drunk said:
timmah said:
drunk said:
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.
|
The prosecution didn't charge him with stalking. By the legal definition of the word, he was not at any time a 'stalker'. There is no two ways about it, really. Again, you have to look at legal definitions when dealing with a court case, following and stalking are very different things and have to do with intent. Unless intent can be proven, the term stalking does not apply. You have absolutely no argument on that term if the prosecution didn't even charge him with it.
|
like i said, i'm talking about in the moment. at that moment there are no news reports about zimmerman. they are complete strangers. and maybe he turned out not to be a bonifide stalker after the facts. but at that moment he exhibited all the traits of a stalker. and at night when alone, it would be stupid to think otherwise. or do you think he should have asked his stalker if he's gonna mug him? and if a stalker really did turn out to be a criminal then what?
|
There were 4 minutes in between when Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon, and when Trayvon attacked him. During that time, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was going back to his truck to meet the cops. Those 4 minutes were plenty for Trayvon to get to his house just around the corner, instead he doubled back and attacked Zimmerman (so you could then argue that Trayvon was the stalker 'at that moment'). Again, this is really not rocket science. REASONABLE DOUBT... look it up.
