Following someone.

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.

Caine said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is that some people are using the term in it's non-legal sense and other are using the term in it's legal sense.

A lioness stalking her prey doesn't have to worry about a restraining order being filed against her, for example.

Tucker Case said:

I think part of the problem is that some people are using the term in it's non-legal sense and other are using the term in it's legal sense.

A lioness stalking her prey doesn't have to worry about a restraining order being filed against her, for example.

Click to expand...

So, they are using the term that is convenient and suits their purposes....

Gotcha.

Caine said:

So, they are using the term that is convenient and suits their purposes....

Gotcha.

Click to expand...

The fact remains that GZ broke all the protocols of the NW and took matters into his own hands.

sharon said:

The fact remains that GZ broke all the protocols of the NW and took matters into his own hands.

Click to expand...

The fact that he was associated in some way with a neighborhood watch has nothing to do with what he is legally allowed to do as a private citizen and member of the community.

Now, whether or not that was the smartest thing to do, is another topic.

Caine said:

So, they are using the term that is convenient and suits their purposes....

Gotcha.

Click to expand...

Well, that's how all word choices work.

As long as people are being consistent in their use of the word, and they are not using it equivocally, there's no problem with it. It's only a problem when it's used equivocally.

Your understanding of the word doesn't dictate whether another person's use of the word is correct or incorrect. If they are using it in the non-legal sense, and you take it to mean that they are using it in the legal sense, then the error is yours, not theirs. If they use it in the legal sense when it doesn't actually apply, then the error is theirs.

Tucker Case said:

Well, that's how all word choices work.

As long as people are being consistent in their use of the word, and they are not using it equivocally, there's no problem with it. It's only a problem when it's used equivocally.

Your understanding of the word doesn't dictate whether another person's use of the word is correct or incorrect. If they are using it in the non-legal sense, and you take it to mean that they are using it in the legal sense, then the error is yours, not theirs. If they use it in the legal sense when it doesn't actually apply, then the error is theirs.

Click to expand...

Unless they also say that the paparazzi are stalking, police are stalking, and that guy who just happens to be walking in the same direction for 3 blocks away from the parking garage but you don't know it is stalking then yes.

Caine said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

Caine said:

Unless they also say that the paparazzi are stalking, police are stalking, and that guy who just happens to be walking in the same direction for 3 blocks away from the parking garage but you don't know it is stalking then yes.

Click to expand...

The paparazzi do stalk people. So do the police. The non-legal definition of "stalking" applies to these two groups perfectly under certain circumstances.

As I said, if you take a non-legal usage of the word to mean the legal sense of the word, then the error is yours, not theirs.

Tucker Case said:

The paparazzi do stalk people. So do the police. The non-legal definition of "stalking" applies to these two groups perfectly.

As I said, if you take it a non-legal usage of the word to mean the legal sense of the word, then the error is yours, not theirs.

Click to expand...

No. The paparazzi follow people. The police follow people.

Stalking is a special distinction aside from following.

Follow and Stalk are not synonyms.

Caine said:

No. The paparazzi follow people. The police follow people.

Stalking is a special distinction aside from following.

Follow and Stalk are not synonyms.

Click to expand...

To stalk means: To pursue quarry or prey stealthily

Both Paparazzi and police do this. Their quarry in those instances are celebrities and criminals respectively.

As I said, your understanding of the word does not dictate the proper use of the word. Your understanding is clearly flawed because you have totally ignored the non-legal definition of the word.

Kal'Stang said:

Is following someone an aggressive act?

Click to expand...

yes.
as with most things its all about 'intent'.
just following someone isnt aggressive by itself.
but i assume this question comes from the george zimmerman case.
if you follow someone because you think they may be a criminal,
while carrying a gun,
and ignoring police advice to not follow them,
it sounds like youre looking to take matters into your own hands
and cause a confrontation.
which i would describe as aggressive.

Tucker Case said:

To stalk means: To pursue quarry or prey stealthily

Both Paparazzi and police do this. Their quarry in those instances are celebrities and criminals respectively.

As I said, your understanding of the word does not dictate the proper use of the word. Your understanding is clearly flawed because you have totally ignored the non-legal definition of the word.

Click to expand...

Do you know the meaning of the word "stealthily" ???

Do you consider a gaggle of people with cameras shouting the name of a celebrity and following them to be "stealthy"????

rocket boy said:

yes.
as with most things its all about 'intent'.
just following someone isnt aggressive by itself.
but i assume this question comes from the george zimmerman case.
if you follow someone because you think they may be a criminal,
while carrying a gun,
and ignoring police advice to not follow them,
it sounds like youre looking to take matters into your own hands
and cause a confrontation.
which i would describe as aggressive.

Click to expand...

"I don't need you to go to the store"

Did I just tell you NOT to go to the store? Or did I tell you that I don't NEED you to go to the store?


Why people keep pushing the fallacy that Zimmerman was told NOT to follow makes it rather obvious their inability to grasp understanding of this case.

Paranoia does not justify violently assaulting someone else. MORE IMPORTANTLY, just because another person is paranoid doesn't mean you have to allow that person to violently assault you to their heart's content.

All the people on this forum claiming 6'1 3" Martin becoming paranoid (in their opinion) gave him reason to violently assault Zimmerman endlessly and for which Zimmerman had to allow Martin to continue to do so as long as he wanted to is so bizarre it is amazing to read it discussed at a topic.

Paranoia not justify violence and no person has to allow someone else to beat on him/her because the person doing so is paranoid.
And pot - that it known Martin uses - does make many people paranoid and THAT may be the real piece of the puzzle never mentioned. This all may have happened because Martin was stoned.

