Hmm @braschlosan not quite sure what was on the screen all I can identify is what looks like GPS software and a map. But I have a better question what was the guy in the van doing parked directly in the middle of the alley and outside of his vehicle? Almost looked like a stalker/peeping tom to me. And I could be wrong but from the angle it looked like the guy in the car was parked in his parking spot behind his house. But like @speechless says there is very little context here.

[edit] If you click through to YT it says "Original description stated he started recording the guy because he kicked his car"

Stalker.

>> ^clairehaynes:

No, you're absolutely right! I heart chocolate 4eva! I heart short skirts and having some random ginger cunt come to my rescue when I get all my clothes torn off at the top of an escalator upon which I picked up a piece of random dirty candy (it happens so bollocking often - what a super yawn you guys!) It's not like in any way that I would think to myself "Oh hai, well, there's some gross floor-chocolate, so I'll leave that shit where it is for the janitor to clean up. But wait, there's a super stalkery young man coming at me at a rate of knots, maybe he'll know what to do, because my brain is so fucking occupied by menstrual periods, ripping the hair out of my arse, and kegel exercises that I cant think straight, Daddy!" Fuck your patriarchal bullshit, I hope you all go back in time and choke on your mothers' amniotic fluid. kisses!
Post Script: I know more vag-worthy men that would laugh this shit into oblivion than you've eaten dick, and that's a considerable amount

Damn parazzis and stalkers!

>> ^UsesProzac:

Huh, I was a single girl on WoW and then I was a taken girl on WoW. Never experienced any of that except for perhaps a little unwanted attention both when single and not. Most of the time gender didn't even come up. There were sometimes jokes about making sandwiches and the like over vent during raids, but that wasn't the drama that usually happened. "Don't stand in fire you fucking idiot." <- That was.
It all depends on the person. It hurts me to see you make sweeping generalities like that.
I met my partner on WoW and now we have a child. I was a troll rogue and then I was a troll priest, just in case anyone was wondering. I didn't do much in the way of alts, spent way too much time on my main, which was the priest. Good luck finding a constant spot in a raid as a melee dps.
I used to raid five days a week and arena the other two. Oh, WoW. I'm glad I have a life outside of it, now!
>> ^Porksandwich:
My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.
OR
They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.
Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.
I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.



Not meant to be generalities, they are the experiences I had with the game. I think there were 4 women in the guild that I knew of. Could have been more, but I only knew the raiders or longer term members.

One was married to the guild leader, she used to ask for help to complete things and keep us waiting a good hour or two before she showed up. I didn't like her simply because she tried to treat the guild as her errand runners asking for help and having us wait so she could keep constantly busy. She got involved with a guy in the guild (not her husband) and that kicked off some events.

Next was young, and took a lot of the "sandwich" stuff you are talking about. She got involved with the married guild leader, that kicked off another bunch of stuff....probably 10-15 years difference. This is the husband of the one above....they had kids together and it basically split the guild right down the middle. The young girl involved with him had other admirers and tried to play a guy for the longest time only talking during certain raids. She was called all sorts of names once it came to light that she was dating the husband....no one really mentioned the wife doing the same thing. There was one guy she led on for a long time, they were friends and he thought it was more until he found out she was after the married guy. That started another ripple of problems...she left the guild for awhile to try to get him back as a friend, etc. As much stuff happened involving her, I think she did a lot of intentionally or was younger than she claimed. I generally liked her, but I had to wonder with as much stuff that cropped up around her as to what was going on there.

Another "involved" woman, who was either newly married or soon to be married to another guy in the guild was involved with the guy who was involved with the wife of the guild leader...the first woman I mentioned. That guy told me she was sending him pictures, and then she lost it when she found out he was involved with the other woman. Her husband/soon-to-be never suspected afaik. She was nice enough, but I was friends with her husband and I couldn't stand to hang around him anymore knowing all of this and him being in the dark.

Fourth woman was friends with a couple younger guys in the guild. Who used their vault access to steal a bunch of stuff from the vault and switch servers during a free move. She switched with them once it came to light they had stolen. Then renamed herself and came back, trying to hide her identity. She also tried to hide that she was female to the majority of the guild for a long time as well....she'd type most of her replies. Rarely spoke unless it was a tougher raid. I don't know if she had unwanted attention, or just made like she had unwanted attention from a few...because she moved with the guys she complained about on that free server move. The switch and hiding her identity was probably the worst of it involving her, and really she hadn't done anything wrong that anyone could see but she looked guilty as hell doing what she did. Then she defended those guy's actions who stole tabs and tabs of stuff from the vault before they left.

And yeah they all probably stick out because it was a lot of hub-bub involving them, and all the guys and gals involved were all culpable for their actions. But it was one guild that had more than 1 married woman in it and it failed spectacularly... Other guys in the guild would come hang out with me or solo play instead of doing guild stuff because it was toxic to be around most people in the guild with how everyone was supporting one or the other in just overall poor choices and questionable actions.

I am not saying all women in games are like this, but with this one experience with it made me want to stick to non-voice stuff so I couldn't identify the sex of anyone involved. And yeah I'd like to find a female who games.......but I'd actually like to continue enjoying games heh.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Huh, I was a single girl on WoW and then I was a taken girl on WoW. Never experienced any of that except for perhaps a little unwanted attention both when single and not. Most of the time gender didn't even come up. There were sometimes jokes about making sandwiches and the like over vent during raids, but that wasn't the drama that usually happened. "Don't stand in fire you fucking idiot." <- That was.
It all depends on the person. It hurts me to see you make sweeping generalities like that.
I met my partner on WoW and now we have a child. I was a troll rogue and then I was a troll priest, just in case anyone was wondering. I didn't do much in the way of alts, spent way too much time on my main, which was the priest. Good luck finding a constant spot in a raid as a melee dps.
I used to raid five days a week and arena the other two. Oh, WoW. I'm glad I have a life outside of it, now!
>> ^Porksandwich:
My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.
OR
They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.
Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.
I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.



