In Zimmerman's decision there was no issue of "probable cause," which might be an issue for a sworn LEO. Zimmerman followed Martin "just 'cause" he thought he was "up to something." No evidence of wrong doing, no criminal behavior that was evident to Zimmerman -- he followed him "just 'cause" he thought he might be up to something. If that's the standard you want to set, CJ, you should be followed 24/7.

Are you going to be jacked up on Lean?

I've never EVER heard of anyone getting 'jacked-up' on a sedative.

You have no Idea what you're talking about (as usual).

WOW! You gave me the authority to set standards?

How long have you been drinking Lean?

Zimmerman was not stalking anybody, how did stalking get into it?

Timmy is stalking me. I'm missing some clothing items and I'm starting to think Timmy's the one who's behind these missing items.

stalk (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks

1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.

If the Martin wasn't addicted to lean/purple drink, he'd probably would still be dating Rachel Jeantel.

Thanks, Zimmerman was not tracking stealthily, so how did it get into the conversation.

When Martin jumped out of the bushes and attacked Zimmerman wouldn't it be consider stalking?

Leading From Behind Al Sharpton
By Patrick J. Buchanan
July 24, 2013
EmailPrintFacebookTwitterShare
“The First Black President … Spoke First as a Black American,” ran the banner headline of Sunday’s Washington Post.

But why, when the fires of anger over the Zimmerman verdict were dying down, did he go into that pressroom and stir them up?

“A week of protests outside the White House, pressure building on him inside the White House, pushed him to that podium,” said Tavis Smiley on “Meet the Press.” Black leaders demanded Obama come out of hiding and stand in solidarity with the aggrieved and outraged.

Belatedly and meekly, Obama complied.

“Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” said Obama.

But which Trayvon?

The one walking home with Skittles and tea? Or the one who sucker-punched Zimmerman, decked him, piled on, pummeled him martial arts style, hammered his head on the sidewalk, ignored his screams for help and got shot by the guy he was assaulting?

For that is the story Zimmerman told, Sanford police believed, the lone eyewitness confirmed, the defense argued, the prosecution could not shake and the jury believed. Not guilty, on all counts.

If Obama thinks the verdict was justified, why did he not urge that the demonstrations, marches, vandalism and violence cease?

If he agrees Zimmerman got away with murder — “an atrocity,” Al Sharpton said of the verdict — why did Obama hide behind this mush: “Once the jury’s spoken, that’s how the system works.”

The president sent his “thoughts and prayers” to Trayvon’s family.

To George Zimmerman, painted as a racist monster for 16 months, hiding in fear of his life, his Peruvian mother and family under threat — not a word of compassion from the president.

Obama moved swiftly off the trial and into a rambling discourse on the black experience and racial profiling.

But why? The jury said Trayvon was not profiled.

What is Obama up to? Answer. A law professor, he knows this case, based on evidence and testimony, was open and shut. And he knows Eric Holder is not going to file any hate-crime civil rights charges.

Because Holder and Obama know they would be seen as caving to Sharpton & Co., they would get stuffed in court, and the nation would react with outrage to a double-jeopardy, murder-charge, racial prosecution of this persecuted man whose innocence was established in a court of law.

So Obama swiftly changed the subject.

“There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.”

“There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me … before I was a senator.”

“That happens often,” said Obama. Undeniably. But why do black males awaken such apprehensions and fears? Is it their color?

Well, 13 percent of our population is black. Half of that — say, 6 plus percent — is male. Of that 6 percent, one in six — just 1 percent of the U.S. population — consists of black males age 18 to 29.

Of all black males 18 to 29, writes Ron Unz in “Race and Crime in America,” 28 percent are in jail or prison, or on probation.

The “liberal Sentencing Project organization,” says Unz, estimates that “one-third of all black men are already convicted criminals by their 20s, and the fraction would surely be far higher for those living in urban areas.”

Twenty years ago in Chicago, where black kids are gunned down daily, Jesse Jackson was quoted, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

That’s the same apprehension, Mr. President, those women feel on that elevator.

Obama traced the “violence … in poor black neighborhoods” to “poverty and … a very difficult history.

But slavery and segregation were far closer in time to the black America of the 1950s, and poverty was far greater. Yet we never saw crime and incarceration rates like we see today in Black America.

As Unz writes, El Paso, Texas, and Atlanta are cities of equal size and poverty rates. Yet Atlanta has 10 times the crime. Oakland and Santa Ana, Calif., are equal in size and poverty numbers. Yet Oakland “has several times the rate of crime.” Why?

Why are white folks nervous about strange young black men in the neighborhood? Perhaps because they commit interracial muggings, robberies and rapes at 35 times the rate of whites.

As newspapers avoid the issue of black racism and rarely give the stats on interracial crime, Obama dwelt lovingly on the indignities of racial profiling — without really addressing the root cause.

It was an uncourageous commentary. Weak as Kool-Aid, said Tavis.

But Obama was where he likes to be, leading from behind — this time behind Al Sharpton.

