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

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Evidence points to .....

We don't know what the evidence is. We only have media spin. The REAL EVIDENCE will be in the court room and that is what the jury will base it's decision on (hopefully). Anything else that is called 'evidence' at this point is all media and tabloid spin. We don't know what the evidence is.

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.

How do you know? Were you there? That's interjection on your part.

BTW ... since you insist on calling the spin/informaton in the media 'evidence' ...
NY Daily News - Autopsy shows Trayvon Martin had bruises on Knuckles
In other words ... Martin had really beat the heck out of something just before death.
Beat something (or someone) hard enough to cause his knuckles to be bruised.

So if that autopsy information is correct .. then you should reexamine your position on this matter. Isn't it better to wait for the case to come to court so we can get the real EVIDENCE and not just the media evidence/spin??

You know .. the more I thought about this ...

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
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.

If I was walking in a neighborhood and got jumped by a 17 year old male who was taller and bigger than me .. and that 17 year old male was punching me and pounding my head into the pavement ... I wouldn't bother with 'gee .. maybe I should try to control him in some way' ... I'd pull out my gun and shoot the S.O.B. and protect myself. I wouldn't be fooling around with any attempts to control him and I wouldn't take a chance that he could have a knife or a gun. I'd just shoot him and save myself.

And yes, if the 'evidence' in the news reports are correct, Martin was taller and bigger than Zimmerman.

So .. Ivan .. not only is your statement conjecture on your part about what happened .. but I would think that common sense tells us that a person is going to protect themselves from a life threatening attack in the quickest and easiest and most effective manner they have.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Evidence points to .....

We don't know what the evidence is. We only have media spin. The REAL EVIDENCE will be in the court room and that is what the jury will base it's decision on (hopefully). Anything else that is called 'evidence' at this point is all media and tabloid spin. We don't know what the evidence is.

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.

How do you know? Were you there? That's interjection on your part.

Actually, it's more like supposition, based on Z's own description of the fight. What are you basing your views of the encounter on?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

BTW ... since you insist on calling the spin/informaton in the media 'evidence' ...
NY Daily News - Autopsy shows Trayvon Martin had bruises on Knuckles
In other words ... Martin had really beat the heck out of something just before death.
Beat something (or someone) hard enough to cause his knuckles to be bruised.

So if that autopsy information is correct .. then you should reexamine your position on this matter.

He had a mark on ONE of his knuckles. Hardly the likely result of a violent beatdown on another person's head and face. You do know why boxers wear those big padded gloves, don't you? I'll remind you - it's to protect their hands from what happens when you punch a human head hard, in the wrong place. It can cause damage enough to make pro boxers reluctant to throw a punch, nevermind an inexperienced fighter. Either every other blow TM is alleged to have thrown landed fortuitiously on Z's face, causing neither of them any damage, or TM just threw the one punch, which isn't what Z says happened.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Isn't it better to wait for the case to come to court so we can get the real EVIDENCE and not just the media evidence/spin??

Of course it is, but all the interest in this case came about from that process seemingly being avoided, and now the internets are full of chat about the whys and wherefores. If it bothers you that much, I'd suggest avoiding the kind of places where such discussion arises.

Interesting. I do not agree with the decision at all. If you are on your back getting your head slammed into the pavement you should be able to defend your life. Period, end of story. The HOA might have over stepped its limits somewhere I dunno. I never thought it was their duty to organize neighborhood patrols. I thought that was something the community worked out among themselves.

HOA's do nothing but infringe on peoples rights anyhow.

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

Okay, I attempted to help you with your confusion. You said you couldn't work out why someone unfamiliar with an area would use a dodgy route.I showed you how that might happen.

i never said anything about you 'slinking' around

Yes you did.

but TM sure was.

Terrible use of words designed to slander him. He was walking back from the shops with some sweets.

if the need presented itself, no other justifiable reason is necessary.

That's a very big if.

and to you, that'd be badass granny

go ahead punk, make my day

- (thank you Eastwood)

I have no idea what you're talking about. But I can see you really like guns, and I suppose kids and teenageres getting killed shouldn't get in the way of that.

Originally posted by AllGloryIsGods
Interesting. I do not agree with the decision at all. If you are on your back getting your head slammed into the pavement you should be able to defend your life. Period, end of story.

Of course you should. The problem here is the lack of evidence re any head being slammed against a hard surface with malevolent intent. What we have is a guy who shot someone dead who he says was doing that, and a witness who says he saw nothing of the sort in the 10 seconds or so he saw two figures on the ground outside his home.

Perhaps Trayvon was having a rest at that point, as going by the screams Z says he was making from the outset, TM had been pummeling him with what Z thought were bricks for a good 20-30 secs?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
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.

