You could examine your motives for how you chose to interpret your skim-reading, but I don't suppose you're going to.Quote:
Lee said the directions the 911 dispatcher gave Zimmerman to not accost Martin when the incident arose were not mandatory instructions.
"That is a call taker making a recommendation to him. He's not under a legal obligation to do that, so that is not something we can charge him with. But it would have been a good outcome ... if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman never came in contact with one another."
Naw, I didn't read that the same way you did. It was vague enough to make me look for other articles.
Now as far as Florida legalizing murder, well if the only excuse and proof required to shoot someone is southparks "he's comin right for us", then yes I would say it's an accurate description.
See, two sides of the same coin.
I'm continuing to learn more as I read, as I'm sure you are. The more I read, the more it seems the situation is different than my initial understanding. In fact, I just read that Zimmerman had prior complaints against him for his behavior, which I did not know 10 minutes ago.
To state my position clearly - I'm all for people defending themselves to the greatest extent allowed by law. I'm not for people being retards. Chasing someone on foot through a housing development would fall into the retarded category. Again, not something I was aware of a few minutes ago.