It doesn't matter. You are either legally required to do it or your not. And here there's the double whammy. I've seen nothing which requires a person to obey such an "instruction." And as it's been pointed out, the "instruction" was ambiguous at best.The fact that you may have followed the "instruction" has nothing to do with whether the "instruction" imposed a duty on Zimmerman to act in a certain manner.Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Yenrub
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'm not saying anything about 'duty' or 'bad act.' I'm saying that a reasonable person would not immediately jump out of their car and literally run off into the night after a 'suspicious' person if the police had told him 'we don't need you to do that.' And 'reasonable' matters in this case as I understand it.
Last edited by a moderator:
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
If Zimmerman was on the phone with the same 911 operator but was reporting on a house fire saying that he saw somebody inside and was going in to get them, only to be told "we don't need you to do that", would anybody here really have a problem with his lack of deference to this "order"?
Only to the use of deadly force. This is why a jury instruction is so important.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Not all jury members care about instructions. Or are even capable of disregarding things they're told to disregard.
That certainly isn't a reason not to give the instruction. As a matter of fact, it makes it all the more important. If you can get just one juror to understand, then you can prevent an erroneous guilty verdict.
identikit
Footballguy
Hard to un-ring the bell, but this is still necessary for the system to work.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
You would look like the bigger man in this thread if you just conceded a point here and there. Even tho i think zimmerman was a jackwagon for causing treys death i also can now see that this case can go either way based on some of the evidence and or lack thereof.To say that zimmerman changing details in his story in front of the whole world was not a big deal is just plain stubborn on your part.
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
That could work both ways. If dispatch operators are telling you how to perform CPR over the phone so you can save a life and you ignore them and someone dies you have to live with that .Why bother having a trained operator on the phone in the first place if they are meant to be ignored.The dispatch knew the police were on route so zimm should have listened to the trained proffesional...period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
But if I were trying to show that his use of deadly force was unreasonable wouldn't it make sense to establish that Zimmerman was unreasonable on a wide variety of other events that preceded the shooting?If I can make a case that he was unreasonable on items A thru Y it helps the case that he was unreasonable on Z as well.
GD jurors.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
I think thats what they are doing, trying to establish a pattern of loose cannon behavior.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Zimmerman was already out of the car and moving before the operator made the statement. And there is no proof that he did follow after the operator made the statement..
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Not all humans are capable of following the rules, so lets not have rules..
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
If the 911 operator told him to meet the police at the mailboxes, but then he says no, have the cops call him when they are in the area, doesnt that seem to imply his intent to continue his search so that the suspicious individual doesnt get away while Zim is standing around waiting and/or talking to the police?
Trained professional? Mall cops have more training and more authority than a police dispatchor.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
But the operator didn't tell him where to meet.. The operator asked him where.. He never told the operator no..It could imply that he thinks he'd have a better chance direction the officers when they are actually in the neighborhood, rather than giving directions second hand.
It is fair to say he continued to want to keep a lookout for the guy..
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
I'm a trained professional, anyone I give advice to has the option to follow or not.. The difference is whether or not the person has been given legal authority over you. The operator was not a sworn official.
timschochet
Footballguy
If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
They are trained to handle crisis situations over the phone. Often times they are the first line of help and what they say can have a huge impact on peoples lives.This case is a clear demonstration of that.I'm a trained professional, anyone I give advice to has the option to follow or not.. The difference is whether or not the person has been given legal authority over you. The operator was not a sworn official.
timschochet
Footballguy
So now you've already decided that if the verdict is guilty, it will be erroneous? And to think some people in here claim that you're above the fray in here, merely dispensing legal knowledge without a prejudice in this case. What a joke.
timschochet
Footballguy
Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Yes, if jurors reached the conclusion based on false information why should it not be considered erroneous?
bigbottom
Footballguy
He was talking about the importance of jury instructions to prevent improper factual determinations as a general matter.
