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

reply to post by Auricom


Oh it's very obvious. They used their sons friend to get a million dollars (on top of HOW MUCH? they were given by the idiots that bought the false narrative from the media and racists like Sharpton. Oh and from their copyrighting of their sons name.) from HOA. Then after they got a settlement they left the girl to squirm in front of the criminal court. I mean it's her fault for lying in the first place, but she seems a little dumb. I think the parents and lawyer were sleazy and money hungry and never told Rachel that she would have to go to court (she said she didn't think she'd have to herself). That tells me they told her they would settle and be done.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

It's more of a "he said/he dead" case, but I see what you mean. Yes, mob justice is no justice at all, but if SPD had been doing their job properly, there wouldn't have needed to be any clamouring from the mobs to arrest and charge GZ for killing a young man who was just minding his own business, after GZ decided he was obviously up to no good.

This is a very good point. Those who claim that there is some sort of febrile - and unjustified - mob clamour around this case misdiagnose the roots of that indignation. The outrage is not that Zimmerman definitely shot someone baselessly - although that may also be true - but that he was allowed to walk away with barely a question asked.

Untrue... that may have been the case VERY early on... but as time went out we found out that wasn't the case. The cops did their job, the lead detective wanted to charge him with Manslaughter but there was simply no evidence to do so...

That he was arrested months later I think was just to try to quell the public outrage...

now that he has been arrested, its no longer about 'we want to let the justice system take its course', it's 'we want a guilty verdict, and if we don't get it we want him dead'...

reply to post by AlexG141989


Exactly. The thing is.. did they know that it wouldn't satiate the ignorant masses OR did were they really naïve enough to surrender to a blood thirsty mob and think they would say "okay, a fair trial is all we wanted."

I've been wondering what will happen if he's acquitted. Will people take to the streets in outrage and violence immediately? I've also considered if they tried to quell it by sentencing him and then over ruling on first appeal because it won't have the nation's attention then. That's unacceptable of course.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I am simply going to say this.... If my son were shot and killed and I believed it to be in bad faith or a bad shoot? I wouldn't settle for a billion. No number would be enough to stop me from having my day in the light of open court. That day would be the last voice my son, in that circumstance, would ever have in this world to have a voice raised for him. It would never come again.

We all have different priorities. ...and there I leave it, without getting into the patently objectionable for my deeper feelings on the story.

They still will have there day in court, civil and criminal action can arise from the same event. They are separate processes. ie say a person is killed by a driver, the driver can be prosecuted in the criminal system but also sued through civil means. You wouldn't sue the driver? Zimmerman is still on trial this does not effect that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Auricom

 

Oh it's very obvious. They used their sons friend to get a million dollars (on top of HOW MUCH? they were given by the idiots that bought the false narrative from the media and racists like Sharpton. Oh and from their copyrighting of their sons name.) from HOA. Then after they got a settlement they left the girl to squirm in front of the criminal court. I mean it's her fault for lying in the first place, but she seems a little dumb. I think the parents and lawyer were sleazy and money hungry and never told Rachel that she would have to go to court (she said she didn't think she'd have to herself). That tells me they told her they would settle and be done.

You ca not settle a criminal case, your either guilty or acquitted. You are confusing civil and criminal law. The main difference being standard of proof, which is about 50% lower in civil cases, ie you can be found not guilty on criminal charges and still be found civilly liable. ie OJ Simpson.

reply to post by Redarguo


I am not. You need to reread my post. They settled the so their wouldn't be a trial in the civil case and let the girl they were going to use to win the civil case (if it went to court) squirm in front of a jury admitting lies in the criminal case. I never implied they settled a criminal case. There was a civil case brought last year that was settled out of court, the criminal case is on now.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I misunderstood. Apologies.

reply to post by Redarguo


Not a problem. I just wanted to clear it up because on this particular case people will attack any inconsistency. It's kinda crazy.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Redarguo

 

Not a problem. I just wanted to clear it up because on this particular case people will attack any inconsistency. It's kinda crazy.

I should read what i'm responding to more carefully. Its just particularly on conspiracy sites like this there is a lot of confusion to the point that some people claim all law is contract.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Auricom

 

Oh and from their copyrighting of their sons name

Another example of your bias. Show some evidence that they have profited from the copyrighting. Because it is just as likely they did it to stop others from cynically profiting from his name and image. Or to prevent their having to see his name everywhere on t shirts worn by blowhards.

They may even have wanted to prevent friction and potential violence occurring because of people flaunting his image for political reasons.

You have no way of knowing either way. But as usual your open mind extends only as far as Zimmerman's activities.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Show some evidence that they have profited from the copyrighting.

We'll find out when the trial is over and the 'made for TV movies' start popping up.
Right now, they are a little busy with the trial.
If no books or tv movies pop up ... then they are protecting their sons name.
If the books and tv movies pop up ... then they are making money.
Time will tell what the true intent of the action is ...

But as usual your open mind extends only as far as Zimmerman's activities.

Careful. Your bias on this issue is pretty well known. Pot calling kettle .....

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Show some evidence that they have profited from the copyrighting.

We'll find out when the trial is over and the 'made for TV movies' start popping up.
Right now, they are a little busy with the trial.
If no books or tv movies pop up ... then they are protecting their sons name.
If the books and tv movies pop up ... then they are making money.

So you agree with me that, for now, Gogovic's claim that they are profiting is baseless. and given that they have lost their son, perhaps rather cruel?

Time will tell what the true intent of the action is ...

Agreed. But it seems odd to say they are selling t shirts and profiting with no evidence at all. Almost as though he's trying to smear them...

