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

reply to post by JuniorDisco

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.

ok man whatever, enjoy your delusion or whatever it's called these days

Originally posted by Honor93

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

You're making this up. Zimmerman thought Martin was acting suspiciously but there is no suggestion he was 'trespassing'.

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.

Who by? Where?

If you can't provide some good evidence of this then you are smearing a dead teenager. I don't know why.

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

No. You know very well I'm not doing that. Don't try to change the subject.

I'm pointing out that you are lying about him trespassing. Why?

i have some wonderful cheese to go with your whine, would you like some ?

Classy. Apologies for "whining" about people shooting teenagers. Must be really annoying.

teenager walking along the road... where's your evidence?

My evidence for him not being on private property is that there is no evidence of him trespassing, except in your mind. Or does Martin need to prove his innocence from beyond the grave? Whereas the guy who shot him is obviously innocent until proven guilty? Extraordinary.

Originally posted by Honor93

ok man whatever, enjoy your delusion or whatever it's called these days

I don't understand why you think I'm deluded. You are literally making things up in order to create the idea that Martin was committing a crime.

I think it's pretty clear that either you're deluded or that you have some political agenda for which you're willing to defame a dead boy. Either way it's pretty unedifying.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

why would i need to invent a reason when one already exists ?
and, what would you call cutting through backyards and bushes ??
here, it's called tresspassing.

released recordings, sad you missed them.
who do you think you are anyway, the judge ??
if you want evidence, file a motion and have at it

TMs parents though, they could have put all the speculation to rest but they chose $$$$$$$$$$$ instead, yet, you're concerned about the self-tarnished reputation of a dead guy, why ??

reply to post by JuniorDisco

when you insist on info that has nothing to do with the topic, you appear quite deluded.
so, be that as it may, enjoy

Originally posted by Honor93

why would i need to invent a reason when one already exists ?
and, what would you call cutting through backyards and bushes ??
here, it's called tresspassing.

It's called trespassing, actually. And it's the same here.

But apparently you have no evidence of it. None at all. For some reason you're lying.

released recordings, sad you missed them.

I didn't miss them. They contain no evidence of trespass.

It should be incredibly simple for you to show where they do. I invite you to go ahead, or apologise for trying to besmirch the name of a dead kid.

who do you think you are anyway, the judge ??
if you want evidence, file a motion and have at it

So because I'm not a 'judge' you don't have to provide any evidence of your fantasies? This is the last refuge of someone who has lost an argument, I'm afraid.

TMs parents though, they could have put all the speculation to rest but they chose $$$$$$$$$$$ instead, yet, you're concerned about the self-tarnished reputation of a dead guy, why ??

This is an attempt to move your slander from a dead teen to his parents. The speculation will still be put to rest in court, with a criminal and probably civil case against Zimmerman.

And the only reason I'm concerned at all about some 'dead guy' is because I fear for a country that kills so many kids and the people who callously suggest that it's somehow their own fault. You and your ilk should think hard about why you want to do this.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

when you insist on info that has nothing to do with the topic, you appear quite deluded.
so, be that as it may, enjoy

How is this information 'nothing to do with the topic'? You accused Trayvon Martin of trespass in order to suggest that Zimmerman was right to shoot him.

Now that you can provide no evidence of Martin trespassing it is suddenly irrelevant?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

So because I'm not a 'judge' you don't have to provide any evidence of your fantasies? This is the last refuge of someone who has lost an argument, I'm afraid.

huh ?? don't be afraid little man, it's just a conversation.
and no, i have no interest in re-hashing partial information, why do you ?

what argument ??
you seem to be the one chewing on a well-picked bone that isn't even the topic of this thread.
troll much ?

ah, moving the goal posts, are ya ??
what's new ?

fyi, this thread has ALWAYS been about the parents and their settlement vs risking the truth in a court of law.

interesting that you don't seem to be interested in truth at all, why is that?

will be via a criminal proceeding ???
surely you jest
yeah well, we'll see.

ah geeeez, could you be any more political ???
'round here that's classic trolling, are you in need of some practice or what ?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

when you insist on info that has nothing to do with the topic, you appear quite deluded.
so, be that as it may, enjoy

How is this information 'nothing to do with the topic'? You accused Trayvon Martin of trespass in order to suggest that Zimmerman was right to shoot him.

