He did not stalk. Stalking as a crime implies a long term obsession with someone, someone you know. He FOLLOWED martin. He did not confront martin, martin confronted him.
The fact you have to lie just shows the weakness of your position, you *****.
Again the most important witness was dead which is why it was framed as "followed" rather than "pursued."
If conservatives truly believe that GZ was innocent because he was in fear of his life then they're hypocritical if they say they would've thought Martin was guilty if he'd killed Zimmerman.
Nonsense.
George was allowed to "follow" Trayvon. Indeed, Trayvon was "allowed" to walk up to Zimmerman and argue in his face about why Zimmerman was acting as he was.
What Trayvon was NOT lawfully allowed to do was pummel Zimmerman and pound Zimmerman's skull into the concrete. Sadly, that is what the evidence clearly shows Trayvon DID.
Under those circumstances, it is OF COURSE true that Zimmerman was legally JUSTIFIED in using physical force (even deadly force) to prevent the threat of grievous bodily injury or death to himself.
Since Zimmerman did not visit any physical violence upon Trayvon (until he fought
back in self defense with the gun shot), Trayvon would NOT have been justified in making a confrontation with Zimmerman a physical one. There could be no possibility of "self defense" or "justification" being "necessary" where Trayvon was not even being physically attacked or threatened with an imminent physical attack.
The result is beyond valid debate: Zimmerman deserved his acquittal and there is zero "hypocrisy" in noting the obvious differences.