Now, you are really bending backward to try and make light of TM's assault. What does "skinny" have to do with anything at all? Do you say that it only counts as assault if the attacker is fat? What kind of nonsense is that?

Before, you also complained how Z's injuries didn't look that serious. Again, what does it have to do with anything? Years ago, I sustained injuries that looked remarkably similar, and had to spend a week in the hospital for a serious concussion and a crack in the skull, and then undergo treatment for some months. Just how stupid is it to say that Z's head didn't bleed that much hence he is a liar or worse? And of course you need to lecture Z how to "correctly" defend himself. I think he's proven that he's OK with that part.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

And of course you need to lecture Z how to "correctly" defend himself. I think he's proven that he's OK with that part.

If you think 'dead teenager' is better than 'subdued teenager'. Which I suppose in the US is often the case.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by buddhasystem

And of course you need to lecture Z how to "correctly" defend himself. I think he's proven that he's OK with that part.

If you think 'dead teenager' is better than 'subdued teenager'. Which I suppose in the US is often the case.

Yeah well I commented before that it would be well for Z to learn self-defense. But when punches are raining, and you are not a black belt, then what.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Except you forget that he was on the phone with police before the encounter. He knew police were coming he wasn't going to hunt the guy down. He didn't have time to find the guy, somehow manage to get beat all to hell, and then shoot the guy. Anyone that thinks Zimmerman was at fault or behind it is really denying reality. He called the police, he got jumped, and while being beaten he shot the teen one time. He didn't unload out him, he shot him to end the beating. Zimmerman should be found not guilty on grounds of self defense.

As for the previous times where he had caught burglars, i don't have to go digging it up, it's been noted in multiple threads, educate yourself instead of asking me to do the work for you. The police reports are out there.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

outtrump ?? is that even a word ?
i wouldn't expect you to understand as you've never experienced such conditions.

no solidarity group or favoritism for George needed, i've been there and i've shot an intruder.
(and given same circumstances, i'd do it again)

who then forgets he is carrying it

proof or you're still just making stuff up to validate your own prejudice.

i offer no opinion of SPD functions as i wasn't there observing or participating.

Have you seen anything among the disclosed evidence that makes Z's allegations seem dubious or self-serving?

since that is a trick question, i'll give ya part of the answer you seek ... dubious? no ... self-serving, yes ... his self-serving desire to preserve his own life by shooting his attacker would qualify.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

what you fail to accept is that "bruising" does not occur immediately and TMs death did.
hence, the 'bruising' discovered may not be the whole of the 'damage' striking Z caused.
upon death, blood no longer flows, hence 'bruising' isn't likely to develop in such a limited time frame.

the simple fact that one bruise was evident during autopsy solidifies the assault whether you accept it or not.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

you, are mistaken.
i suggested that in an area such as this crime scene, there would be NO LOGICAL reason for someone unfamiliar with the area to utilize pathways frequented by criminals and that directly infringe on the private property of others.

you claim it's common behavior in your region and i can accept that, but your region (by your own description) is nothing like this crime scene.

which btw, still doesn't answer the ONLY question asked of you

no, i stated that TM was slinking around private property where he had no business being and i stand by it. (TM sure was)

he was talking on the cell phone while trespassing on property where he shouldn't have been, hence Z's call to 911 initially.
[oh and btw, technically, tresspassing is breaking the law so if you're gonna consider the law at all, you must consider all of it, including TMs penchant for breaking it]

contrary to your opinion, ppl don't generally waltz through the property of other's just because they are too lazy to walk on the provided pathway.

however, we've already established that this particular teen had little in the way of 'guidance' so, it is quite likely that his own arrogance (i'll do whatever i want) is exactly what got him killed.

a threat is a threat.
perhaps ppl like TM (arrogant teens) ought to focus on being more cooperative and less 'threatening' ??

no, i like Clint Eastwood and a few of his famous 'lines' ... hence,
go ahead punk, make my day

and no, i don't "really like guns", they are a tool just as any other.
however, they do provide an immediate solution to most any imminent threat and that is a function i can live with, can you ?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

perhaps if this teenager didn't attempt to take what wasn't his, he may only be 'subdued' or sitting in a jail cell. however, he took a chance at disarming Z and failed, it happens.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Except you forget that he was on the phone with police before the encounter. He knew police were coming he wasn't going to hunt the guy down.

Except, you don't know what was going through Zimmerman's mind that night and what his intentions were. You don't know his exact movements that night, all you have are his claims of what he was supposedly doing that night, so don't come to us with this 'he could not have done this' nonsense.