Now that you can provide no evidence of Martin trespassing it is suddenly irrelevant?

you are mistaken, i don't make accusations, that's your style, not mine.

this topic is about the parents and the settlement, not the unknown case specifics

You accused Trayvon Martin of trespass in order to suggest that Zimmerman was right to shoot him.

you lie, i did no such thing.

your need for proof is a need you'll have to fulfill as it is not my duty to satisfy your needs or desires.

i never said the trespass was irrelevant, why are you harping on nonsense ?

what's with the "ilk" talk ?
pure separatist, are ya ???
have fun with that

Originally posted by Honor93

huh ?? don't be afraid little man, it's just a conversation.
and no, i have no interest in re-hashing partial information, why do you ?

what argument ??
you seem to be the one chewing on a well-picked bone that isn't even the topic of this thread.
troll much ?

ah, moving the goal posts, are ya ??
what's new ?

fyi, this thread has ALWAYS been about the parents and their settlement vs risking the truth in a court of law.

interesting that you don't seem to be interested in truth at all, why is that?

will be via a criminal proceeding ???
surely you jest

yeah well, we'll see.

ah geeeez, could you be any more political ???
'round here that's classic trolling, are you in need of some practice or what ?

Pathetic.

Here's how this has run:

You said that since Martin didn't know the area it seemed odd to you that he was using pathways "traveled by known criminals".

I pointed out that if you didn't know the area well you might inadvertently use a route sometimes taken by criminals.

You replied that where Martin was there was no excuse for "slinking around private property" - the first time you accused him of trespass.

I said that you were using the term "slinking about" to smear Martin and make it look like he was doing something illegal or suspicious.

You clarified that you were indeed accusing him of this:

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

"he was... trespassing on property where he shouldn't have been."

You accused him of trespassing on private property about five times, presumably to make it look as though Zimmerman had more reason to shoot him than actually existed. And when I ask you to provide evidence you refuse to do so and even have the gall to accuse me of not being "interested in the truth"? When you are literally lying in order to make a dead teenager look bad?

Incredible.

You even demanded this from IvanAstikov earlier:

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

So I suppose we can add hypocrisy to the list of stuff you like engaging in. And do note that accusing me of moving off topic and trolling aren't hiding the fact that you still can't provide any evidence for your fabrications.

Originally posted by Honor93

you are mistaken, i don't make accusations, that's your style, not mine.

Weird. What's this then?

Originally posted by Honor93

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

"he was... trespassing on property where he shouldn't have been."

That's an accusation. An incorrect one, as it happens.

this topic is about the parents and the settlement, not the unknown case specifics

I agree they are unknown. You are pretending to know them.

You accused Trayvon Martin of trespass in order to suggest that Zimmerman was right to shoot him.

you lie, i did no such thing.

That's weird. What's this?

Originally posted by Honor93

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

"he was... trespassing on property where he shouldn't have been."

reply to post by Honor93


You know, I use to live in a gated community. I use to have visitors all the time, mostly from relatives, family friends, and general friends. Sometimes they would come down when I was not at home, one of my cousins lived right down the road and would stroll into the gated community, and alot of the times I was not there. Would they be considered trespassing? Considering I was not home at those times, and my neighbors did not invite them and did not know them?

Let's note that Trayvon's father's girlfriend was a resident at that gated community, the direction in which Trayvon was walking. So, please once again explain to us how he was trespassing, and reference us a source from the law, thanks.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


He's heard in some far right hate sheet that Martin was up to no good, practically breaking into people's houses, and he hasn't bothered to check if its actually true or not. You'll wait a long time for an answer, and if it comes it won't make much sense.

Deny ignorance, my hole.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

yes, you did.

I pointed out that if you didn't know the area well you might inadvertently use a route sometimes taken by criminals.

which was refuted by the obvious ... lighted, paved, well marked, pathways that TM chose NOT to use.

he was observed slinking around private property and the observer called the police to report him.

you refuse to accept the established facts for some fantasy that you've created in your own mind.

i've made NO accusations, that's you MO, not mine.

not at all, Z had no reason to shoot him for 'slinking' around private property ... hence, Z called the police and reported him

TM got shot after he assaulted the observer, how is that making a dead guy look bad ?

which amazingly, neither you or Ivan have provided one ounce of proof, so why are either of you demanding anyone else provide it ?

you first

reply to post by Southern Guardian

so, did your visitors have permission to be on your property ?
if so, then no, they were not likely trespassing.

one of my cousins lived right down the road and would stroll into the gated community

that sounds more like a community with gates, not a 'gated community'.
in a 'gated community', visitors are stopped at the point of entry and verified before entry.

as for you not being home, then yes, they could have been arrested as trespassers, especially if they were on your neighbor's property.
for that matter, your neighbors could have reported them as potential 'burglars'.

you, can get your own sources, thanks.

