Looking at the undisputed facts in the Zimmerman case and applying Zimmerman's original story

[slackmaster]

112. Your reply is presumptuous nonsense. You imply that Zimmerman broke a LAW by not following advice,

but you are unable to cite which LAW.

There is no offense called "failure to comply or something along those lines." Interfering with an officer is surely a crime, with definitions and prescribed punishment. But not following advice from a dispatcher, phrased as a suggestion, could not possibly rise to the level of interfering with an officer.

You never did respond to my point regarding Zimmy not being forthcoming with the Dispatcher when he called the Sanford Police to report his delusional perception that the teenager looked suspicious...

Please cite what Florida statute you believe would require someone calling the police to disclose to the dispatcher that he or she has a weapon.

The LAW is only what the LAW says, not what you think it is or what you think it should be. I think you have a badly distorted view of the relationship between the government and the governed. Here's the key: If you can't find a law that SPECIFICALLY prohibits a particular act, that act is ALLOWED.

You know; the fact he, Zimmy, was armed with a loaded weapon when in pursuit of Martin whom he ultimately gunned down an murdered.

He had a permit to carry a loaded weapon.

If Zimmy would of been forthcoming when on the phone with the Dispatcher and shared such a serious detail, guaranteed the Dispatcher would of called for back-up and boldly order Zimmy to Stand Down.

You have a vivid imagination, but whatever would or would have not happened makes no difference in the legality of anyone's actions.