You couldn't have used a more accurate word like follow instead chase.. much like those using the word child to describe a 17 year old.
I'm pretty sure you don't have the right to pursue anybody if you're a non-authority figure. That's harassment/stalking and people usually get charged for it.
911 dispatcher: Are you following him? [2:24] Zimmerman: Yeah. [2:25] 911 dispatcher:OK.We don’t need you to do that. [2:26] Zimmerman: OK. [2:28] (wind noises heard) 911 dispatcher:Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34] Zimmerman:George. He ran. 911 dispatcher:Alright, George, what’s your last name? Zimmerman: Zimmerman. One thing that still confuses me is wether or not this little exchange was the so called "Chase" that everyone keeps talking about. Based on this conversation with the dispatcher he chases TM, stops, loses sight of him, and then tells the dispatcher that he will meet the cops at the mailboxes. Did he chase TM again?and then the fight occured?
Remember, we need the facts. You do not know for a fact that is what happened or do you you have video/audio evidence of this or just one person's account or perhaps you were just using that scenario as an example or maybe it is something else. Is it any of those? I'd hate to assume.....like some folks.
It seems to be the most logical interpretation of the events. Besides, I was making a general point, not one specific to this case.
You seem to make quite a desperate blend here: a decision to continue to keep an eye on Martin's whereabouts was really a determination to gun him down. Otherwise why the "lo and behold?"
Irrelevant information Zimmerman could follow Martin and talk to him -- that's no crime. You seem to be very worked up (defensive?) over all of this -- how about you try to stick to facts as opposed to try to speculate so much?
