drunk said:
they basically the same thing when you consider the possible threat while being alone at night. if someone is "following" you at night, you're not gonna ask questions first. that might end up in a mugging or raping. stalking or following someone at night is what criminals do, not normal people. not expecting a negative reaction is dumb. |
He was not stalking by the legal definition of the word, so stop using that term, stalking requires proof of intent to inflict harm or legitimate threat, this was not the case. Zimmerman's clearly stated intent was to keep track of Martin until the police arrived. Zimmerman did not inflict harm until he was being beaten and felt he was in danger of serious harm or death.
Followning a 'suspicious' person in the dark is dumb, but not illegal. Beating somebody just for following you is dumb... and illegal (there are non-violent, verbal ways to confront somebody). Shooting somebody who is in the process of beating you down when you feel your life is in danger is neither dumb nor illegal. It's pretty simple.
There was not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, that is also pretty simple.
EDIT: Read this carefully. To be considered as 'stalking' in the legal sense of the word, the individual must be going after the other person 'with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm'. It is not possible to prove Zimmerman had that intent before the altercation based on the conversation with the 911 dispatcher and the evidence. Period. There was no stalking charge ever brought against Zimmerman by the prosecution either.
