Call it semantics if you want but it is pretty integral to the entire discussion when your entire point is that Zimmerman did not follow "instructions".
...even though we all have specifically and repeatedly agreed that any "instructions" from the operator would have no legally binding force? Right.
It would be one thing if you had only made this particular point after the operator's testimony. But you were already playing the "he didn't actually
say not to follow Martin" card over a year ago.
Direct quote:I used the word advised, but he really didn't give advice or an order. He just simply said, "We don't need you to do that."
So unless you want to now pretend that there is a difference between
advice and
a suggestion, it's obvious that you've been inserting artificial ambiguity into a perfectly clear statement from the operator ("OK, we don't need you to do that") for over a year, and you're still at it even when the operator himself said it was a "suggestion."
I encourage you to follow that link and see how many times it is
repeatedly pointed out that we all understand the operator has no force of law to issue legally-binding commands. Your "instruction" line of argument is a mighty strawman, as it's quite clear that everyone agrees that Zimmerman has every
legal right to disregard what the operator says.