lol you think the dispatcher was thinking that? That he said "need" so Zimmerman can still make the choice to go put himself in danger? Yeah it could be argued and it would be a stupid argument that insults one's intelligence and otoh can make you look really stupid and desperate to defend the indefensible.
The dispatcher screwed the pooch imo. It was an unfortunate choice of words which was just ambiguous enough to be debatable.
In most any context though, "We don't need you to do that" implies that you halt whatever action prompted the comment in the first place. That would be especially true in the context of this case.
The word "need" really screws things up here.
I think he did what he was trained to do.
When I did tech support a while back fresh out of college, our training class gave us responses to say that is assertive but at the same time not to be overtly commanding to keep escalation levels down. If a computer illiterate person says something like "I'm gonna pull this wire", a valid response would be, "Ok I don't need you to do that sir". No way in my mind would I want that guy to pull that wire and I think the same applies to this dispatcher.
Exactly. Happens every day. Someone drops a fork in a restraunt. They shouldn't *have* to pick it up. Waitress from across the room says "No no no you don't need to do that." Person who picks it up, maybe even old duffer or disabled who had a slightly difficult time picking it up says "Oh that's okay." Waitress gushes again, "Aw that's nice, you didn't need to do that."
Okay so the stakes are infinitely higher in the Travon Zimmerman Dispatcher case. I'm just concuring with your point about word use and the word "need".
The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman...to wait for the officer."The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer."
That did not happen -- it was never said, suggested, implied, or anything else but, I think it's important to establishing probable cause for the 2nd Degree Murder charge that Zimmerman be characterize as disregarding police instructions and that's why they put it in there.
I think that fits into the whole "evincing a depraved mind" element of Second Degree Murder.
Zimmerman was to wait for the officer at a location but changed his mind and asked if the cops can call him when they get there instead. Why? So he can continue to stalk a teen.
Nope, that's not how they're trained.
If it had been illegal for Zimmerman to do what he was doing, the dispatcher would have said; "sir, I'm going to instruct you to return to your vehicle and wait for police there."
But, the dispatcher knew Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to be doing whatever he wanted to in the common areas of his residential neighborhood.
The dispatcher was merely covering the department's ass in the event Zimmerman happened upon a felon that killed him...which, ironically, almost happened. At least then, the dispatcher could say, "I told him he didn't need to do that..."
This dispatcher's words were to relieve the agency of anything that might have happened to the person they were talking to. They didn't have Trayvon Martin in mind, for all they knew, George Zimmerman had happened upon a burglar and, if he caught up with him, might have gotten hurt.
By the way, I'll raise another point I've been making since I listened to the 911 call. There's nothing on the call that indicates George Zimmerman didn't heed the dispatcher's admonition.
The rest of the call is calm, he doesn't sound hurried, and there's no indication he's continued to try and find the su ious person. In fact, when the dispatcher asks for his address, he's reluctant to give it out loud because he doesn't know where the su ious person went.
Or, so he could remain in the general area where he last saw the person.
All these years doing security I was trained to "observe and report"
When did the rules change?
You talking security guard employee W2 wage stub and the whole Federal and State shebang vs self appointed neighborhood watch guy.
Right?
No.
The dispatcher protected the department from liability. If the dispatcher said no, and the "suspect" committed a crime, they could be sued. Same as if they said, "yes, please continuing following for us." They could then be liable if Zimmerman was hurt.
Fuzzbot is a chronic lair. Why are you debating the dip ?
Why hasn't anyone thought about the possibility that Zimmerman may be a freakin psycho and was having a blood lust episode so he picked a target and took the target out?
911 is normally operated by PSAP, under city or county jurisdiction, not the police department.
BTW, liability exists both ways. The Martin family could sue the 911 operator for not being assertive enough in telling Mr Zimmerman to stop pursuing his "suspect".
Furthermore, 911 lawsuits are fairly common and some states grant full immunity to 911 operators (don't know about Florida, but NJ definitely does) exactly because of that.
All in all, your theory of "wanting to avoid liability" reeks of uneducated guess.
Anything is possible. I just see it as pretty unlikely.
Isn't it more likely that would be Martin's trip? How did he lose the front of his teeth to have them replaced with gold?
Once again...
He did not dial 911.
Why the can't people keep the facts strait?
He called the non-emergency police line.
Psychos don't normally try to involve the police until after they've, uh, taken "the target out."
Is it possible, not saying he was, repeat is it possible that Trayvon was stalking the 'hood looking for some burglary action?
What's the latest with Zimmermans website?
Raising dough to pay for his defense.
It doesn't matter.
Shoot him!
Yep, no more than it matters that Zimmerman was following what he described to police as a su ious person in a neighborhood experiencing a rash of property crimes.
Especially when he's on top of you beating your head against the concrete.
Not a fact of which I was aware but, it's not relevant because he still reached the police.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
