Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

what would you define as reckless behaviour then?

i didnt say it wasnt reckless

Originally posted by inimalist
right, you aren't supposed to do what the dispatcher says, and you bare no liability for anything you do should you ignore them and end up shooting an innocent 17 year old

I have no idea. I don't live in Florida, and I don't know the laws there.

Originally posted by juggerman
better 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
what would you define as reckless behaviour then?

Originally posted by inimalist
ditto

Please explain.

Originally posted by juggerman
i didnt say it wasnt reckless

then what could your point have possibly been?

when you call 9-11, they aren't just giving you friendly directions or tips, ffs

right, you aren't supposed to do what the dispatcher says, and you bare no liability for anything you do should you ignore them and end up shooting an innocent 17 year old

if you called the police cuz you saw someone raping a child and the dispatcher told you to do nothing and wait would you?

i think Zimmerman thought he was stopping a crime from happening.

was he correct? no but that doesnt mean he didnt have good intentions

Originally posted by inimalist
then what could your point have possibly been?

when you call 9-11, they aren't just giving you friendly directions or tips, ffs

What does the law say about that in Florida?

then what could your point have possibly been?

my point was people like you are always putting things into the story to try to make things look worse for Zimmerman

Originally posted by inimalist
when you call 9-11, they aren't just giving you friendly directions or tips, ffs

As far as I know, in the US, dispatchers have no authority over civilians.

Originally posted by juggerman
was he correct? no but that doesnt mean he didnt have good intentions

hence why what he did was wrong. he acted recklessly, made a massive error which he was advised against, that lead to an innocent man dying.

you are literally making my argument to me... I don't see how you can think this is acceptable behaviour?

They don't, just as a manufacturer of a product doesn't have authority over the consumer, but if you(the consumer) ignore the safety warnings on a product and you end up killing someone, it'd be considered reckless behavior.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As far as I know, in the US, dispatchers have no authority over civilians.

even in a situation like this? I mean, I can accept they aren't some type of final authority, but surely this opens Zimmerman up to a greater degree of liability?

Since the dispatchers suggestion was in line with the law of the country (ie. don't stalk and shoot innocent people) I don't think it matters much.

Perhaps as a testament to his character (like the racial slur he let loose on the phone).

hence why what he did was wrong. he acted recklessly, made a massive error which he was advised against, that lead to an innocent man dying.

you are literally making my argument to me... I don't see how you can think this is acceptable behaviour?

if all Zimmerman did was follow a young man and ask what was he doing and then defend himself against the young man there no he didnt do anything wrong. whether he acted wrongly or not is determained after he spoke with Martin not before.

following someone is not against the law and it in and of itself is silly to argue. the dispatcher told him they didnt need him to follow. he followed anyway. nothing really wrong with that.

Perhaps as a testament to his character (like the racial slur he let loose on the phone).

the "slur" turned out to be "punks"

dunno what makes punks a slur exactly

Originally posted by juggerman
if all Zimmerman did was follow a young man and ask what was he doing and then defend himself against the young man there no he didnt do anything wrong. whether he acted wrongly or not is determained after he spoke with Martin not before.

following someone is not against the law and it in and of itself is silly to argue. the dispatcher told him they didnt need him to follow. he followed anyway. nothing really wrong with that.

do you know what the concept of legal liability refers to?

do you know what the concept of legal liability refers to?

if i ask someone a question and they deck me it was my fault for asking?

Originally posted by juggerman
the "slur" turned out to be "punks"

dunno what makes punks a slur exactly

I'm not deaf, he said "****ing coons".

I'm not deaf, he said "****ing coons".

last i heard they analized it to confirm and the professionals decided he said "punks" not "coons".

they cleared out the background noise and made his voice clearer. no doubt not a slur. most people heard what they wanted to hear tho...

Originally posted by juggerman
if i ask someone a question and they deck me it was my fault for asking?

ok, so, legal liability is something that goes beyond this little scenario you are presenting

it basically asks, if this were a reasonable person, how would they have behaved? the less like a reasonable person you are, the more legally liable you are for the outcome should they go wrong. So, for instance, having a pool at your home increases your liability, should someone drown in it as opposed to someone just randomly dying in your back yard.

because zimmerman acted recklessly, which you agreed with, he is far more liable than if he just asked a question to someone.