This message was self-deleted by its author

[jsmirman]

128. "We Don't Need You To Do That" = "You Have No Authorization To Do That"

we had a case like this in crim law.

Even if Zimmerman were dealing with someone he had caught attempting to break into his home and was now stalking that person, that instruction is an instruction that tells him he has no authorization to follow.

And it is sure as hell is a directive to not actively confront.

Why is this the case?

1) For the "neighborhood watch" person's safety (and you keep repeating that he was part of some neighborhood watch, which from what I am reading seems to be factually untrue) - the person is not trained to insure their own safety, and the cops want the concerned citizen to remain safe

2) Because the concerned citizen is not trained in how to properly confront or question the person they are pursuing, any responsible law enforcement agency does not want "concerned citizens" creating situations that would not have existed absent the "concerned citizen's" actions and

3) Because the concerned citizen is surely not trained in proper procedure in the case of an actual altercation and has no legal authority to be involved in such an altercation, and it is not possible to rely on a concerned citizen's training in application of levels of appropriate force.

Let me tell you this - if this guy WAS a neighborhood watch member - or even just knowing how many complaints he had already called into the police department (I believe it was just shy of 400) - I find your version that he did not know what this standard "DO NOT ENGAGE" directive from the 911 Operator meant to be UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE.

Or to be straightforward, I find it to be utter bullshit.