Florida Teen murdered by

[aztek]

do we know for sure martin was running away from Z?

[aztek]

interesting take

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

do we know for sure martin was running away from Z?

interesting take

http://www.wagist.co...edees-testimony

In your link it said Martin ran away twice, and then stood his ground against an aggravated stalker. As for the "doubling back", he thought that was the end of the confrontation, he could have been thinking "well back to what I was doing". He did tell the girl on the phone he thought he lost him. Someone stalking you does not mean you have to run home, actually stand your ground is the opposite of just that. If someone threatens your safety you don't have to retreat. You can stand your ground and meet their threats with force.

Personally speaking, I would not go running home because someone threatens me. I would continue doing whatever I was doing until they actually become a threat of great bodily harm or death to me, at that point I would stand my ground. I am not a second-class citizen, I will not allow another citizen to make me hide in my house.

The whole argument of why didn't he go home is flawed. He had no duty or reason to go home. He did have a right to walk around. Zimmerman was the one committing crimes not him. Let's look at that route they say he took... By that route the most Martin did was trespassing. Zimmerman was committing aggravated assault, trespassing, and a long list of other gun related charges. (For example discharging a gun within 1,000 ft of an inhabited area.)

The other thing you have to keep in mind is look at Zimmerman's truck[C] and look at [F]. Did Zimmerman stalk Martin?(Obviously he did.) Did his stalking lead to this confrontation which resulted in death? Well, if he wouldn't have followed Martin towards [F] there would have been no fight.

According to your link: Zimmerman put himself in harms way, he has no right to self-defense.

Now try out this article which is also very interesting, better yet, let's dig up the full report!

http://www.axiomamne...t-documents.pdf

One Witness says there was no fighting when the shot rang out.

Another witness says that he clearly heard someone say "I've got a Gun, I've got a gun... Take my gun from me" during the struggle.

Another witness says they believe Zimmerman had fallen down(not been in a fight at all)...

Yet another witness says a man was on the ground crying to help.. She did not see anyone else, until a neighbor showed up and asked if he needed to call 911... She said she went upstairs and then she heard a "pop"

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[aztek]

yea i've read it after, can't edit the post thou, too late.

. By that route the most Martin did was trespassing.

and that is a good enough reason for Z to follow.

Edited June 6, 2013 by aztek

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

yea i've read it after, can't edit the post thou, too late.

and that is a good enough reason for Z to follow.

No it is not, omg how many times do I have to say this to you guys.

Zimmerman is not an officer of the law, he has no authority to follow anyone who does not want to be followed.

[Myles]

The other thing you have to keep in mind is look at Zimmerman's truck[C] and look at [F]. Did Zimmerman stalk Martin?(Obviously he did.) Did his stalking lead to this confrontation which resulted in death? Well, if he wouldn't have followed Martin towards [F] there would have been no fight.

These are silly arguements. I can use them too. If Trayvon had not been trespassing and acting in a suspicious manner, this could have been avoided.

Wait............... How about - If George hadn't been living in this neighborhood..............................

[aztek]

you can say it 1000 more times it wont have any efect on how we see it. but that is irrelevant anyway, what is important is how Z's lawyers twist it, and how jury will see it.

lets wait until verdict is reached. thou i have a feeling he will be guilty no mater what, itis white vs black case. there is more politics there than real justice.(which is a myth in itself)

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

you can say it 1000 more times it wont have any efect on how we see it. but that is irrelevant anyway, what is important is how Z's lawyers twist it, and how jury will see it.

lets wait until verdict is reached. thou i have a feeling he will be guilty no mater what, itis white vs black case. there is more politics there than real justice.(which is a myth in itself)

If you have a problem with understanding what the law says is a criminal act because you find it to be completely acceptable.. That's on you. But the law does say you can't follow someone who doesn't want to be followed(Unless you're a police officer).

These are silly arguements. I can use them too. If Trayvon had not been trespassing and acting in a suspicious manner, this could have been avoided.

Wait............... How about - If George hadn't been living in this neighborhood..............................

If Martin were not trespassing, or acting in a suspicious manner, stalking would still be stalking. If Zimmerman were in a different neighborhood he would still stalk people of which he believes to be suspicious, which would still be against the law, and quite possibly would still have lead to a similar event. If this whole agenda weren't about race, stalking would still be stalking. Personally, if he would have stalked me in the same threatening fashion he wouldn't have had small lacerations, the same applies if he would have stalked an officer in the same way... He would have a hole in his chest. You cannot stalk people and then claim to be defending yourself when they decide they will stand and fight.

Anyone saying that you should be able to put yourself in danger and then defend yourself from the danger is flawed. I hope you don't go jumping in front of traffic and then shooting it up because you had to defend yourself... It's exactly the same as stalking someone you believe to be dangerous and then claiming to defend yourself because you were in danger...

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[aztek]

But the law does say you can't follow someone who doesn't want to be followed(Unless you're a police officer).

and that totaly depends on the lawyers. they will twist "followed" into "monitored situation according to his duties as a watch capitan", or reword it in any other way. this is not a solid point at all.

Edited June 6, 2013 by aztek

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

and that is totaly depends on the lawyers. they will twist "followed" into "monitored situation according to his duties as a watch capitan", or reword it in any other way. this is not a solid point at all.

A "watch captain" does not have any legal authority above that of a citizen. They also cannot follow you "in the line of duty" because "watch duty" is watch duty, as in do not go and confront, you observe and report.

I am a licensed security officer(Florida State D License), and even in my case I cannot pursue a suspect without an officer instructing me to do so. Even if I witness them committing a crime.

PS: Why is Zimmerman's lawyers trying to suppress the screams for help and gunshot?

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18798509-judge-denies-request-to-shield-witness-identities-in-zimmerman-trial?lite

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[Heru]

Actually you can follow people. But you just don't admit your following them. Your allowed to walk anywhere on public property. And also take pictures as long as your feet are on legal ground(forgot how they put it). You can also look or take pictures in cars and windows as long as your standing on public property. You can search thru garbage if said garbage is on public property. Thing about trespassing is if they don't have a sign or a fence(any structure realy like a door) or no verbal warning you cant really get em for trespassing. You can't file a civil case for someone walking on your yard.

Now this maybe different for other states.

Also maybe cause im biased if they were worried about robberies so much and wanted to catch em they should of hired a PI, cops do very little for burglary cases (usually busy with other stuff, which is why you don't call em for every little thing). But if your in a neighborhood watch the best thing you can do to prevent robberies is be friendly. Alot of PI(s) doing surveillance complain about nosey neighbors but not from watching them but coming over and asking polite questions. Im sure the same goes for burglars casing a location.

[Myles]

PS: Why is Zimmerman's lawyers trying to suppress the screams for help and gunshot?

Source: http://usnews.nbcnew...rman-trial?lite

Probably because the voice analisys was done by people hired by the prosecution. I would fight against it too.

I find it more disturbing that the judge shot down the defenses suggestion of letting the witnesses be shielded behind a curtain from reporters. They would only be visible to the judge and jury so that they did not receive threats on their lives from the racially charged idiots.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Probably because the voice analisys was done by people hired by the prosecution. I would fight against it too.

I find it more disturbing that the judge shot down the defenses suggestion of letting the witnesses be shielded behind a curtain from reporters. They would only be visible to the judge and jury so that they did not receive threats on their lives from the racially charged idiots.

I agree with this post all the way, but if they disagreed why didn't they just present their own experts? That's the standard court procedure, prosecutors present their experts, defense presents their own...

The not allowing the witnesses to remain anonymous is totally ridiculous in my opinion, but I guess I could see the judges take on this. If the judge did not hide her identity, or that of the jury, why would she then hide the identity of witnesses? (I still disagree though but whatever, at least she has a logical reason for it.)

[aztek]

no one gonna threaten the judge, cops protect them.

jurys name are not published, neither their adresses, but witheses names are everywhere, and adress is known. there have been cases of witnesses being pressed, and even killed, even after the trial.

Edited June 6, 2013 by aztek

[Heru]

I heard the defense was leaking false info to the press. There was one about M filming his friends beating up a homeless man. But it was actually a video he recorded of two homeless fighting over a bike.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/trayvon-martin-homeless-video/65816/

[Michelle]

If you have a problem with understanding what the law says is a criminal act because you find it to be completely acceptable.. That's on you. But the law does say you can't follow someone who doesn't want to be followed(Unless you're a police officer).

