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

Originally posted by airforce47
It just goes to show that whatever happens it's the money that has the last word. It's unfortunate the young man died as a result of the incident. I really wish since he wasn't doing anything illegal he insisted that Zimmerman call the police who should have Zimmerman in his place.

I thought SYG had Trayvon covered there? If an armed person only has to feel threatened to justify drawing their gun and shooting until the threat drops, surely a person disallowed from having a gun because of their age is allowed to use their fists, knees, elbows and feet in similar circumstances? A person carrying a gun who faced an imminent threat, wouldn't be expected to phone the police, so why would Trayvon Martin be expected to in what must have seemed very threatening circumstances moments before he lost his life?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

If Zimmerman wasn't part of the neighborhood watch, and not controlled by the neighborhood watch, then how could the parents have sued the neighborhood watch because of Zimmerman?

I'm not following. Zimmerman had a walkie talkie that went to law enforcement, right?

It was pretty clearly explained - there had been complaints against Zimmerman in the past and he was allowed to go vigilante wanna-be batman anyway. I cannot see the complaint filed against the HOA, so I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems to me, from a legal perspective, that if there was a history of complaints against him with the HOA they could reasonably be held liable for his actions.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by airforce47
It just goes to show that whatever happens it's the money that has the last word. It's unfortunate the young man died as a result of the incident. I really wish since he wasn't doing anything illegal he insisted that Zimmerman call the police who should have Zimmerman in his place.

I thought SYG had Trayvon covered there? If an armed person only has to feel threatened to justify drawing their gun and shooting until the threat drops, surely a person disallowed from having a gun because of their age is allowed to use their fists, knees, elbows and feet in similar circumstances? A person carrying a gun who faced an imminent threat, wouldn't be expected to phone the police, so why would Trayvon Martin be expected to in what must have seemed very threatening circumstances moments before he lost his life?

I am a CCW carrier and I can tell you that Florida's "stand your ground" laws are very similar to the laws in my state. It is very clear in my state that if you are the pursuer/aggressor you are not acting within your right to defend yourself. Zimmerman gave up his right to immunity via Stand Your Ground when he decided to chase the victim.

It really is a very clear cut case - I'm almost positive Zimmerman will be found guilty of at least some of the charges.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
If the HOA settled with Martin's family they obviously felt that there was a case against them

Not necessarily. Lots of corporations and business' and rich people settle law suits against them out of court, not because they are guilty, but because it costs them less to do so. People sue deep pockets all the time and those deep pockets weigh the cost of going to court vs just paying something to make it all go away quicker and cheaper. Payment doesn't equate with guilt.

So it's not ok to seek a monetary award when you feel someone was negligent and caused a death - but it is ok to pay a legitimate and constitutionally allowed complaint against you off just to make it go away?

I'm having a hard time reconciling this. If the reasons as stated in this thread to condemn Martin's family for seeking damages, which have been principle and morality, doing what's right - should apply to the Martin family why shouldn't the HOA be expected to fight for it's innocence out of pure principle?

Most HOA's have a legal team on hand.

I still don't believe that the people in this thread would place no civil charges if they felt there was negligence leading up to a family member's death. And even if they WOULD just let it go, I don't understand how that's the moral high road.

And to wrabbit - The Martin family's attorney has said that this settlement has nothing to do with Zimmerman. They will file a separate suit against him, so the part about them giving up their day in court for a quick "pile of cash" is moot.

Based on this kids past actions, his FB page and the fact his parents had to be hunted down and "found" after his death; I'd opine that the time to be actively involved in the parenting of Trevon would have been better before rather than after his death.

They are notably and obviously absent prior to the kid’s death; yet after they are outspoken paragons of parental concern. Apparently with dollar signs flashing comically in thier eyes as well.

Thus reinforcing my theory that some people should not be allowed to breed...

sad all around ,but if trayvon was white you would have never even heard of this case

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

The Home Owners Association gave Martins parents over a million dollars.

there is no proof of any such thing

the HOA's insurance offered a million and it was refused.

Right back atchya. Use your common sense ...
Dude ... the parents rejected a million dollar offer and went back for MORE. The parties then agreed to the amount that came after the million was rejected by Martins parents. That means it'll be MORE than a million dollars. Martins parents wouldn't reject a million .. then go for more but accept less than a million. That doesn't make sense.

