Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
I observed what Sanford police corroborated, that Z committed the homicide that night.

BUT !!

Before Z could do that, Z had to close the distance between himself and TM.
So in violation of Sanford police dispatch guidance (re-quoted above), Z ignored both
Sanford police standards, AND Neighborhood Watch.org standards, closed on TM
and shot TM dead.

WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?!?! if all those rules are broken all at once?

THAT'S WHAT THOSE RULES ARE FOR!! To prevent such needless death and injury.

I was more specific than that.

But I apologize, for in that assertion I under-stated the case. What I claimed is TRUE, but limited.
Under 18 USC, such stalking as defined by that code is a crime 24 hours a day; not only at night.

My intended point was that it's a crime EVEN at night, WITHIN THE BOUNDS DEFINED BY 18 USC.
And if it were NOT a crime, why would there be a law about it ?!?!?!?!?!

As has already been pointed out, 18 USC doesn't apply in Z's case.
I refuse to argue that point here.
Instead I accept YOUR position on it; WHATEVER that may be.
So you're desperately awaiting my validation?! WHY ?!

So far as I recall, I'm the one that introduced the written transcript (text) of the Sanford police dispatch telephone conversation w/ Z.

It's not in any way clear to me that I've speculated more, or even as much as you and others that have posted in this thread.
I'm not looking for validation here man. I'm looking for you to prove that you are not completely incompetent when it comes to the LAW. This is about you proving that so that an honest discussion can be had.

The law you attempted to apply to Zimmerman does not. Further...it is NOT the legal definition of stalking. It is the federal legal definition on INTERSTATE stalking. This is a different charge. A different claim. You can't apply it in part and ignore the interstate portion.

The only LEGAL definition that could be applied in this case is the State of Florida legal definition on stalking, but as has been pointed out already to you...this requires repetition. This was a one time incident. So. If you want to prove you aren't incompetent with the law...you have to acknowledge clearly that Zimmerman didn't, by any valid legal definition, stalk Trayvon. Following is not stalking. The law you are stating "is a crime..." sure is a crime. But not one Zimmerman is guilty of. He didn't cross state lines. Period.

If you want to wiggle and worm and tell us how you don't have to do that...fine by me. But avoidance is just acknowledgement that you failed to prove your side and now you can't handle being wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk