In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:50:30 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

...what bull****.

http://tinyurl.com/cmgwlsn

This is not the only place where they have been walking back the
inflammatory rhetoric they were using a week or two ago.

The news has misquoted that conversation in several areas, completely
changing the context and the actual words.

The most glaring lie is that they told him "not to follow" Martin. He
was told that they didn't "need" him to follow Martin. That sounds
more like liability lawyer speak than anything else. They don't tell
you that you "need" to call them in the first place. It doesn't mean
you can't.

But there are "glaring" facts, as well.

Zimmerman called him a racial slur.
There was none of the usual investigation and forensics done in a death
by shooting. No blood splatter evidence taken, no trajectory evidence
taken. Zimmerman was well known as a loose cannon and also well known to
the police and 911 call center, so much so that they often ignored him.
The screams once attributed to Zimmerman are not his, they are Martins.
It goes on and on.