Doesn’t the “and serves no legitimate purpose” give Zimmerman an out? He apparently believed that he was following a potential criminal. Obviously he wasn’t but he didn’t know that.
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. The text right in your post says “and repeatedly”.
You’re assuming he intended to catch up with him.
Are you saying he caught up to him by accident?
But he changed the location and directions as he continued to follow Martin.
Later…
Possibly. TM may have gotten out of his line of sight and he (GZ) assumed he ™ had kept on going, not realizing that TM had stopped. (That’s my vague impression of what has been claimed, anyway.)
Because Zimmerman followed him to see where Martin went. Again, the point is specific definition here. Follow is:
Chase is:
Martin didn’t like Zimmerman following him and decided to confront him about it.
The idea that Zimmerman chased down Martin and confront him doesn’t fit the timeline. It requires that Martin, running scared, fails to cover ~250 feet in 2+ minutes, fails to yell for help, fails to knock on any door, and essentially be the most incompetent person at fleeing in the history of the world.
Martin confronting Zimmerman makes a lot more sense. Zimmerman follows Martin to the path in the back of the houses and fails to see Martin. Martin waits until Zimmerman gets off the phone, confronts him, and a scuffle begins.
you with the face claimed that not following the recommendations of the 911 operator meant that Zimmerman was more likely to brandish his weapon. Which is illegal. But as I mention, the fact that you do something legal is not evidence that you have broken the law by doing something illegal.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman brandished his weapon. There is some indication that he did not - unless you think a likely response to someone pointing a gun at you is to start screaming for help, while simultaneously attacking the person holding you at gunpoint with your fist and/or iced tea, bloodying his nose and knocking him down, and then slamming his head against the ground. And the person holding the gun waits until he has been decked and his head cut open before firing the pistol he has in his hand all along.
And as a matter of fact, someone is claiming he broke the law.
Since Stoid will not be able to produce even one solitary instance of someone being charged with stalking in Florida for following a stranger thru his neighborhood on one occasion, I think we can be pretty sure this is as solidly founded in law and reality as the Easter Bunny.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. The second half of the convo comes after the dispatcher told him not to pursue. So his refusal to give a specific location for meeting the cops is a clear giveaway that he was on the move at that point.
This is evidence that he’s lied in his statement, if in fact he is insisting he didn’t follow Martin after he was told not to.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Was Martin followed “repeatedly”?
Your ‘one step removed’ is the difference between committing a crime and not committing a crime. If he didn’t actually point his firearm at Martin, then he might get away with probation and some expensive legal bills. If he actually pointed his firearm at Martin, then he is looking at Aggravated Assault and a three year mandatory minimum sentence.
http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/Assault-Aggravated-Assault-Charges-Florida.html
Yes for several hundred concurrent one second intervals. (I am kidding of course, I do not believe stalking is at all relevant here.)
treis covered what I was going to say, well up thread.
I was unaware that the fact he followed Martin was ever in question.
From Zimmerman’s call to police, we know he got out and followed Martin. Getting out of the car to follow Martin was a stupid thing for Zimmerman to do. Nevertheless, in light of the fact he was on the phone with police at the time, I think its reasonable to believe it can be considered a legitimate purpose. Stupid, but legitimate.
What happens between the end of Zimmerman’s call and the start of the fight? That is the big question.
Are you saying that Martin was growing Marijuana? Besides if there were seeds in the bag, wouldn’t the school expel him, not suspend him?
Does Zimmerman simply hang up on the operator or vice versa? I find it strange, although maybe indicative of nothing, that Zimmerman would hang up.
Ah, another forensics question. Is it possible for the phone company to determine whether someone hung up on a call, or a loss of signal ended the call? I have no idea, though even a hangup doesn’t preclude it from being accidental.
Jesus it was a throw-away comment. Not intended to indict the kind on felony drug cultivation. I forget how damn pedantic this place is even outside of GD and GQ.
It is simply one explanation of why someone might carry the empty bag. It isn’t THE explanation.
A series of acts, though, means at least two. Following someone on one occasion is not “a series of acts.”