Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

Spin it however you want. What I am saying is you midrepresented the facts, once again. I can only assume you are saying a prosecution witness perjured himself (to help Zimmerman of all poeple) based on your cop testimony hypothetical?

Where did I say he perjured himself?

Did the operator say "we are directed not to give instructions" or did he say "that statement was not an instruction"?  Because those two statements are not remotely equivalent; one is a statement of department policy while the other is a description of what actually happened.

Furthermore, your continued reference to the legal authority of the operator misses the point; if he had received those instructions from someone that did have legal authority (e.g. a cop) and ignored him, then he would have been arrested.  The point is that he was advised not to pursue Martin, indicated that he was complying, then (according to law enforcement) followed him anyway and lied about it.

[Phishfan]

^^^ That is the point of your spin. It is not and was not the point of any of my conversation. My point was that you once again were modifying what happened because of your emotions and inferrences. You said he was instructed to not follow Martin and I have continually pointed out that is false. Then you try to spin the conversation to another point about whether he followed him after that.

[Phishfan]

Where did I say he perjured himself?

You did not say it. I asked if I could assume that since your stated example was an officer perjuring himself about excessive force. I can only assume you would be implying the operator was also perjuring himself. Why else bring up that example?

Did the operator say "we are directed not to give instructions" or did he say "that statement was not an instruction"?  Because those two statements are not remotely equivalent; one is a statement of department policy while the other is a description of what actually happened.

Both. He said he did not give an order and explained why.

[Spider-Dan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trial-20130624,0,5743016.story

Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he said. “We always try to give general basic … not commands, just suggestions.”

So then, Zimmerman verbally indicated compliance with the suggestion of the 911 operator not to follow Martin, but then (according to law enforcement) chose to keep following him anyway.  Is that statement "spin-free" enough for you?

I find it rather tiresome that you complain about spin, yet you have made several posts simply to dispute the use of the word "instruction" (from someone that we have all repeatedly agreed has no legally binding authority) vs. "suggestion."  I hope that this last post has adequately addressed your semantic point of order.

[Phishfan]

I find it rather tiresome that you complain about spin, yet you have made several posts simply to dispute the use of the word "instruction" (from someone that we have all repeatedly agreed has no legally binding authority) vs. "suggestion."  I hope that this last post has adequately addressed your semantic point of order.

Pot meet kettle. You have repeatedly inferred that Zimmerman did not follow the instructions of the operator. I have repeatedly called you out by saying there were no instructions. 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". I'm fine with leaving it where it stands now that you were once again corrected and admit the error.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Phishfan]

Strawman is saying instructed in order to twist what happened. You may agree that there is no legal binding but you continually bring up that he was instructed to not follow Martin. As time passes, I'm sure you will say it again in an effort to to show how Zimmerman went againt instruction and I will point it out again.

The factual inaccuracies and stories of complete fabrication are what lead to the upraor involved in this case.

It was a tragic event but to be honest, people in California really have no right in continuing to try to pose your will on Florida state law. You have commented on it. Our judicial system served it's purpose. Get over it.

[Spider-Dan]

Strawman is saying instructed in order to twist what happened. You may agree that there is no legal binding but you continually bring up that he was instructed to not follow Martin. As time passes, I'm sure you will say it again in an effort to to show how Zimmerman went againt instruction and I will point it out again.

Just as you pointed out that he was technically not advised to stop following?

Pretty difficult to stand on the soapbox of semantic accuracy when it's already been shown that your preconceived position already distorted your view of a statement that's extremely clear to native English speakers.

"OK, we don't need you to do that" is obviously telling you not to do that.
Everyone agrees that statement has no force of law.
You're trying to build a flimsy case of semantics on "instructed" vs. "advised" vs. "suggested," when there is no meaningful distinction between them when coming from someone with no authority.

[Phishfan]

^^^ My case is that as time passes you will once again try to slip into conversation that he was instructed. I don't know your reasoning, but as with the majority of inaccuracies I have seen with this case I can only assume it is to help build sympathy for your position of "No Justice for Trayvon". I personally believe you are using this the same way you continually say Martin was unarmed. Where does it say in any book of law that a person has to be armed in order to potentially cause a life threatening situation?

[Spider-Dan]

I imagine it is listed right around the same section where it says one has to be an adult in order to be a threat.  Or a male, for that matter.

I keep saying "unarmed kid" because society generally looks dimly on adult vs. minor and armed vs. unarmed (and man vs. woman, though it doesn't apply here).  This is not a bias that I personally invented for this case.

[bsmooth]

^^^ My case is that as time passes you will once again try to slip into conversation that he was instructed. I don't know your reasoning, but as with the majority of inaccuracies I have seen with this case I can only assume it is to help build sympathy for your position of "No Justice for Trayvon". I personally believe you are using this the same way you continually say Martin was unarmed. Where does it say in any book of law that a person has to be armed in order to potentially cause a life threatening situation?

It does not. You can kill someone with your hands and feet. But it looks bad when an armed person is saying they had to use deadly force against an unarmed person.