Like Sgt. Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."
Even if all this is 100% true does not mean that Z was the aggressor. You seem to be mixing up your logic in here.
Just because person Z follows M even after 911 told him not to (suggested he not) does not mean 100% that he is the aggressor. It also does not mean that Z is an "armed adult LEO wannabe". I have been in similar situations as Z, does that mean that I am a LEO wannabe? No.
Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen? Then why should a dispatcher be held in a higher regard. People hinge their argument on that like it means something. If I called you to tell you this and I ignored your (logical) warnings does not change the situation much.
I am not suggesting what you are saying is wrong, but the "facts" that you used does not point to where you are heading. There is a whole bunch of assuming and implying on your part.
OK, the "LEO wannabe" was a cheap shot. I based that on Z's prior education and work history (fired from at least one other security job for being "overly aggressive) and I certainly didn't mean to impugn or demean anyone who works in security, loss prevention, or any other LE related field. My apologies if I offended anyone.
So you're saying if you were walking home from the store minding your own business and some random person started following you, chasing you, questioning what you're doing, you wouldn't consider that aggressive? Good luck with that!
I loved your line of "Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen?" Exactly! Z was the 'random' person and the juvenile is who he was trying to do 'something outside of his authority' too.
The poster I originally responded to said, "Have you read the 911 transcript? Z stopped following M and returned to his vehicle." He based that on Z's response to the dispatcher saying he didn't need to follow him. That response was "OK." So does "OK" mean I've stopped following him and am returning to my truck. I don't think so.
Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left.
He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, 'F-ing coons' or 'punks' at 2:22]
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don't need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
You see this part of the call,
"He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance."
You can plainly hear Z running after him on the call. Also, he would not give the dispatcher a place for the police to meet him. He told the dispatcher to have the police call him when they got there. I presume this to be because he didn't know where his pursuit of the juvenile was going to lead him.
Is there enough evidence in all this to convict Z of anything? I don't know. What I DO know is there is more than enough evidence to show that the police response of, 'Good job, go home, we'll clean up the mess' was completely wrong.