If Martin were not trespassing, or acting in a suspicious manner, stalking would still be stalking. If Zimmerman were in a different neighborhood he would still stalk people of which he believes to be suspicious, which would still be against the law, and quite possibly would still have lead to a similar event. If this whole agenda weren't about race, stalking would still be stalking. Personally, if he would have stalked me in the same threatening fashion he wouldn't have had small lacerations, the same applies if he would have stalked an officer in the same way... He would have a hole in his chest. You cannot stalk people and then claim to be defending yourself when they decide they will stand and fight.

Anyone saying that you should be able to put yourself in danger and then defend yourself from the danger is flawed. I hope you don't go jumping in front of traffic and then shooting it up because you had to defend yourself... It's exactly the same as stalking someone you believe to be dangerous and then claiming to defend yourself because you were in danger...

Obviously, you have never gone to the police because someone was stalking you. Someone cannot be charged with stalking unless it is a pattern over at least several days or weeks. They tell you to keep a log of how many times you see them and where. They will take a report and do nothing unless it is habitual and you keep reporting the behavior.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Obviously, you have never gone to the police because someone was stalking you. Someone cannot be charged with stalking unless it is a pattern over at least several days or weeks. They tell you to keep a log of how many times you see them and where. They will take a report and do nothing unless it is habitual and you keep reporting the behavior.

Does not have to be over any period of time in Florida, the rest is very true.. The police will do pretty much nothing about stalking because it is a misdemeanor...

So why does the stalking matter? Because Zimmerman stands charged with second degree murder which means he must have broken the law and that caused the death of another... His stalking is him breaking the law, and we all know what happened to Martin...

Actually you can follow people. But you just don't admit your following them. Your allowed to walk anywhere on public property. And also take pictures as long as your feet are on legal ground(forgot how they put it). You can also look or take pictures in cars and windows as long as your standing on public property. You can search thru garbage if said garbage is on public property. Thing about trespassing is if they don't have a sign or a fence(any structure realy like a door) or no verbal warning you cant really get em for trespassing. You can't file a civil case for someone walking on your yard.

You don't have to admit to following them, stalking in Florida is a beast of it's own. Even without your admitting to stalking, I posted the link in an earlier post citing the Broward Sheriff Dept. explicitly saying that following someone who does not want to be followed is harassment, and repeat harassment is stalking.

Which again means in the state of Florida, you cannot follow someone who does not want to be followed. Whether you admit to it or not, or whether you say you don't know the laws, or even if you really don't know. Fortunately for the people who keep saying that following is legal, you either don't live in Florida or you get lucky in the sense that it is a misdemeanor and most officers will ignore it because it is too much paperwork for very little results. But be warned when this leads to greater crimes, it will be used against you to pile on the jail time...

no one gonna threaten the judge, cops protect them.

jurys name are not published, neither their adresses, but witheses names are everywhere, and adress is known. there have been cases of witnesses being pressed, and even killed, even after the trial.

I don't know what country you're from, but here in the USA... Judges are not above threats and even attempts against their lives. Jurors also do have to state who they are....

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[Heru]

Does not have to be over any period of time in Florida, the rest is very true.. The police will do pretty much nothing about stalking because it is a misdemeanor...

So why does the stalking matter? Because Zimmerman stands charged with second degree murder which means he must have broken the law and that caused the death of another... His stalking is him breaking the law, and we all know what happened to Martin...

You don't have to admit to following them, stalking in Florida is a beast of it's own. Even without your admitting to stalking, I posted the link in an earlier post citing the Broward Sheriff Dept. explicitly saying that following someone who does not want to be followed is harassment, and repeat harassment is stalking.

Which again means in the state of Florida, you cannot follow someone who does not want to be followed. Whether you admit to it or not, or whether you say you don't know the laws, or even if you really don't know. Fortunately for the people who keep saying that following is legal, you either don't live in Florida or you get lucky in the sense that it is a misdemeanor and most officers will ignore it because it is too much paperwork for very little results. But be warned when this leads to greater crimes, it will be used against you to pile on the jail time...

