As someone who hasn’t followed the story closely, could you help a brother out?
Everybody and their dog claims that Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher told him not to.
Even Fox News asserts it as a matter of fact:
In phone calls, Zimmerman told an emergency dispatcher that Martin looked suspicious, and he followed the teen despite the dispatcher’s advice.
The prosecutors say it in their affidavit:
When the police dispatcher realized that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Yet the Daily Caller has argued that the audio does not show it.
It was a mistake for Zimmerman to leave his car in the first place. But while the audio may not decisively prove that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher asked him to, it is very strong evidence that he did, especially when coupled with his testimony to police the night of the incident. But that isn’t even the point.
The point is this: With no witnesses stating that Zimmerman defied the dispatcher’s wishes and continued following Martin and no evidence to suggest he did, how did the idea that he pursued Martin after the dispatcher told him not to become a universally recognized, undisputed fact?
My question: has something developed in the meantime that undercuts this? Something that might have been missed by someone like me, who is preoccupied these days with work and family life?
It’s an honest question. How do we know Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher’s warning?