Tim, you are seriously off the deep end on many issues on this thread. ETA----i have a half-sister who is a police dispatcher, i would have choked if someone referred to her as a trained professional. She does have a GED, but beyond thatnothing besides a bit of on the job training.Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Then he should have said "erroneous guilty or not guilty verdict".
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
And Jon_mx , youre acting like a complete tool in almost ALL of your posts.Tim, you are seriously off the deep end on many issues on this thread. ETA----i have a half-sister who is a police dispatcher, i would have choked if someone referred to her as a trained professional. She does have a GED, but beyond thatnothing besides a bit of on the job training.Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
ATC1
Footballguy
Pure speculation from these points. In a pervious call to 911, Z tells the police not to come a certain way because when they see a police car they run. He might have wanted to keep his distance, but have the officer call him to tell him how to come into the neighborhood. Could Z, be heading back to his SUV to follow, or wait?
RE:Z taking the stand. I think the defense knows z saying he thought Martin was older contradictes what he said in the call to the police. Some random people on a message board caught that. I'm sure the defense knew that in a prepared statement to the court. What I believe some of the "evidence" the prosecution has is that Z says he thought Martin was older in his statements to police after the shooting. Being inconsistant to the 911 call, Z needed to be consistant with the police statements after the shooting on the stand.
Coming from the biggest tool here, I will take that as a compliment. My posts have been far fairer than the crap being posted by the local lynch mob.And Jon_mx , youre acting like a complete tool in almost ALL of your posts.Tim, you are seriously off the deep end on many issues on this thread. ETA----i have a half-sister who is a police dispatcher, i would have choked if someone referred to her as a trained professional. She does have a GED, but beyond thatnothing besides a bit of on the job training.Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
ATC1
Footballguy
This was a non emergency number. Safe to say those dispatchers taking 911 calls are probably more trained then dispatchers to this non emergency number?Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
You are arguing against BB who is one of the most reliable posters on this forum.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
I am sure Zimmerman is going to have to live with his actions either way the trial goes. I would never of assumed if I call 911 that I have to follow what the operator instructed, like I had been deputized. I agree that Zimmerman should not of persued and in all reality created the situation but did he break any laws as they stand in Florida; this is the legal case.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes. And?
911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.This was a non emergency number. Safe to say those dispatchers taking 911 calls are probably more trained then dispatchers to this non emergency number?Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Coming from the biggest tool here, I will take that as a compliment. My posts have been far fairer than the crap being posted by the local lynch mob.And Jon_mx , youre acting like a complete tool in almost ALL of your posts.Tim, you are seriously off the deep end on many issues on this thread. ETA----i have a half-sister who is a police dispatcher, i would have choked if someone referred to her as a trained professional. She does have a GED, but beyond thatnothing besides a bit of on the job training.Complete and utter bullcrap, and something neither you nor anyone else would ever have written prior to this case.
There is a good chance you are reaching erroneous conclusions and making over the top statements.
I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.
Really? This wasn't a 911 operator.They are trained to handle crisis situations over the phone. Often times they are the first line of help and what they say can have a huge impact on peoples lives.This case is a clear demonstration of that.I'm a trained professional, anyone I give advice to has the option to follow or not.. The difference is whether or not the person has been given legal authority over you. The operator was not a sworn official.
If a jury ignores a jury instruction and that leads to a guilty verdict, yes, the verdict would be erroneous.Talk about seeing what you want to see, tim.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
So I'm smokescreening myself?
timschochet
Footballguy
I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?
"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.
The "reasonable operator" rule?
bigbottom
Footballguy
I know you're not asking me, but I would think a trained 911 operator would avoid making ambiguous, wishy-washy statements if the intent was to communicate a directive.
Apparently, they like ambiguity in the South.
timschochet
Footballguy
I really don't regard this statement as wishy washy or ambiguous at all, frankly. From the moment I first read it, I had no doubt whatsoever as to what the dispatcher was saying. I still don't, despite all of the arguments being made here.
I think this says a lot more about your credibility than Zimmerman's.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.