One thing to note, when the dispatcher stated that police should meet him back at the mail boxes, the opposite direction from where Trayvon was heading, what did Zimmerman say? He said he wanted the police to call him when they arrive because clearly he did not want to be waiting at the mail boxes, away from where Trayvon was headed.

he got jumped, and while being beaten he shot the teen one time. He didn't unload out him, he shot him to end the beating.

People who claim to know exactly what happened that night, without any evidence or having witnessed those events, are outside of reality.

1. There is no evidence to show that Trayvon 'jumped' or 'attacked' Zimmerman out of no where, there's no evidence to show that he attacked Zimmerman first. There is only Zimmerman's testimony that this happened thus far, and witness accounts could only account for a fight, nothing else. So stop lying about something you clearly don't know.

2. What's this about Zimmerman not 'unloading' on Trayvon? What the heck does this mean? Do you have an exact recording on what Zimmerman said that night before the incident happened? Or are you just making blind assumptions based on Zimmerman's own testimony again? Because it certainly sounds like you are.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

What's this about Zimmerman not 'unloading' on Trayvon? What the heck does this mean?

unloaded as in the full stock of bullets in the magazine of the gun.
i do not recall the model so i really don't recall the # of bullets it held, fully loaded.

however, If Z was "out to kill" as has been claimed, repeatedly ... he would have emptied his stock/magazine load into TM.

what did occur was a single shot and that was the point of GVMs post.

ex: most firearms in the line of what Z carried are fully-loaded with 7-14 bullets, depending on model.
Z may or may not have had it fully loaded or any # in between, however, it is extremely unlikely that it was loaded with a single bullet.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

But when punches are raining

You don't know this happened.

and you are not a black belt, then what.

Aw gee, just shoot 'im, Lester.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

you, are mistaken.
i suggested that in an area such as this crime scene, there would be NO LOGICAL reason for someone unfamiliar with the area to utilize pathways frequented by criminals and that directly infringe on the private property of others.

There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin infringed on the private property of others, except that he was in a gated community. In which case what do you suggest he should have done? Flown home?

This is an attempt by gun fetishists to criminalise behaviour that was not criminal. You and people like you then go on to use loaded terms like "slinking around" to further smear a dead boy. You should be ashamed.

no, i stated that TM was slinking around private property where he had no business being and i stand by it. (TM sure was)

he was talking on the cell phone while trespassing on property where he shouldn't have been, hence Z's call to 911 initially.

Nonsense. Show me your evidence for this. You're just trying to make it look like he was behaving more suspiciously than he was in order to exonerate his killer.

contrary to your opinion, ppl don't generally waltz through the property of other's just because they are too lazy to walk on the provided pathway.

Yeah, he was lazy too. They often are, aren't they? He really deserved to die, this one.

Show me a piece of evidence that persuasively suggests that Martin was on private property in any meaningful sense.

however, we've already established that this particular teen had little in the way of 'guidance' so, it is quite likely that his own arrogance (i'll do whatever i want) is exactly what got him killed.

He got killed because an idiot shot him unnecessarily. He wasn't breaking into someone's home (although I imagine that pretty soon you'll claim that he may have been), he was walking back from the shops. And a person who was enabled by the stupid gun culture you espouse killed him.

perhaps ppl like TM (arrogant teens) ought to focus on being more cooperative and less 'threatening' ??

Yeah. Or face death. That'll learn 'em.

and no, i don't "really like guns", they are a tool just as any other.

Yeah, like I have my hammer for killing kids, my saw for killing kids, my whisk for killing kids. Just tools.

however, they do provide an immediate solution to most any imminent threat and that is a function i can live with, can you ?

Yeah, the imminent threat of a teenager walking along the road while consciously and unrepentedly being black.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

perhaps if this teenager didn't attempt to take what wasn't his, he may only be 'subdued' or sitting in a jail cell. however, he took a chance at disarming Z and failed, it happens.

And you know that how?

Once again you're absolutely slavering to paint Martin as a murderous thug and Zimmerman as a brave defender of public liberty. It's pretty pathetic.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin infringed on the private property of others, except that he was in a gated community.

wrong again as that is the reason Z called 911 initially.
he was reporting 'suspicious' activity

and, it was released to the public some time ago.
residing in a gated community (which TM wasn't) does not grant you privilege to stroll/slink or cut across private property, as TM was reported doing.

in this country, it is illegal and called tresspassing, even when inside a gated community.

he should have used the concrete walkways provided, period.
or walked in the middle of the road like most teens do.

evidence ??
so, are you now denying that he was talking to a girl, on the cell phone, while walking to his dad's girlfriend's place ?

if so then we have nothing further to discuss
i have some wonderful cheese to go with your whine, would you like some ?

teenager walking along the road

proof please ??
or, where's your evidence