Thank you UPF, so after Zimmerman said, ‘Somethings wrong with him’ the non-emergency dispatcher told him to, ‘Just let me know if he does anything’ and ‘Just let me know if this guy does anything else’, before, ‘Ok, we don’t need you to do that’.
Just speaking to that situation not to how it affects the case as a whole; that Zimmerman said there was something wrong with Martin seems to imply that he saw something notable in Martin’s actions not just his appearance. Then the dispatcher said in a very straight forward way to let him know if he does anything. Basically, if one wants to say that ‘everyone knows to listen to the dispatcher’ then Zimmerman was being told to do something that may not have been his intention. I’m not saying that it was likely, but the possibility seems to be there. Then the dispatcher only said, ‘Ok, we don’t need you to do that.’
Why couldn’t he have just used the same straight forward manner as before and said ‘Don’t do that’? While I realize that may have been his implication there seems to be the possibility that it wasn’t. The dispatcher may have realized that his previous words may have been perceived to imply Zimmerman should follow him and so to avoid liability he told him that he didn’t have to.
I would argue that people know the difference between a direct request and an ambiguous one. Does anyone know the difference between talking to someone who they know isn’t being clear and earnest and talking to someone who is being as straight forwards as can be?
The dispatcher didn’t make a direct request as to Zimmerman not following Martin. It’s the difference between someone saying they are going to key my friend’s car, in which case I’ll say something to the affect of, ‘No absolutely not, don’t even think about it’, and someone saying they are going to key a strangers car, in which case I’ll say, ‘You shouldn’t do that,’ or maybe even, ‘You don’t need to do that.’ But, you see the apathy, because I don’t really care one way or another about a stranger’s car.
So if someone can take nothing more from the dispatcher’s ambiguity is seems one must take that he didn’t care as much about about whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin, whom he didn’t know at all, than he would have if he knew and liked the person being followed.
Though, I can tell you that when ever it’s my job to in part concern myself with the safety of others, I am never ambiguous. I take whatever job I’m doing seriously enough to say exactly what I think, but then I guess that’s why I never went anywhere career wise.
I have one more question: if a dispatcher in a similar situation were to tell someone in no uncertain terms not to follow the person they claim to suspect and they listen and don’t follow, then the person that was suspected goes and commits a major crime, what do you think the consequences might be for that dispatcher when the person who was on the phone goes and tells the police how much he was inclined to follow the person, but didn’t out of respect for the dispatcher’s direct request?