Travyon Martin Parents Settle Wrongful Death Claim for Over One Million Dollars

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by FlyersFan
we don't really know any of the evidence in the case.... we only know what the media has spun.

I agree with you on most of your points here. However, published photos of Z's head, front and back, do not require any media "spinning" to recognize that he sustained a beating. I will agree that forensic experts will need to address this in detail, or I guess they already had.

Is it possible that those wounds were self inflicted to establish an alibi of being assaulted. It's happened in the past. People have even shot themselves to try and establish a self defense alibi.

www.kltv.com...

I'm not saying that's what Z. did; but it makes as much sense as trying to convict TM thru conjecture and slander.

reply to post by olaru12


Bloody nose and skull are not a conjecture. The statement that Z could have done it to himself is.

How about TM shot himself, out of spite? Who knows...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
What we are doing is the old time equivalent of sitting around the campfire and discussing the topic du jour

The topic du jour .... Travyon Martin Parents got over a million $$ because they sued the Home Owners Association. That's the topic of the thread. I should know .. I started the darn thing.

So, you wanted to discuss the HOA's decision without any referral to the case for which they are shelling out such a pretty sum? Is that really the kind of thread you wanted?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Newsflash: WE ARE NOT IN A COURTROOM! What we are doing is the old time equivalent of sitting around the campfire and discussing the topic du jour. We are not held to the same standards and are free to speculate about the available evidence.

Does it include your own sadistic speculation about how you would beat Z into pulp? Oh wait, it has no relation to evidence, just a Freudian slip of some sort, I suppose. Do you normally chat about your own "ground and pound" beating technique around the campfire?

We can speculate some more. For example, TM was an ambassador from Zeta Reticuli, while Z was controlled remotely, on a subspace frequency, by a powerful space-faring race that likes to hide inside neutron stars. So it was a galactic battle in the end.

...and such is the value of your speculation.

Originally posted by olaru12
Is it possible that those wounds were self inflicted to establish an alibi of being assaulted. It's happened in the past. People have even shot themselves to try and establish a self defense alibi.

Quite possible but the burden of proof lies with the State and going that route, they would have a very hard time proving it. A wound to the back of the head is not as easy to determine the angle of say, a gun shot wound. Possible, but not probable in my opinion and the State won't touch that line of reasoning because of the amount of evidence they would have to produce to prove that.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What it says 'in volumes' is that people believe in INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

You want to know what else speaks volumes? This excuse that because Zimmerman is legally innocent, this actually makes him innocent of any wrong doing that night. Much in the same way that O.J Simpson is legally innocent, hmm. The jury is still out so far as I'm aware.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You want to know what else speaks volumes? This excuse that because Zimmerman is legally innocent, this actually makes him innocent of any wrong doing that night.

Where to begin. Excuse? It is an excuse to view that a private citizen, being charged by the State for a crime is to be presumed innocent? I think those who are making that stand probably hold a personal opinion on the matter but are stating the facts at this point: The State must prove Zimmerman's guilt; not Zimmerman must prove his innocence. Emotional arguments like to flip that one around because it satisfies their subjective feelings on it.

Much in the same way that O.J Simpson is legally innocent, hmm. The jury is still out so far as I'm aware.

And he paid civilly; as far as criminally, the State failed to provide without a doubt it was he that committed those crimes. That is fantastic. The State should have a high-bar to pass to determine guilt.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Where to begin. Excuse? It is an excuse to view that a private citizen, being charged by the State for a crime is to be presumed innocent?

No, it's an excuse to use the fact that just because Zimmerman is 'presumed innocent' under a court of law, this somehow dismisses any debate of whether he is actually guilty or not. It's not a good argument to make when debating this case, especially considering that every single man and his dog is presumed innocent until following a court case. This is a fact. So stop using this excuse because it doesn't dismiss the facts of this case at hand.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No, it's an excuse to use the fact that just because Zimmerman is 'presumed innocent' under a court of law, this somehow dismisses any debate of whether he is actually guilty or not. It's not a good argument to make when debating this case, especially considering that every single man and his dog is presumed innocent until following a court case. This is a fact. So stop using this excuse because it doesn't dismiss the facts of this case at hand.

