Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Alot of use of the term "Stalking" in this thread.
"Stalking" has a specific intent...... that intent has to come from the perpetrator of the act........ Just because a person "feels" that they are being stalked, or another completely uninvolved person "feels" that it is stalking does not make it so. The intent to cause fear has to come from the person DOING the "stalking".
This is why your legal definitions of stalking include "meant to cause fear" not "causes fear".
When an individual's reason for following another is professed by them, and documented via other means, it does not qualify as stalking.
Paparazzi very well cause fear in some..... yet it is not their purpose. This is why it is not stalking.
The police following a subject could very well cause fear, even when that person is doing no wrong (especially when such), yet it is not the purpose. This is why it is not stalking.
A private citizen following another private citizen after observing what they believe to be suspicious behavior and reporting it to the police, very well could cause fear... yet it is not the purpose. This is why it is not stalking.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.