July 24, 2013
Selective 'Race Baiting' Continues
By Warren Beatty


Al Sharpton, et al. convicted George Zimmerman. The MSM, with NBC leading the way, also convicted Zimmerman. Fortunately, the U.S. is a country of law, so a trial by jury was held. Still, "race baiters" nearly got Zimmerman convicted. To say that Al Sharpton (and the MSM) is trying to keep the George Zimmerman acquittal verdict alive would be quite an understatement.
So, to make Al Sharpton and the MSM appear foolish (not at all difficult to do), to illustrate that they have a double standard, to show that "face time" and ratings and money are their primary motivating factors, consider the Roderick Scott-Christopher Cervini case from 2008-9. Never heard of that case? Well, I'm not surprised. The case did not make national headlines because it was not loudly trumpeted by Al Sharpton, or the MSM, or any other race baiter.
Yet the case was eerily similar to the Zimmerman-Martin case. Race was present, death was present, a call to 911 was present, the person killed didn't have a gun, the parents of the dead person said that justice was not served. All the factors attractive to Sharpton were present. Still, he declined to bring it forward. Why not?
Did I mention that Roderick Scott is black, and that Christopher Cervini was white? Could that be the reason Sharpton or the MSM didn't emphasize it? Could the fact that the Scott-Cervini case didn't fit the Sharpton/MSM template be the reason? Said very sarcastically, "Naaaah! Couldn't be the reason. Sharpton (and the MSM) just wants justice."
Roderick Scott "...testified that on the morning of the fatal encounter he observed Cervini and two other youths breaking into a neighbor's vehicle. Scott says he ordered the suspects to freeze and wait for the arrival of the police. He insists that he opened fire on Cervini only when the teen 'charged' him and was screaming that he was going to get Scott."
Scott was acquitted.
Where were, in 2009, all the verdict protests, the revenge beating of a lone black by a white gang, the stopping of a black family trying to get a little girl to the hospital, the cries of "No Justice, No Peace," the 100 city rallies, a call for a "National Day of Action, calls for the Department of Justice to look into civil rights violations of Cervini, or white parents leading verdict protests?
When did Sharpton et al. protest that Scott was acquitted, that justice for Cervini be attained?
Did I somehow miss all that?
Why was Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama quiet after the Scott verdict? Why did he not interject himself into that case? He was president in 2009, and could have spoken out. Why did he not say that Cervini could have looked like the son he never had, or that he could have been Cervini 35 years ago? He certainly has expressed his opinions about Trayvon Martin. Obama, on July 19, 2013, said, "...if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." Why didn't Obama make a comment like that about Christopher Cervini? Could race have anything to do with his opinions? Naaaaah! We all know that Obama is a uniter of all races. He would never do or say anything that could be construed as divisive. Again, said sarcastically.
The Zimmerman acquittal forced Sharpton to change his tactics, to attack the "Stand Your Ground" law, even though Zimmerman didn't cite it. But there are two problems with Sharpton's tactic.
First, Obama himself, while an Illinois senator in 2004, sponsored SB2386, a bill to expand the 1961 law to protect a person who was attacked from being sued in civil court when the "stand your ground" defense is used.
Second, the state of New York, where Scott shot Cervini, has no "Stand Your Ground" law.
Does Al Sharpton have any credibility? Can anyone say "Tawana Brawley"? Unfortunately, he has enough credibility among enough brain-dead protesters to organize "Justice for Trayvon" rallies in 100 cities. Speaking of those rallies, I'll wager that the Scott-Cervini case is never mentioned.
But that's just my opinion


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/selective_race_baiting_continues.html#ixzz2aSyTAjgd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

CJ, I was given a newspaper account of your legal problems, now if you care, give us the true account of the event(s). Amazing how you've elected to make up your own version of the factual events on a case that has been at the center of national attention for 18 months.

Zimmerman murdered an unarmed youth, who tried unsuccessfully to defend himself against an armed assassin, and got away scot free.

Oh, I guess the eyewitness that testified Zimmerman's account was correct was lying and followers of the Rat Pack of Jesse, Al and Barrack know what really happened. That explains it.

I think the point here is that Zimmerman was found innocent of the charge but factual or otherwise, events and accounts will long lie with him and him only. Let’s not confuse being found innocent through fabricated accounts and a person being guilty by factual events. I have full faith in our judicial system to the extent that throughout the history of our court process that no judge, lawyer, witness or defendant ever lied

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...ting-fdle-agent

Know kidding-! Why would anyone out of the blue hand you anything about me? Are you trying blackmail me again?

Nothing to do with blackmail, there is an ole saying "people that live in glass homes should be careful in how they handle rocks. My point being you of all people vehemently lied and call many individuals all sorts of names concerning your personal dilemma. Your accusation of others places in the same predicament and what makes you better than them in the fact that these people are defending a family member? Nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

I still don't understand why anyone would give you a news account!? Are you like some central hub for news accounts/information?