Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Tero]

Well, Zimmerman will never be the cop he wanted to be.

[kiki5711]

"We don't need you to do that" is an ambiguous statement, I think.

I read that as a polite way of telling Zimmerman to not follow the suspect.

It depends how it was said:

"we don't need you to do that" in regular slow voice

or

"WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!" in louder more direct voice.

[maiforpeace]

"We don't need you to do that" is an ambiguous statement, I think.

I think?

It sounds like nurse-speak: "We are having our shot now, aren't we?" I'm guessing it's language that dispatchers are trained to use.

What exactly is ambiguous about it? Sounds more like Zimmerman just ignored it, otherwise, wouldn't he question it as ambiguous? Why bother calling the police then?

[Hermit]

"We don't need you to do that" is an ambiguous statement, I think.

I think?

It sounds like nurse-speak: "We are having our shot now, aren't we?" I'm guessing it's language that dispatchers are trained to use.

What exactly is ambiguous about it?

That's my take on it too.

[kiki5711]

"We don't need you to do that" is an ambiguous statement, I think.

I think?

It sounds like nurse-speak: "We are having our shot now, aren't we?" I'm guessing it's language that dispatchers are trained to use.

What exactly is ambiguous about it? Sounds more like Zimmerman just ignored it, otherwise, wouldn't he question it as ambiguous? Why bother calling the police then?

Exactly. What are they suppose to do to get it clear to him. yell "STOP, DO NOT MOVE ANYWHERE, UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS". If zimm didn't understand "we don't need you to do that" as telling him 'WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT" that what did he think it meant?

did he think "oh, well, they're saying we don't need you to do that, but they're not here to make that decision, so here I go". He clearly took it upon himself to make a decision that lead to a confrontation and martin's death.

If I was the one walking down that path, and some weird little fat guy was following me, I'd panic too.

[FBM]

As I said before, "We don't need you to do that" is a declarative/informative sentence, not an imperative. The ambiguity arises when the listener is expected to assume that it is meant to be imperative, despite the declarative/informative structure. It is much weaker than, "Don't do that!" If the dispatcher had intended the imperative, "Don't do that", s/he should have used the imperative form, like when a cop says, "Freeze! Up against the wall! Spread 'em!" and the like.

I'm pretty sure Zimmerman understood that the dispatcher somewhat preferred that he not follow Martin, but "We don't need you to do that" is a very weak expression. If the dispatcher had really felt strongly about it, s/he should have been more direct and forceful instead of pussy-footing around about it. I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in ignoring the dispatcher's words (if that's what he did), but if the dispatcher had meant to say, "Don't do that!", s/he should have said exactly that. Instead, we've got this limp-wristed, ambiguous double-speak that just muddies the waters.

But this is all Monday-morning quarterbacking. I don't really need you to respond to it.

[Tyrannical]

Looks like this case is about over since the autopsy was released, expect a dismissal soon. The fatal shot was fired from about a foot and a half away, and li'l trayvon had abrasions on his knuckles from hitting Zimmerman.

The only question left is how much damage Blacks will cause as they riot for "justice". Hopefuly there will be a few armed "Zimmermans" at each of the coming riot areas.

[Tyrannical]

Oh, and trayvon had no cell phone on himself according to the full report. Funny how the police haven't arrested that lying girlfriend that claimed he was talking to her.

[kiki5711]

Oh, and trayvon had no cell phone on himself according to the full report. Funny how the police haven't arrested that lying girlfriend that claimed he was talking to her.

so the whole thing about martin being on the cell phone, reported from the start, was just fabrication and of course you know that she's a lying little piece of shit, now don't ya?

[kiki5711]

I know you said not to respond to this but I just wanted to say something.

I'm pretty sure Zimmerman understood that the dispatcher somewhat preferred that he not follow Martin, but "We don't need you to do that" is a very weak expression. If the dispatcher had really felt strongly about it, s/he should have been more direct and forceful instead of pussy-footing around about it. I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in ignoring the dispatcher's words (if that's what he did), but if the dispatcher had meant to say, "Don't do that!", s/he should have said exactly that. Instead, we've got this limp-wristed, ambiguous double-speak that just muddies the waters.

It's a matter of interpretation on zimms part. I mean, did he get any training in how to follow orders if in case he does come across some trouble and perceives a burglary was about to take place? Police have procedures when they follow a suspect, did zimm get trained to do the same? Also, the dispatcher maybe didn't know how thick headed zimm was and felt no need to "stern" his voice and perhaps thought zimm was not going to take risky actions all by himself.

Kind of reminds me when I tell my kids "Now don't do that, it's not nice". Not sinking in. A little louder. "I said DON'T DO THAT, it's not nice!" Still not sinking in. "FOR FUCKS SAKE WILL YOU STOP DOING THIS". Finally they hear and know what you mean.

[Warren Dew]

"We don't need you to do that" is an ambiguous statement, I think.

I read that as a polite way of telling Zimmerman to not follow the suspect.

That's not the way it sounded to me. To me, it sounded like they meant, "we appreciate your following in the car, but you don't have to risk following on foot for us if you don't want to," with an implied "and besides, you might get hurt and sue us if we encourage you".

I agree it's a matter of interpretation. It was clearly not an order.

[Warren Dew]

Kind of reminds me when I tell my kids "Now don't do that, it's not nice". Not sinking in. A little louder. "I said DON'T DO THAT, it's not nice!" Still not sinking in. "FOR FUCKS SAKE WILL YOU STOP DOING THIS". Finally they hear and know what you mean.

And in this case, they didn't even say "don't do that". Honestly, the only time I would expect "you don't need to do that" to be followed by the person not doing it is when it's something that the person doesn't want to do in the first place - like telling a kid they don't need to eat the vegetables that they hate.

[Warren Dew]

As I've indicated previously, I think that both were guilty of actions that contributed to Martin's death, and I'm further interested in understanding exactly how that will translate through the stand your ground law...because, sorry, I do think that this particular law had everything to do with how this will all come down in the end, despite many protestations by others here earlier in this thread.

I think Dershowitz explains it pretty well:

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... -1.1080161

Since Zimmerman seems not to have been able to retreat, it's traditional self defense, not "stand your ground", that applies to his case.

[tattuchu]

I took "You don't need to do that" to mean, "We can't legally tell you to do that."

Anyway, there's a vid over at HuffPo of Trayvon at the 7-11 shortly before his death. Not sure it really tells us anything other than 1) Trayvon was quite a bit bigger than the initial photos the press released led us to believe and 2) he's acting a little strange here.

[kiki5711]

Kind of reminds me when I tell my kids "Now don't do that, it's not nice". Not sinking in. A little louder. "I said DON'T DO THAT, it's not nice!" Still not sinking in. "FOR FUCKS SAKE WILL YOU STOP DOING THIS". Finally they hear and know what you mean.

And in this case, they didn't even say "don't do that". Honestly, the only time I would expect "you don't need to do that" to be followed by the person not doing it is when it's something that the person doesn't want to do in the first place - like telling a kid they don't need to eat the vegetables that they hate.

However, this was not just as simple as 'hey would you mind not doing that'. It was an order given the circumstances. ANd them telling him "you don't need to do that" was MOST LIKELY to prevent an incident such as happened. So, it should have been given a little more thought.