I don't think there are any laws against disobeying a dispatcher's orders, I just think that when he did disobey the dispatcher, he waived his 'stand your ground' rights; he wasn't standing his ground anymore. He came onto Martin's ground. Martin, even if the witness was truthful, was the one standing his ground.
For me, what it all comes down to is - had Zimmerman stayed in his car, Martin would be alive. Zimmerman made a choice to leave his car, and now he needs to be held accountable for the choice/choices he made that night. He's alive, a child is dead - and that child is dead by his hand.
I disagree that by disobeying the dispatcher he waived his 'stand your ground' rights. It all comes down to intention--if Zimmerman approached Trayvon aggressively and with appearance of potentially physically harming him, then yes, he completely loses the 'stand your ground' right.
However, an individual cannot claim self-defense simply if Zimmerman approached him in an accusatory manner in my opinion. So, again, I think it comes down to simply intent of Zimmerman. Was he trying to delay Trayvon until the police arrive or was he physically trying to contain him?
I completely agree with that statement. However, I don't think that necessary quantifies as a guilty if there were other tangibles in play that were out of his control. Again, I'm not trying to defend Zimmerman's actions or even his innocence. Just playing Devil's advocate really.
Even if Trayvon were on top of him, it would not change the basic facts of the case: He racially profiled a teenager, assumed he was on drugs or preparing to commit a crime, then followed and murdered him. It is incredibly frustrating to see people fail to grasp that violence occurred, not because of anything Trayvon did, but because he was black and in the wrong neighborhood. This could not have happened to just anyone of any race.
All of those statements are opinions, not facts. I completely agree that it is most likely that he was racial profiling--I believe that is what he was doing as well--but I don't know what about his actions verifies it. I don't know why he was suspicious of Trayvon and neither do you. I just think it's ridiculous the belief that every action must be race-motivated.
He killed Trayvon, but again, we do not know the circumstances leading up to that event. If Zimmerman instigated the physical encounter then by all means he murdered the victim. However, if Trayvon became upset with what he believed racial targeting/being followed/being accused, and instigated it, then it is much murkier. Would you say if Trayvon instigated physical aspect of the encounter and during it, reached for his gun, Zimmerman is still guilty of murder?
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am just trying to provide discussion and go against these 'definite' statements as if the case is already decided.