Can you explain the appeal of the game? I've seen clips and it looks a bit ropey. Is it all the rpg elements combining to create an addictive experience as you'd expect or something more?

Huh, I was a single girl on WoW and then I was a taken girl on WoW. Never experienced any of that except for perhaps a little unwanted attention both when single and not. Most of the time gender didn't even come up. There were sometimes jokes about making sandwiches and the like over vent during raids, but that wasn't the drama that usually happened. "Don't stand in fire you fucking idiot." <- That was.
It all depends on the person. It hurts me to see you make sweeping generalities like that.

I met my partner on WoW and now we have a child. I was a troll rogue and then I was a troll priest, just in case anyone was wondering. I didn't do much in the way of alts, spent way too much time on my main, which was the priest. Good luck finding a constant spot in a raid as a melee dps.

I used to raid five days a week and arena the other two. Oh, WoW. I'm glad I have a life outside of it, now!

>> ^Porksandwich:

My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.
OR
They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.
Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.
I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.

My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.

OR

They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.

Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.

I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.

"How To Get Boys To Like You" = Stalker tutorial .... She IS funny though.

^Upvoted^

>> ^Darkhand:


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.
This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.
And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.
Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?
But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.
It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.
Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!


If you don't have any doubts given that the police didn't tox screen Zimmerman, Zimmerman was told not to follow, they had the wrong detective doing the investigation, and witnesses were coming forward weeks AFTER the incident to try to tell their side of it and saying police never investigated. Then I don't think you can call yourself objective.

I personally try to put myself in either person's shoes and decide if I think I would have acted the same way. I can see Trayvon's point of view more easily than I can Zimmerman. If I were a teenager visiting my father and someone in his neighborhood was following me, I would definitely try to run. And if they kept pursuing and had me trapped, you have the choice of letting them do whatever or fighting back. That part is going to vary on what is being said, but I think Zimmerman acted as aggressor there.

Now in Zimmerman's shoes, I don't own a gun, in fact I've never even held one or fired one. However, if I did have a gun, I certainly would not get so close to someone as for them to take my gun from me or prevent me from using my gun if I felt they were "suspicious". I also would not have gotten out of my vehicle to make that even more likely to occur. As for following a teenager, if they looked like a teen in physical appearance I wouldn't push the issue. If it were an adult acting like that, I might be concerned enough to try to keep them in view from a block away or something. I certainly would never have gotten out of my vehicle in either case of a non-injured teen or adult...they obviously don't want you to be near them if they RUN.

The SYG law, which I have quoted the relevant portions in a previous quote does not say that someone is neutralized when they are on their back. Reposting a portion of it:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If Trayvon could reasonably believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm the law clearly says he could use lethal force against Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman was awake throughout and had the ability to draw a gun and shoot, he was not neutralized. Trayvon was within his rights to defend himself by beating Zimmerman to death if he reasonably felt his life was in danger. If Zimmerman said he had a gun, or the gun was detectable through clothing, or brandishing it, that's a clear indicator that Zimmerman had the ability to use lethal force against him.

Martin wasn't texting his girlfriend, he was speaking to her according to her testimony. She says the line went dead after she HEARD them ask questions and then shoving began.

As for stalking, people get restraining orders against stalkers all the time. If it wasn't a presentation of danger, the courts would not hand out these restraining orders against people who do such things.

I don't like labeling myself as liberal or conservative. Perhaps my life experience makes me favor Martin, but I think the presentation of information thus far indicates that in the moment Zimmerman was beyond the "norm" for behavior for an adult non-LEO against another civilian who was young if not underage. That's not even counting the confrontation, he went beyond the scope a normal citizen would prior to it. Whether that was because he "on something", "pissed", "racist", or had some other agenda.....we can't know. I think it's clear evidence of him not thinking acting reasonably or thinking clearly.

And I don't feel that I'm pushing an agenda. I'm applying the language of the law to the scenario, and I feel that Zimmerman violated Martin's rights and was let go because of the law that should have applied first and foremost to Martin who was actively trying to escape Zimmerman by Zimmerman's own admissions on the 911 tapes. The rest of the police screw ups is just fuel to the fire. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman hated blacks at this point, although it will be important once they finally apply the law in some kind of rational way. To determine if this was a hate crime on his part, which will be left up to a jury.

Again, I can absolutely see why people would be upset on this case for a lot of reasons. But by far the most troubling is that it seems like you can put someone on the defensive, and straight up murder them as soon as they have lost all other options of flight and turn to fight. Not seeing that aspect of it, is by far the most troubling "blindness"/willful ignorance of the people coming out on the side of Zimmerman. Without evidence to show that Trayvon had a chance for escape, Zimmerman is 100% wrong in the wording of the law under 776.041 as the aggressor. If we can't apply the law by it's language, it's a useless law.

These facts made you change your mind about what, specifically? You are not very clear.

So, you think the homicide of the unarmed teenager, who was committing no crime when Zimmerman approached him, is a justified homicide?

You are essentially saying that armed stalkers can get away with murder if their targets defend themselves.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

The cops' report is worth less than a piece of dung.

I don't know why Trayvon is at fault in any scenario. Since when are stalkers the victims when their targets defend themselves.

Greetings, stalker.

i love STALKER more than anything but this movie has a few long shots of trees. can't upvote