue a possible criminal.

If the caller gets injured, if the criminal gets injured, if an innocent bystander gets injured, that means an INSTANT LAWSUIT.

[varialectio]

But GZ says, “OK” in response to the dispatcher. He agrees. Then he says “he ran” and further along in the tape he has no idea when the guy is, and doesn’t want to give his address for that reason.

[Political Junkie Too]

I believe that the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that," not "Do not do that."

The dispatcher's comments were ambiguous, and were not instructions.

-PJ