LOL, I have my doubts. Some people do NOT want to accept or evaluate information contrary to their chosen position.
You still haven't offered anything other than assertion.
At least Jack House tried:
The operative part of your dictionary quote is "in order to catch or attack." Interestingly, this is similar to the cause and effect fallacy. Because pursuing is always following, following must then also be pursuing. No, you're wrong.
Splitting hairs. Who knows what his intent was? We can only describe his actions, not the unknowable intent behind them. And, for the record, when the word was first used, there was no intent to imply a necessary intent to "catch or attack". Nor is such "operative".
For instance, another definition from the same dictionary:
pur·sue (pr-s)
v. pur·sued, pur·su·ing, pur·sues
v.tr.
1. To follow in an effort to overtake or capture; chase: a fox that was pursued by hounds.
2. To strive to gain or accomplish: pursue lofty political goals.
3. To proceed along the course of; follow: a ship that pursued the southern course.
So, clearly, while an intent to "catch or attack" may be implied when one is referring to one's own behavior, or in a context where intent is evident, it cannot be an operative aspect of the meaning when describing the behavior of another, where intent is unknowable (someone's intent may be easily discernible, but it is clearly not here). That is to say, describing his behavior as "pursuit" cannot reasonably interpreted as suggesting knowledge of his intent, and therefore cannot be reasonably interpreted to refer to his intent. Only Zimmerman knows his intent.
I'm working as an undercover security guard at a retail store. I spot someone that may be a shoplifter, so I discretely follow this individual around the store to ensure that they are not in fact attempting to steal. I have no intention of stopping this individual unless I catch them shoplifting. This is not a pursuit, it is following. It can, however, turn into a pursuit.
At least this context is similar; it is not, however, identical. Consider the difference between "discretely following someone around a store" and
following a person running away, within a gated neighborhood. The former may not be pursuit, but the latter inarguably is.
The difference is critical; in the former case you're merely watching a person whose course may be indirect. In the latter, you're
pursuing a person who is running
away from you. And, remember, in the case at hand, Zimmerman claimed on the phone that the other guy was
running away.
It is simple, and not in need of explanation.
Unsupported assertion. I can as easily say the same.
There isn't any true evidence that he was in pursuit. If there were, it would be valid to state that he was. Until there is evidence of pursuit, it is a simple conjecture.
He was on the phone with the police, who advised him not to follow, which he admitted to doing, presumably to
catch the guy in the act of a crime.
And, as I pointed out, his intent need not be to catch in order for it to be pursuit; this may be an implication in certain contexts, but it's clearly not a necessary element in this context.
Nobody has made a compelling argument that Zimmerman could be following this guy, who was running away, without pursuing him. Unrelated or only tangentially related scenarios do not count as a compelling argument.
While I agree that following may not suggest pursuit in every context, I maintain that in this context
to follow is to pursue.