So we should what? Presume him guilty based off of the limited evidence and testimony we have? Taking the stance against the State and holding our fellow peer innocent is paramount to American law. The State is trying to say he deserves to be jailed; our stance should be "Prove it"...as it has been for over 225+ years.

Holding that belief doesn't invalidate any personally held beliefs of his actual guilt, but unless you or I are on the jury, what does it matter?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Holding that belief doesn't invalidate any personally held beliefs of his actual guilt,

Does the belief that Zimmerman is legally innocent and presumed innocent under a court of law invalidate any debate of his actual guilt that night? No it doesn't, this is correct. So, why given this fact, do members, in particular in support of Zimmerman, bring this fact up in these debates? When for the most part nobody has proposed that Zimmerman be thrown in the slammer without the right to defend himself and to appear in court before a jury? What's the point? The point is that these members try to use this excuse to dismiss arguments concerning his guilt that night and our legal system doesn't work this way.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Newsflash: WE ARE NOT IN A COURTROOM! What we are doing is the old time equivalent of sitting around the campfire and discussing the topic du jour. We are not held to the same standards and are free to speculate about the available evidence.

Does it include your own sadistic speculation about how you would beat Z into pulp? Oh wait, it has no relation to evidence, just a Freudian slip of some sort, I suppose. Do you normally chat about your own "ground and pound" beating technique around the campfire?

Only if it has relevance to the subject being discussed. The core subject matter of this thread is an alleged streetfight between 2 individuals, one of whom ended up shooting the other. While I have no experience of shooting anyone I've had a fight with, I do have knowledge of the basic dynamics of a no-rules fight. This knowledge leads me to believe that nothing Z describes about his encounter passes the smell test and he simply sounds like someone trying to cover his ass after messing up big style. You may choose to believe differently, based on your own life experiences and knowledge base.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We can speculate some more. For example, TM was an ambassador from Zeta Reticuli, while Z was controlled remotely, on a subspace frequency, by a powerful space-faring race that likes to hide inside neutron stars. So it was a galactic battle in the end.

...and such is the value of your speculation.

edit on 11-4-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

Not even remotely correct. Your "speculation" is gibberish, with no relation to the subject whatsoever.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

We don't know if Martin was up to no good or not. We only know what was in the press and the press has proven that it can't be trusted.

As far as his parents go .... their lawsuit against the Home Owners Association is finished and they got a very big payout. If people want to believe that they had a right to get that money from the Homeowners Association .. that's their right to believe it. If people want to believe that the parents are money grubbers who couldn't be bothered with their kid much but found the time to make sure they got as much money as they could .. that's their right to believe it as well.

I find it interesting that some here are 'concerned' that Martin is being 'smeared' ... but in the same breath they go right ahead and smear Zimmerman even though we don't really know any of the evidence in the case.... we only know what the media has spun.

That's my point. You're quite willing to believe the media stories that suggest Martin's parents are money grabbers, but you extend Zimmerman every courtesy when it comes to the benefit of the doubt. That's a double standard.

Anyway, this is going in circles. You've clearly made your mind up about what you want to believe, so here I'll leave it.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Newsflash: WE ARE NOT IN A COURTROOM! What we are doing is the old time equivalent of sitting around the campfire and discussing the topic du jour. We are not held to the same standards and are free to speculate about the available evidence.

Does it include your own sadistic speculation about how you would beat Z into pulp? Oh wait, it has no relation to evidence, just a Freudian slip of some sort, I suppose. Do you normally chat about your own "ground and pound" beating technique around the campfire?

Only if it has relevance to the subject being discussed. The core subject matter of this thread is an alleged streetfight between 2 individuals, one of whom ended up shooting the other. While I have no experience of shooting anyone I've had a fight with, I do have knowledge of the basic dynamics of a no-rules fight. This knowledge leads me to believe that nothing Z describes about his encounter passes the smell test and he simply sounds like someone trying to cover his ass after messing up big style. You may choose to believe differently, based on your own life experiences and knowledge base.