Anyway, you're wrong about the books and tv movies. There are several ways for those to appear without direct profit to the parents.

Careful. Your bias on this issue is pretty well known. Pot calling kettle .....

Really? What is my bias? Perhaps you could explain it to me.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


LOL.. nope no bias just another case of me knowing what I am talking about and you not knowing. You should research just one time before arguing with me, but as I have said before you probably do know better you just get one more good public jab by playing dumb and hoping the people that read your argument won't be back to see you corrected.

If it wasn't profit motivated then she would've been going after the companies making shirts. Instead she was trying to trademark the rallying cries and protest slogans that were popular. She was trying to create a brand with multiple trademarks and it was obvious. She said it was to quell exploitation but that is garbage because she also said she hoped to make money for other families that lost someone to violence. Find me how much she has handed over to families of victims?

Here


details

They have without a doubt profited. They have held pass the hat rallies where all they did was profit. They have profited from rallies, from online donations, from trademarking his name and creating a brand, and from settling with HOA. They cashed in on their sons body.

How about YOU show ME where they have handed over a cent of it to any charity or support group after she claimed that was the intention when the mother trademarked his name and the rally slogans. Show me something for once.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


It's not cruel nor is it baseless.. They have made multiple millions from their dead son. That isn't just from the civil case settlement either. They have made money milking the lie.

Your bias is obvious. You deny all evidence and reality, fully embracing ignorance so you can believe that Zimmerman is guilty and Martin was an innocent kid. The reality is quite different.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


If it wasn't profit motivated then she would've been going after the companies making shirts.

Actually that would look much more like profiteering!

And, you know, I think she has another little case running? Maybe she's a bit busy with that.

Here


details

This is the standard of your proof? An article that doesn't back up your claims in any way and a post that just repeats them, baselessly?

If you're going to cold-bloodedly accuse someone of profiting from the death of their child you need to do better than this. You need to provide evidence, not just your own supposition.

They have without a doubt profited. They have held pass the hat rallies where all they did was profit. They have profited from rallies, from online donations, from trademarking his name and creating a brand, and from settling with HOA. They cashed in on their sons body.

They have been compensated by the HOA. But that's the only thing you have evidence for. The other stuff is just made up, isn't it?

A lot of people would tread carefully around an accusation like that, in case they sounded tasteless, cruel and biased. I applaud you for your candour, if not the standard of your argument.

How about YOU show ME where they have handed over a cent of it to any charity or support group after she claimed that was the intention when the mother trademarked his name and the rally slogans. Show me something for once.

edit on 3-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

So it's up to me and them to dispel your baseless claims?

Show me that you don't beat your wife. Otherwise it's clear that you're a wife beater. That kind of argument, right?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

It's not cruel nor is it baseless.. They have made multiple millions from their dead son. That isn't just from the civil case settlement either. They have made money milking the lie.

In your head this has happened. Here in earth there is no extant evidence of that.

Your bias is obvious. You deny all evidence and reality, fully embracing ignorance so you can believe that Zimmerman is guilty and Martin was an innocent kid.

I believe neither thing, so you're even wrong about that. But just for laughs, show me the 'evidence' I'm denying. And a blog or forum post that just repeats what you've claimed doesn't qualify.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Nah i'm done. I'll just wait until his free and start a healthy flow if "I told you so's."

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I have done better. It was obvious in the fact that they had Jeantel lie to scare HOA into settling. Then when she went to the criminal court (something the Martin's never explained to her) she looked like a liar and fool.

You ignored that, but it was painfully obvious. The Martin's and their lawyer used that girl.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Nah i'm done. I'll just wait until his free and start a healthy flow if "I told you so's."

You are indeed done, as there is of course no evidence for "profiteering" outside of your fantasies so it's impossible for you to produce.

And I've said several times that he'll probably walk. It's possible that he even ought to. But that's not what we're discussing, is it? That has no bearing on your inventions regarding the Martins' "profiteering".

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I have done better. It was obvious in the fact that they had Jeantel lie to scare HOA into settling. Then when she went to the criminal court (something the Martin's never explained to her) she looked like a liar and fool.

You ignored that, but it was painfully obvious. The Martin's and their lawyer used that girl.

I answered this in the other thread - you conveniently ignored it. I'll repeat:

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco


There actually is evidence of it, just because you choose not to observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think you realize the difference between evidence and proof.

The evidence would be that their attorney sought Rachel out, coerced her via interviews. He only allowed her to be interviewed by herself with him asking the questions. I remembered that being questionable at the time, but after seeing her in court it was well explained. Then in court she made it clear that she wasn't a fan of Crump and rushed through the interview "in a closet" and that she never thought it would go this far or that she would be in court. This is all evidence that points to the fact that she was coerced into giving the story she gave in order to get the settlement and she wasn't quite with it enough to understand the reverberations her lies would have and that she would be at risk when she was in court. If the Martin's and the attorney cared at all about this disposable tool they would have told her not to say anything that wasn't true or that could get her in trouble later in court.

It's not very good evidence, is it? Because the only person it suggests did any coercing (which it in no way proves) is their lawyer. You may think he acted improperly in order to secure his clients a good result, but that is what lawyers do.

So you still have nothing that suggests they coerced her. And you have nothing that is even minor, circumstantial evidence that suggests that Martin's parents "didn't tell Rachel that she would eventually have to go to the stand in the criminal case (where she would be torn apart)" as a purposeful tactic. And you still have nothing whatsoever that shows they purposely and callously profiteered from his death.

So your smearing remains baseless.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I have pointed you to the evidence. You don't want to investigate any further because you have an opposing opinion, and that's where are argument ends.