Who is "arguing" only on speculation?

Have you read each of my posts in here?

Looks like somebody is getting angry ;)

Spanish people are white...

Zimmerman's mother is either Peruvian Amerind or mestizo, with some black ancestry. His father is German-American. That would make him pretty decidedly not white but mestizo. I don't believe we have any evidence of him identifying as white (or anything else other than Hispanic), and he is only called a "white Hispanic" because the media desperately needed him to be white for their narrative.

I should have used the word 'debate'. No, not angry, just realized we were debating two different things, LOL. Since the thread was about the verdict, I assumed you were debating the verdict itself (in which case using pure speculation wouldn't make sense), not just posting your own conjecture apart from that. Twas just a misunderstanding, that's all.

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.

I read somewhere that Zimmerman filled out some type of paper right after he shot Trayvon and he identified his self as being "white" in that form or whatever it is he filled out

He also supposedly had a myspace page with some rather offputting words for some spanish people from 2005

Edit: yea i also ran into a youtube comment claiming that Zimmerman has black in him and they said to look up a specific name on google that i cant remember to find out

And this is another reason why i said that i think i'm done with this lol

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.

I agree with all you said but you still leave the key part were Zimmerman started the whole affair. If someone is following me from their cars then stop and approach me. I will fight, you do realize that people who usually stalk other people are usually thiefs, rapists, murderers, serial killers and so forth. I will make my move before the other person. And if during a fight the man following has a gun then how do I know he was not planning on killing me. It seems like Martin was defending himself or thought that is life was threatened just like Zimmerman. Had Martin survived the gun shot and the story been the same, and less sensationalize by the media do you believe Zimmerman would not serve at least some time. THe law has to discourage confrontations and this ruling tells us otherwise.

In other news, out of florida. A lady shot a warning shot at her husband because the latter was threatening her, which he testified. She is now spending 20 years in prison. Zimmerman felt threatened and shot a much younger fellow who did not ask to be bothered in the first place, and now he is free. There seems to be some inconsistency when you look at both stories, what does the law say. If you are threatened can you, or can you not use your gun. Why was it allowed in one case and not the other. Why was the person who was confirmed to be in danger the one that wasn't allowed to use the gun for even a warning shot might I had.

If the law as you put it, was consistent people would not be mad. This is the problem of the Zimmerman case, this is the problem that we are having with it.

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.

You have to stop with all this opinion crap and look at the law, which is what resulted in the verdict. Zimmerman did not break the law by following Trayvon, Trayvon did break the law by assaulting Zimmerman. By law, Zimmerman was within his legal rights to act with deadly force in self defense based on Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. That's all the jury can really consider.

Are you really saying that, if somebody was following you, you'd punch them in the face, then get on top of them and pound their head into the pavement? If so, you'd go to prison for that in a heartbeat.

Also, comparing those two cases is just a waste of your time. You obviously didn't actually read all the details of either one. The case your referring to was completely, catagorically different in every way.

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.