Fine, in the end it's inevitable that we are all left to our beliefs. By the way I also don't believe that Z fired that shot because he was craving killing somebody. That's just way out, along the lines that TM was a space alien. And yes, I also have experience in no-rules fighting in my younger years, and had taken a beating a few times. My friend was not so fortunate, he got stabbed to death. Who knows, had he had a gun, he might still be alive.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

back at ya, nothing like smearing the living in lieu of the dead

(Sandy Hook ring any bells ?)

as for the 'region', clearly you are unfamiliar.
while you may not have paved streets, lighted walkways and a plethora of options to avoid slinking around private property where you have no business being, the region they were, did.

so, willingly putting yourself in places where you are not supposed to be, might be something you'd do, not i.
and, as mentioned to another, until you can get back on topic, i offer no further response.

I answered your question! How is that off-topic?

Since you're so quick to accuse me of "slinking around" I imagine if I was shot you'd be scrabbling for weasel reasons to justify it so you can carry on feeling like a big man. Not very edifying.

wow, really ??
the only question specifically directed to you was ...

(Sandy Hook ring any bells ?)

not sure how you think you've addressed that question but whatever
as for your false assumption, apologies are encouraged.

i never said anything about you 'slinking' around, but TM sure was.
if the need presented itself, no other justifiable reason is necessary.
and to you, that'd be badass granny
go ahead punk, make my day
- (thank you Eastwood)

reply to post by IvanAstikov

I have no experience of shooting anyone I've had a fight with

then, you cannot even begin to understand the dynamic of this encounter, plain and simple.

those of us who have had such an experience (shooting in self defense) see things differently.

is Z guilty of ending a life ?? yes, forever.
is Z guilty of 'murder' ?? not without proof.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I have no experience of shooting anyone I've had a fight with

then, you cannot even begin to understand the dynamic of this encounter, plain and simple.

those of us who have had such an experience (shooting in self defense) see things differently.

So, there's a group of you who've been in hand-to-hand combat situations, with attackers who've been beating the crap out of you, but you've managed to get out your guns just in time? I hope you've formed some kind of support group to show your solidarity with George? I'm not really seeing how your experiences totally outtrump mine here? The particular dynamics here involved a man who carried a gun everywhere but in his workplace, who then forgets he is carrying it whilst in the process of tailing a suspicious character who he believed might be drugged up and armed. Has that happened to you, too?

Originally posted by Honor93
is Z guilty of ending a life ?? yes, forever.
is Z guilty of 'murder' ?? not without proof.

Speaking of proof, do you think SPD did a faultless job investigating this incident? Have you seen anything among the disclosed evidence that makes Z's allegations seem dubious or self-serving?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
it's an excuse to use the fact that just because Zimmerman is 'presumed innocent' under a court of law, this somehow dismisses any debate of whether he is actually guilty or not... So stop using this excuse because it doesn't dismiss the facts of this case at hand.

The point is this ... we don't have the facts. We only have what the media is spinning. We don't know if Martin is innocent or guilty of something. We don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of something. We just don't know. And for people to come on here and slam Martin as a 'thug' or slam Zimmerman as a racist murderer .... that's all based on CRAP that the media and tabloids have put out. We need to wait for the trial to hear the actual facts before making those kind of statements.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
it's an excuse to use the fact that just because Zimmerman is 'presumed innocent' under a court of law, this somehow dismisses any debate of whether he is actually guilty or not... So stop using this excuse because it doesn't dismiss the facts of this case at hand.

The point is this ... we don't have the facts. We only have what the media is spinning.

We don't know if Martin is innocent or guilty of something. We don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of something. We just don't know. And for people to come on here and slam Martin as a 'thug' or slam Zimmerman as a racist murderer .... that's all based on CRAP that the media and tabloids have put out. We need to wait for the trial to hear the actual facts before making those kind of statements.