Caine said:

Do you know the meaning of the word "stealthily" ???

Do you consider a gaggle of people with cameras shouting the name of a celebrity and following them to be "stealthy"????

Click to expand...

You obviously don't know all of the techniques employed by paparazzi.

i understand the case fine.
and 'i dont need you to go to the store'
is not the same as 'no sir, its not necessary to follow the suspicious person you called us about'.
one is a benign act with very little opportunity for trouble,
the other is ignoring police advise and rushing into a situation you fully expect could be dangerous.

Tucker Case said:

You obviously don't know all of the techniques employed by paparazzi.

Click to expand...

If you are speaking of the paparazzi with no other qualifying terms other than paparazzi, the idea conjured in the minds of people upon hearing just that term is of groups of people with cameras following celebrities around taking pictures and calling their name for attention/poses.

If you wish to speak of certain elements of the paparazzi, which are non-standard, then you should use a term qualifying what you mean........

Otherwise, you either spread misinformation to those who believe what you say, or look like a fool to those who find your suggestion ridiculous.

Zyphlin said:

He also apparently thought the guy looked criminally suspicious as well, he also indicated he was unsure of the whole "unarmed" part. My point is that while a person can make assumptions and guesses about an individuals age, criminal record, armerment, etc...they're just that, assumptions and guesses, unless they have a means of absolutely knowing it. So attempting to use absolute knowledge as a means of clearing him, in the case of joko, or condemning him, in the case of Dion, is a bit off base

Click to expand...

I did not condemn him ... I said if he got out of his car and followed me as i ran into an isolated region in the dark with no one else around and came close enough I could touch him ... I would turn to face and unless it was obvious he meant no harm I would kick him in the balls or try to defend myself.

George had the knowledge an officer was on the way. George had the knowledge that he himself was armed. George had the knowledge he had his safe place in an SUV and the kid in the hoodie was running away on foot. George stated the person was running away and complained "they always get away".

George should have had knowledge of Florida law on concealed weapons and that I do not know.

My argument was there was clearly evidence to arrest him and it should go to trial and both humans should have all the evidence presented.

We have facts ... and that it does not look good for George ...yet possibly forensic evidence will demonstrate that Trayvon had a gun and jumped in Georges car or some crazy twist like that.

IMHO and purely subjective I do not really believe it was race ... just a wannabe cop with judgement issues and lack of knowledge of the law. Maybe other evidence will prove I am wrong on this opinion. I am glad it is gong to trial!

Now back to the person being chased and followed (be it me, Trayvon or my son) ... they would only know a husky guy in the dark was at first following by car and then then chose to leave their SUV in the dark in an isolated region and chose to take chase and if they cross that boundaries and get close enough ... the only thing I would condemn them to is to my self defense of them crossing a boundary.

American said:

Look at the damn votes. Why are liberals always threatened by everything? Frankly I'm getting a little sick of it.

Click to expand...

I just read an scientific study that examined the personality traits of liberals and conservatives, tracing back to childhood. It just so happens that conservatives feel more threatened by more things versus liberals. This is why conservatives believe in owning guns, beefing up the military, and putting more cops on the street.

Mensch said:

I just read an scientific study that examined the personality traits of liberals and conservatives, tracing back to childhood. It just so happens that conservatives feel more threatened by more things versus liberals. This is why conservatives believe in owning guns, beefing up the military, and putting more cops on the street.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see your survey and conclusions, especially in light of he number of liberals here that own weapons, have served and support in the military, and the number of times democrats have bemoaned the bidet it's and loss of police officers causing rapes and murders to increase.

Kal'Stang said:

Is following someone an aggressive act?

Simple question, simple answer.

I don't believe that it is. If it was then police would not be able to legally follow people. Investigators (PI's) would not legally be able to do it. Paparazzi would not be able to do it.

Click to expand...

I couldn't answer with a flat yes or no.

There's are various factors to consider. Proximity, setting, intention, status, age, gender, audience/witnesses. That's before we even consider the legalities.

It must be case-specific.

Tucker Case said:

You obviously don't know all of the techniques employed by paparazzi.

Click to expand...

Given both their reputation, and their vocation as interpreted by various grouops of celebrities, they could never be mistaken for a rogue ninja clan.

Caine said:

If you are speaking of the paparazzi with no other qualifying terms other than paparazzi, the idea conjured in the minds of people upon hearing just that term is of groups of people with cameras following celebrities around taking pictures and calling their name for attention/poses.

Click to expand...

I am not responsible for the erroneous assumptions of others. Their errors are their own.

If you wish to speak of certain elements of the paparazzi, which are non-standard, then you should use a term qualifying what you mean........

Click to expand...

All elements of the paparazzi will employ stealth tactics to follow their quarry. Your image of what they do has no bearing on the reality of what they do.

Otherwise, you either spread misinformation to those who believe what you say, or look like a fool to those who find your suggestion ridiculous.

Click to expand...

The people who find my suggestion ridiculous are guilty of ignorance, so why would I be bothered by their assessment of me?

The problem is that the ignorant are already filled with misinformation so they assume that true information is misinformation. It's sad when they cling to their misinformation to a degree that they reject true information, but, again, that is not my fault.

NoC_T said:

Given both their reputation, and their vocation as interpreted by various grouops of celebrities, they could never be mistaken for a rogue ninja clan.

Click to expand...

It's a good thing that "being mistaken for a rogue ninja clan" isn't in the definition of 'to stalk', then.

Now, what was your point?