1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

( "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

© "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

Thats what i found for Florida under stalking laws. So really Z never broke any laws with following him. Now they did change it a lil in 2012 but mostly the credible threat part. Now it includes electronic and non verbal threats. But from what I read it might be unconstitutional because you have to have proof of criminal intent blah blah blah. Mostly 1st amendment stuff.

/* Edit

I didn't add the smiley face just a misunderstanding with the html and law symbols. Also wanted to point out so you don't have to read it, the key word is repeatedly following or harassing someone. Which coincides with the early poster saying the cops told them to keep track and notes of them being harassed.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Heru

[aztek]

I don't know what country you're from, but here in the USA... Judges are not above threats and even attempts against their lives. Jurors also do have to state who they are....

in court room jurors use numbers, not real names, and their adresses are not for public eyes. i was serving as a juror in nyc once, and was on grand jury as well.

as for a judge, try it for yourself, try to threaten him\her, or just approach on the street and start talking about their case, see what happens, than do same to a withness, tell us the difference.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

( "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

© "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

Thats what i found for Florida under stalking laws. So really Z never broke any laws with following him. Now they did change it a lil in 2012 but mostly the credible threat part. Now it includes electronic and non verbal threats. But from what I read it might be unconstitutional because you have to have proof of criminal intent blah blah blah. Mostly 1st amendment stuff.

/* Edit

I didn't add the smiley face just a misunderstanding with the html and law symbols. Also wanted to point out so you don't have to read it, the key word is repeatedly following or harassing someone. Which coincides with the early poster saying the cops told them to keep track and notes of them being harassed.

Did Martin run away? There is your emotional distress.

How many times did Zimmerman do this? The newest evidence shows two(As in repetitive) confrontations, both in which Zimmerman followed a person who ran away(Showed emotional distress).

So yes, he did break laws when he followed Martin.

By the way I don't know where you got those laws from, but they are inaccurate.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(  “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

© “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) A 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.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Source: http://www.leg.state.../0784/0784.html

(Yes, that is the official state legislature website.)

Note: Zimmerman might not even have been legally carrying his firearm. He was under prescribed psychological/psychiatric medicine on the night of the shooting. Whether he was taking it or not, this shows that he had an infirmity which made him an unsafe gun owner.

( Develops or sustains a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon or firearm;

Source: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

His prescribed medication was Tamazepam, and Labrix.

Source: http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf

(Scroll all the way down)

Chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride is a versatile, therapeutic agent of proven value for the relief of anxiety and tension. It is indicated when anxiety, tension or apprehension are significant components of the clinical profile.

Source: http://www.rxlist.com/librax-drug.htm

Restoril™ (temazepam) is indicated for the short-term treatment of insomnia (generally 7 to 10 days).

For patients with short-term insomnia, instructions in the prescription should indicate that Restoril™ (temazepam) should be used for short periods of time (7 to 10 days).

The clinical trials performed in support of efficacy were 2 weeks in duration with the final formal assessment of sleep latency performed at the end of treatment.

Source: http://www.rxlist.com/restoril-drug/indications-dosage.htm

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[Myles]

I agree with this post all the way, but if they disagreed why didn't they just present their own experts? That's the standard court procedure, prosecutors present their experts, defense presents their own...

The not allowing the witnesses to remain anonymous is totally ridiculous in my opinion, but I guess I could see the judges take on this. If the judge did not hide her identity, or that of the jury, why would she then hide the identity of witnesses? (I still disagree though but whatever, at least she has a logical reason for it.)

It's just that I think the witnesses are in much more fear for life and family than the judge or juries. Wether it is warranted fear or fear from movies they have seen, it's real.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

It's just that I think the witnesses are in much more fear for life and family than the judge or juries. Wether it is warranted fear or fear from movies they have seen, it's real.

As I said, when it comes to that I agree...

[Heru]

Did Martin run away? There is your emotional distress.

How many times did Zimmerman do this? The newest evidence shows two(As in repetitive) confrontations, both in which Zimmerman followed a person who ran away(Showed emotional distress).

So yes, he did break laws when he followed Martin.

By the way I don't know where you got those laws from, but they are inaccurate.

Source: http://www.leg.state.../0784/0784.html

(Yes, that is the official state legislature website.)

Your reading it wrong guy

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks

If A person who Willfully, maliciously and repeatedly does one or more of three things which is Follows, harasses or cyberstalks for you to be charged with stalking, Plus they also must make a "credible threat" for you to be charged with Aggravated stalking .

Its not about one offense, but repeatedly following someone on multiple occurrences is a misdamener if you show signs of threat then its a felony. All of em require continuous Following or Harrasing.

And part 1 subsection a of my quote is just listing there definition of that term pertaining to this law. There just explaining what they mean by Harass.

I mentioned there was a newer one but it just added cyber and changed the wording a lil on credible threat. Which I didnt think was that important.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Your reading it wrong guy

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks

If A person who Willfully, maliciously and repeatedly does one or more of three things which is Follows, harasses or cyberstalks for you to be charged with stalking, Plus they also must make a "credible threat" for you to be charged with Aggravated stalking .

Its not about one offense, but repeatedly following someone on multiple occurrences is a misdamener if you show signs of threat then its a felony. All of em require continuous Following or Harrasing.

And part 1 subsection a of my quote is just listing there definition of that term pertaining to this law. There just explaining what they mean by Harass.

I mentioned there was a newer one but it just added cyber and changed the wording a lil on credible threat. Which I didnt think was that important.

Breaking any law willfully is malicious, therefore the word "maliciously" is null so long as willfully remains.

Again, He FOLLOWED Martin the first time... Martin got away(Terminates the following)... Martin supposedly approaches him in his car and asks why he's following him... He said he isn't... As soon as Martin starts walking away.. he FOLLOWED him again.

(This much is known because both sides of the argument agree to this much)

Now this following can be defined as harassment, I already pointed that out... But I wanted to show you how this turned from following/harassment into stalking.

Tell you what, I won't argue with you on this anymore... The law is clear, and Zimmerman admitted to doing this...

I just want to see wtf Zimmerman has up his sleeve cause all I see is that he has mental illness which means he shouldn't have had a firearm at all. But he didn't plea insanity... and he waived SYG immunity... If he's really going for self-defense hes going to jail cause he created the danger... He has to have that one "glove did not fit" defense otherwise he's just feeding himself to the lions...

If I was his lawyer, I would have plead insanity.. argued that out and tried to get him reduced to an involuntary manslaughter...

Edited June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[Heru]

Breaking any law willfully is malicious, therefore the word "maliciously" is null so long as willfully remains.

Again, He FOLLOWED Martin the first time... Martin got away(Terminates the following)... Martin supposedly approaches him in his car and asks why he's following him... He said he isn't... As soon as Martin starts walking away.. he FOLLOWED him again.

(This much is known because both sides of the argument agree to this much)

Now this following can be defined as harassment, I already pointed that out... But I wanted to show you how this turned from following/harassment into stalking.

Tell you what, I won't argue with you on this anymore... The law is clear, and Zimmerman admitted to doing this...

I just want to see wtf Zimmerman has up his sleeve cause all I see is that he has mental illness which means he shouldn't have had a firearm at all. But he didn't plea insanity... and he waived SYG immunity... If he's really going for self-defense hes going to jail cause he created the danger... He has to have that one "glove did not fit" defense otherwise he's just feeding himself to the lions...

If I was his lawyer, I would have plead insanity.. argued that out and tried to get him reduced to an involuntary manslaughter...

I posted a few lines up what there defense has been so far. Most of it has been bared from being allowed in the case. There using, him being suspended for fighting, Marijuana use, and a video he recorded of people fighting. Pretty much there attacking M's character and trying to show he is a violent person (Yes there actually trying to put out that marijuana and violence are related). Its a weak case and they've been leaking info to the press and social networks twisting some of the info to make it sound worse than what it is. There trying to influence the jury before there picked. Because they know non of it will be permissible in court.

And no he wasn't harassing him. Trust me on this I can explain more through a PM. Stalking is a very hard charge to put on someone and its easy to throw out. Im a Licensed PI so trust me on this. Plus the fact he was an appointed neighborhood watch there is no way you could pin Harassment per there definition on him.

“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose

His following him did have a legitimate purpose as a neighborhood watch. And he would have to show a pattern of him following him not just one night.