By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah said:
drunk said:
timmah said:

Um... I don't think you read my post. I wasn't saying anything about Martin being or not being a threat, but that Zimmerman was not guilty of stalking by the definition of the legal term.

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

you keep talking about things after the fact.  i'm talking about the moment.  at that specific moment Zimmerman is a stalker whether you like it or not.   he's a stranger that keeps following someone who didn't do anything.   things got settled and information came out after the fact, but not at that moment.    you sound like someone on the defense team for muggers and rapists.