USA Today
NY Times

just reporting the Facts, is that a problem that's interfering with your agenda ?
common sense had no place in this action, not then and not now.

yes, they rejected an offer and subsequently settled.
forget the fact that the charge was 'set-aside'
shame on you for promoting your assumption as fact.

limiting liability and putting the facts on the table is what litigation would have accomplished ... get it ? ... LIMITED liability and that's something the parents clearly wanted to AVOID by accepting an offer.
getting the facts into the public domain doesn't seem to be a motive for them one iota.

forget the fact that their prime target was relieved of ANY responsibility.
Travelers wasn't even the insurer on record when the incident happened but that didn't stop them from claiming against them, did it ?
Travelers was excused from responsibility or did you skip that part on purpose ?

what doesn't make sense is your fantasy and assumptions.
btw, the Orlando Sentinel is local and linked to the documents publicized, you might try reading them rather msm propaganda.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

If Zimmerman gets convicted, can the Fultons go back and ask for more?

absolutely not.
once they accepted settlement, all parties were released from further liability.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by airforce47
It just goes to show that whatever happens it's the money that has the last word. It's unfortunate the young man died as a result of the incident. I really wish since he wasn't doing anything illegal he insisted that Zimmerman call the police who should have Zimmerman in his place.

I thought SYG had Trayvon covered there? If an armed person only has to feel threatened to justify drawing their gun and shooting until the threat drops, surely a person disallowed from having a gun because of their age is allowed to use their fists, knees, elbows and feet in similar circumstances? A person carrying a gun who faced an imminent threat, wouldn't be expected to phone the police, so why would Trayvon Martin be expected to in what must have seemed very threatening circumstances moments before he lost his life?

I am a CCW carrier and I can tell you that Florida's "stand your ground" laws are very similar to the laws in my state. It is very clear in my state that if you are the pursuer/aggressor you are not acting within your right to defend yourself. Zimmerman gave up his right to immunity via Stand Your Ground when he decided to chase the victim.

It really is a very clear cut case - I'm almost positive Zimmerman will be found guilty of at least some of the charges.

Zimmerman is not arguing a 'stand your ground' defense so your presumptions are irrelevant.
the case is moving forward on 'self defense' and for that, the rules are different.
besides, he was carrying concealed, how would Martin even know he was armed until body contact was made ?

reply to post by TinkerHaus

And to wrabbit - The Martin family's attorney has said that this settlement has nothing to do with Zimmerman. They will file a separate suit against him, so the part about them giving up their day in court for a quick "pile of cash" is moot.

I appreciate the reply....but I do notice how you flat ignored how you confidently stated jury trials ARE NOT a right in Florida Civil cases....and were shown that was simply not the case. It's rather hard to take much else you're saying beyond personal opinion seriously until you address or at least acknowledge that. After all, it wasn't "many states don't give the right..." You'd stated, categorically, that THEY didn't have that right in THIS case and hence...a settlement didn't mean anything was lost anyway.

Well... Yeah, I read where they have every intention of going for more against Zimmerman personally. Why not the City, County and State as well? By the end..it won't have surprised me to see them use THIS bunch of money to fund the fight for more against them all.

However, given their actions on the first round? I have NO hope or confidence they won't fold for a payday on the future actions as well. They've shown what this is about to them.... Money. Well, I hope it's all they thought it would be. I've found that people in life who trade their integrity and honor for a dollar, NEVER find the happiness or satisfaction they believed money could bring. It just never does.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well... Yeah, I read where they have every intention of going for more against Zimmerman personally. Why not the City, County and State as well? By the end..it won't have surprised me to see them use THIS bunch of money to fund the fight for more against them all.

And why shouldn't they? Their son never got to celebrate his 18th birthday because the state's gun laws blatantly encourage the like's of George Zimmerman to go out looking for trouble, and when they find it, responding with their concealed weapon.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
However, given their actions on the first round? I have NO hope or confidence they won't fold for a payday on the future actions as well. They've shown what this is about to them.... Money. Well, I hope it's all they thought it would be. I've found that people in life who trade their integrity and honor for a dollar, NEVER find the happiness or satisfaction they believed money could bring. It just never does.

edit on 7-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor word correction

You seem to have a very low opinion of Trayvon Martin's parents. Still, you are no doubt one of the online defender's of their son's killer, so that's hardly to be unexpected.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
So it's not ok to seek a monetary award when you feel someone was negligent and caused a death - but it is ok to pay a legitimate and constitutionally allowed complaint against you off just to make it go away?

WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT? No where.

I was very clear .. I said that lots of times 'deep pockets' will pay a case to 'go away' and at the same time not admit any guilt. They do it because it's cheaper than going to trial or it's better for their public image than going to trial.

I have no idea if the Martin parents are entitled to the money or not. I have no idea if the Martin parents have a 'legitimate complaint' against the Home Owners Association or not. I have no idea if Zimmerman is guilty or if Trayvon Martin engaged in activity that caused his own death. That's for the court to decide.

My statement was that the Home Owners Association admitted no guilt but just payed them off so they'd go away - which is done many, many times across the country.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Zimmerman gave up his right to immunity via Stand Your Ground when he decided to chase the victim.

Hearsay and not known to be the actually sequence of events.

It really is a very clear cut case - I'm almost positive Zimmerman will be found guilty of at least some of the charges.

Unless you are purvey to the evidence that the State is presenting, you are just stating what you feel. That is fine, but it by no means it is valid or truthful. The only thing 'clear-cut' was there was an altercation; as to what started it, that is all up in the air and up to the State to make that case.

