* sigh * If you're following someone repeatedly in that person's own neighborhood (remember, it wasn't just Zimmerman's neighborhood), that can constitute the crime of stalking.
See:
https://m.flsenate.gov/Statutes/784.048
"(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."
I don't know if the stalking statute was raised in the trial. Zimmerman could have raised the "lawful purpose" defense.
"(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."
Of course the prosecution could have argued back that the police telling Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that" meant he had no legitimate purpose. And Zimmerman's defenders would say that doesn't matter. He had a legitimate purpose regardless.
That said, the "repeatedly follows" part of the statute does
not have a "legitimate purpose" exception. So the question would be what constitutes "willful and malicious" in this case. Willful is undeniable. Malicious is arguable.
That said, it went to a jury of Zimmerman's peers and Zimmerman was acquitted. George Zimmerman was an ass before killing Trayvon Martin. (His judge daddy got him off after he assaulted an undercover cop). George Zimmerman was an ass after killing Trayvon Martin. (Multiple arrests for assault). And his lawyer was scum. (Arrested for trying to intimidate a 9 year old alleged rape victim to change her testimony).