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

so, did your visitors have permission to be on your property ?
if so, then no, they were not likely trespassing.

I rented a town house that really had open ground with a small back, not much distinguished property to begin with so I've had many people come up to my door that I did not know, uninvited, merely confused that they came to the wrong town house. They were not trespassing in my eyes, my visitors who came to the house to see me only to find I was not home, they were not trespassing.

that sounds more like a community with gates, not a 'gated community'.
in a 'gated community', visitors are stopped at the point of entry and verified before entry.

Nope, this was a gated community, and visitors were allowed freely in at times.

as for you not being home, then yes, they could have been arrested as trespassers, especially if they were on your neighbor's property.

Firstly, we're not debating whether it's trespassing if they are on your private property clearly against the owners consent. In Gated communities it's not as if you have to walk from one private property to another to get to your destination, don't be silly. There are paths, walkways that are not owned by any particular owner, otherwise how are people to visit one person without entering private property? Seems abit silly doesn't it?

Secondly my cousin visited me on afew occasions, as did family members, friends, when I was not there, and they simply left when they did not find me. I had many of them go to the wrong town houses when I first moved in and my neighbors at the time were sane and competent enough to understand they were not trespassing. So again I fail to see your logic here.

Let's also not forget that:

(1) There is no evidence that Trayvon was on the private property of any particular owner
(2) His fathers girlfriend lived in that area where his father frequented, the direction from where Trayvon was moving to. He was a visitor, so unless you can reference us where Brandy, a resident there, his father's girlfriend, stated that Trayvon was not welcome or not 'invited' that night, you're not making a good argument regarding 'trespassing'. It isn't open season on visitors simply because you don't personally know them, it's not within the power of one owner to dictate who can visit another. Where do you get your logic?

Let's go back to the definition of trespassing under Florida law:

Each category of Trespass can be committed in one of two ways:

Willfully entering or remaining on some form of real property without authorization, license, or invitation; or
Returning to or ignoring a prior request to stay off real property.

www.richardhornsby.com...

Was Trayvon not invited by Brandy, his fathers girlfriend, a resident there? No. She disputed nothing of the sort.

Was Trayvon willfully up to no good on somebody else's property? No, there's no evidence of this, you've shown us absolutely nothing. Emphasis on 'willfully' because if you ever lived in a gated community, you'd fine that alot of people more than often find themselves accidentally on another owners property, at the wrong town house. It happens alot, especially in gated communities with indistinguishable townhouses.

I can't believe I'm explaining this all to you, this is common sense is it not??

you, can get your own sources, thanks.

uh no, you need to put the sources and facts where your mouth is. Where in the law does it show that Trayvon was trespassing. Please, we're waiting.

So, his mother accepts a golden handshake and case closed.
If i was his mother no amount of compensation would had taken the place of justice, had of course my son been innocent.

I would have pushed it to the bitter end if i was sure my son was innocent just to clear his name, money or no money.

However, his mother accepted a million and will live well.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

none of your experiences with your townhome are comparable to this event.
it wasn't the same location, it certainly wasn't the same procedure for entry to the location, you owned the property, your guests/stranger or not, weren't 'using' your property for their convenience without your permission and none of your encounters resulted in your death.

we aren't debating at all.
you are arguing the simple fact that it is what it is.
i didn't write the law and i wasn't the one enforcing it either.

the point was TM chose to avoid the established pathways, hence the call regarding his 'suspicious' behavior.

TM wasn't cutting/slinking through the girlfriend's backyard so it doesn't matter if he had 'her' permission or not.

try not to forget, this thread isn't about TMs actions, it IS about his parents' actions.

and with regard to them, there is nothing anyone can do or say that will tarnish TMs memory any more than they already have.
they chose $$$$ over truth and that says it all.

Since I was not there for the incident, and therefore must rely of the "he said/she said" stuff, the 911 call, and Zimmerman's police report. I have no clue if he was innocent or guilty, but I have to say if my son was killed there is no way in hell I'd ever settle, as all in the money in the world wouldn't fill the emptyness in my heart. It wouldn't bring my son back. Sure I could buy whatever I want and travel and try to forget, but it wouldn't work. I'd probably end up drinking away that million dollars in hopes that I could numb the pain.