Review the oft clarion call of the American Revolutionaries of the "Boston Massacre" and realize that many of them were acquitted because the State had no evidence against the mob calls of "justice". It mirrors this incident in many factors and that being, many are calling for 'justice' on the backs of emotions.

Originally posted by Honor93
just reporting the Facts, is that a problem that's interfering with your agenda ?
common sense had no place in this action, not then and not now.
shame on you for promoting your assumption as fact.
what doesn't make sense is your fantasy and assumptions.

Knock it off.

The FACTS ....
- The parents were offered one million dollars to settle.
- The parents refused the million dollars.
- The parents accepted the next offer that came to them.
- The 2nd offer wouldn't have been less than the first.

Seriously dude .. the only one here who seems to have 'an agenda' is you.
So why are you so desperate to make people think the parents didn't get
over a million dollars?

You want us all to believe the interaction went something like this ... ???

Parents ... 'give us money to compensate for the death of our son'
Home Owners Associatioin Insurance ... 'we'll give you a million, now go away'
Parents ... 'we reject that offer'
Home Owners Association insurance ... 'we'll give you $500,000, now go away'.
Parents .. 'okay, we'll take that instead'

So that makes sense to you? Seriously??

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Honor93
just reporting the Facts, is that a problem that's interfering with your agenda ?
common sense had no place in this action, not then and not now.
shame on you for promoting your assumption as fact.
what doesn't make sense is your fantasy and assumptions.

Knock it off.

The FACTS ....
- The parents were offered one million dollars to settle.
- The parents refused the million dollars.
- The parents accepted the next offer that came to them.
- The 2nd offer wouldn't have been less than the first.

Seriously dude .. the only one here who seems to have 'an agenda' is you.
So why are you so desperate to make people think the parents didn't get
over a million dollars?

You want us all to believe the interaction went something like this ... ???

Parents ... 'give us money to compensate for the death of our son'
Home Owners Associatioin Insurance ... 'we'll give you a million, now go away'
Parents ... 'we reject that offer'
Home Owners Association insurance ... 'we'll give you $500,000, now go away'.
Parents .. 'okay, we'll take that instead'

So that makes sense to you? Seriously??

I imagine that as things progressed, they saw that the chances of an aquital were actualy quite high and that a finding of 'not guilty' on ZImmerman might hurt a future civil suit and they took what they could get when they could get it.

Now with the potential of liability, this case makes me wonder if neighborhood watches will be banned by HOA and communities.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Now with the potential of liability, this case makes me wonder if neighborhood watches will be banned by HOA and communities.

On a tangent here but an HOA and/or community would be hard pressed to find legal standing to deny people the Right to peacefully assemble and associate. While I see where you are going with this, I think it would be hard pressed to deny people from just walking around a neighborhood.

They could however include a clause in their HOA agreement that if one chooses to do so, they cannot be held liable. I personally don't see why one would seek to be 'sanctioned' or seek 'approval' from their HOA to police their own neighborhoods.

This is America - everything is tainted with the greed for money.

If a HOA has $1 million plus dollars to pay out, I think there is something amiss there. People should be wondering why they are paying so much into this association. Be wary of the leadership.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I imagine that as things progressed, they saw that the chances of an aquital were actualy quite high and that a finding of 'not guilty' on ZImmerman might hurt a future civil suit and they took what they could get when they could get it.

If the chances of acquittal are so high, why, oh why is Zimbo's lawyer not taking advantage of an immunity hearing? Could it be that the insurance firm representing the HOA pointed this out, and they decided they didn't want to be seen backing George Zimmerman in any way, shape or form, perhaps?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
I imagine that as things progressed, they saw that the chances of an aquital were actualy quite high and that a finding of 'not guilty' on ZImmerman might hurt a future civil suit and they took what they could get when they could get it.

If I'm following your line of thought ....

The parents rejected the one million $$, thinking that they could 'feed the greed' and get even more later on. But the insurance company turned around and offered them less the second time BECAUSE it looks like ZImmerman will be found innocent? That's possible except ... nothing new has come out from the time the first offer was made that would indicate for sure the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. Or did I miss some information??

Am I following you right? That your speculation is that perhaps something has made it clear that Zimmerman will be found not guilty and therefore the insurance offered much less with the second offer and the parents grabbed it knowing it was the only money that would be coming their way??

(That's speculation worthy of a conspiracy site! )

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If the chances of acquittal are so high, why, oh why is Zimbo's lawyer not taking advantage of an immunity hearing?

Zimbo??? I guess we know that you've made up your mind on his guilt already.

Could it be that the insurance firm representing the HOA pointed this out, and they decided they didn't want to be seen backing George Zimmerman in any way, shape or form, perhaps?

OR .. they got shook down for more money and paid it so that they would be safe from 'retaliation' by Martins supporters and the New Black Panthers (who have been issuing death threats in this case).

Could go either way .. or be something entirely different.
Who knows.