timmah said:
drunk said:
lol, there a many ways to know if someone is stalking you. and we already know from the facts in this case that he was... thats why the cops told him not to do it. derp, someone looks suspicious... thats not good enough. you stalk someone when that person didn't do anything wrong. thats harrassment... and an ass whooping thats ready to happen. go ahead, at night stalk some random guys who "look suspicious". lets see how fast you get your ass beat. lol
|
Ok, you've just shot every bit of your credibility out the window. He wasn't stalking, he was following, this was evident throughout the trial and corroborated by testimony from law enforcement experts. Stalking is defined as:
A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking.
You have to prove intent and a credible threat, none of that was proven in court, there was never an alligation of 'stalking'. Based on Zimmerman's recorderd coversation with the dispatcher, his intent was to track Trayvon, not to harm him. Intent is everything in a stalking case. Get your facts straight please.
Secondly, you also showed how much you don't know about the case by saying 'the cops' told him not to follow. It was a civilian 911 operator who suggested he go back to his truck, and he told her he was going to, he also stated to the police he was going back to his truck when he was confronted by Martin. Whether you believe this or not is irrelivent, there was not any evidence to the contrary. Juries have to convict on Evidence, a concept that is apparently lost on some here.
|
