The police dispatcher did NOT "tell Z to stop following Martin" and was NOT "directed to do so."
This FALSE narrative has become the accepted (and repeated) version of what transpired, but for those who understand the common usage of the English language realize there is a major difference between an "ORDER" and a "SUGGESTION," such as what the dispatcher actually relayed to Z, to whit: "OK we don't need you to do that."
> The police dispatcher did NOT “tell Z to stop following Martin” and was NOT “directed to do so.”
Important point. ‘Tell Z to stop’ and ‘directed to do so’ imply that he said ‘Stop’, ‘I order you to stop’, ‘I’m telling you to stop’, ‘my instructions are to stop’ — some kind of direct command (which some persons here say would have no legal authority coming from the dispatcher anyway). What was actually said was “OK, we don’t need you to do that [keep following him].” Zimmerman did more than what the dispatcher thought was needed, yes, but that’s not the same as disobeying an order not to do it.
Though it turned out badly, the criminal act wasn’t Zimmerman trying to keep Martin in sight. It was Martin attacking Zimmerman. Of the many things that went into producing that effect at that moment, it was the most important, and in my opinion the only criminal act.
And your snippet suggests that zimmerman did not start following the guy until after he been told not to by a civilian operator. How can he stop following someone if he is supposed to be sitting in his truck??
And your snippet suggests that zimmerman did not start following the guy until after he been told not to by a civilian operator. How can he stop following someone if he is supposed to be sitting in his truck??