The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

I can imagine myself being black easily enough. What I can't picture myself as is a total-loss cracked-out, purpled-out aspiring burglar with ideas about the world owing me anything.

There's very little chance that racial bigots can learn anything from cartoons, because their brains have already shut itself off from the "real" history of blacks in this country.

we know that two men who did not know each other met, had some kind of a physical altercation, and that the one with out a gun ended up dead from a gunshot at very close range. this is not enough knowledge of anything under florida law to charge the survivor with anything after he made the claim of self defense.

Quote:

we know that two men who did not know each other met, had some kind of a physical altercation, and that the one with out a gun ended up dead from a gunshot at very close range. this is not enough knowledge of anything under florida law to charge the survivor with anything after he made the claim of self defense.

Pretty bold claim for a restaurant owner, doncha think, Hawk?

we know that two men who did not know each other met...

under that reasoning you cant say anything at all because we know nothing about you.

Oops!

Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2012)

(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.zimmerman was clearly perusing public safety, a very legit purpose

(b) "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.

(c) "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.

No, they didn't just "meet"--one spotted, profiled, watched, and stalked, the other, before confronting him,

provoking an altercation with him

And, under Florida law, there was plenty to charge him with--including second degree murder or manslaughter, despite his flawed and questionable claims of self defense.

They just didn't "meet." One pursued the other as if the pursued person was a criminal. He had all the rights to be in that area without being questioned about the reasons why

Freedom of movement under United States law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

Don't be stupid!@ but I repeat myself.

(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.

zimmerman was clearly perusing public safety, a very legit purpose

Zimmerman had no right to harass and frighten this kid by stalking and confronting him,