The complete NEN call, Zimmerman's video'd walkthrough, his statements to SPD investigators, his Hannity interview, his evasiveness to the court about his finances, his prior record for getting "hands on" with someone he felt was up to no good... are all facts, not media spinning.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The complete NEN call, Zimmerman's video'd walkthrough, his statements to SPD investigators, his Hannity interview, his evasiveness to the court about his finances, his prior record for getting "hands on" with someone he felt was up to no good... are all facts, not media spinning.

Oh man, more smokescreen... I don't pretend to like or dislike Z, I don't care much for the man. Maybe he was being a schmuck, maybe not. His finances (are you talking about bail or something similar) have nothing to do with what transpired between him and TM. What you wrote is a bunch of non sequitur. And going to Hannity (I didn't see the interview) can never be a good idea, you don't want to spend any time near a pile of turd. So bad judgement on his part. So you may be listing "facts", but they are totally irrelevant. If there is evidence of assault on Z, that's all that matters. If it doesn't hold, then oh well. Z may be a schmuck, so what. Evidence so far points to him having been attacked by TM. An explanation posted here that Z himself beat his own head with a brick to create injuries is a weak conjecture. From what we know, it's a whole lot less likely compared to TM getting cocky and "taking a swing", using his own words from a previous encounter, at Z.

Note to self: study self-defense. Had Z been competent in that, he could have dished out an appropriate punishment to TM without getting into this mess.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The complete NEN call, Zimmerman's video'd walkthrough, his statements to SPD investigators, his Hannity interview, his evasiveness to the court about his finances, his prior record for getting "hands on" with someone he felt was up to no good... are all facts, not media spinning.

Oh man, more smokescreen... I don't pretend to like or dislike Z, I don't care much for the man. Maybe he was being a schmuck, maybe not. His finances (are you talking about bail or something similar) have nothing to do with what transpired between him and TM. What you wrote is a bunch of non sequitur. And going to Hannity (I didn't see the interview) can never be a good idea, you don't want to spend any time near a pile of turd. So bad judgement on his part. So you may be listing "facts", but they are totally irrelevant. If there is evidence of assault on Z, that's all that matters.

It's not really, tho', is it? There's all that business about the circumstances leading up to the incident, ie. what George was doing in the moments after ending his NEN call and how he was taken by surprise by TM, despite the fact that seconds before ending his call, he'd indicated to the guy on the other end he was very aware of his environment and that TM could be anywhere.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If it doesn't hold, then oh well. Z may be a schmuck, so what. Evidence so far points to him having been attacked by TM.

Evidence points to him having slight injuries, which he says he got during a brutal sustained attack. He would say that, wouldn't he, being as he's the one stood over a dead teen. The only thing he had to hope for was that nobody had watched the whole encounter, and even then, it'd be their word against his.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
An explanation posted here that Z himself beat his own head with a brick to create injuries is a weak conjecture.

It's hardly the unlikeliest thing a panicky person might do after shooting someone in a "citizen's arrest gone wrong" scenario, is it?

Originally posted by buddhasystemFrom what we know, it's a whole lot less likely compared to TM getting cocky and "taking a swing", using his own words from a previous encounter, at Z.

A truly "cocky" person would have marched right up to Z's vehicle while it was parked and have called Z out on his bs profiling attempt. And, if they'd decided to lure Z into a dark walkway so they could teach him a lesson, they wouldn't announce their presence prior to throwing a sucker-punch.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Note to self: study self-defense. Had Z been competent in that, he could have dished out an appropriate punishment to TM without getting into this mess.

IF what Z says happened, happened, he could need a lot of lessons, as he didn't seem to have a clue what to do when a skinny teen was sat astride him, raining down punches. He didn't try to control TM's wrists, he never attempted to throw any blows himself or leave the slightest mark on his attacker. According to Z, if TM hadn't made a move for Z's gun, which had conveniently displayed itself, Z would have forgotten all about it, and Trayvon would have still been throwing down his ineffective punches when the police had arrived.