Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty

[24601]

292. It's appropriate you brought this up. The words you suggest are not accurate. The individual

with whom Zimmerman spoke was not a police officer. That individual testified several things:

That not being a police officer, but rather a civilian dispatcher (Sean Noffke) who send officers out on calls, that they have no authority to give orders to callers. He testified specifically that he was not authorized to tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

That the words he used were "OK, we don't need you to do that", which even if the dispatcher could give enforceable orders) would have been different than an order for Zimmerman to remain in, or return to, his car.

From LA Times Coverage:

"In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said."

“How come you didn’t … say ‘don’t follow'?” the prosecutor asked him.

"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.”

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

Good that you brought it up because it's important to distinguish facts, especially those clarified in sworn testimony, as opposed to the inaccurate statements that contribute to the polarizations of this case and may incite further violence.

And I certainly don't blame you - what you post has been said by no shortage of people who had easy access to the true statements.