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

Originally posted by olaru12
No justice for Trayvon....

Or perhaps it's no justice for Zimmerman. The mob mentality pushing for a guilty murder verdict even before the courts have provided any evidence of guilt is disturbing.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by olaru12
No justice for Trayvon....

Or perhaps it's no justice for Zimmerman. The mob mentality pushing for a guilty murder verdict even before the courts have provided any evidence of guilt is disturbing.

I'm all for letting the courts decide if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty or not. But even if he is found innocent; only he really knows what happened that night because he killed the only other witness. Was it murder? That's for the American system of Justice to determine.

personally I think the 1mil civil suit was tacky but I don't know the financial situation of Trayvon's parents.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by olaru12
No justice for Trayvon....

Or perhaps it's no justice for Zimmerman. The mob mentality pushing for a guilty murder verdict even before the courts have provided any evidence of guilt is disturbing.

Indeed, what is worse is that if for some reason they find 12 people who are unbiased enough to make a rational decision if it that decision happens to be not-guilty there will be riots...

Zimmerman was guilty the minute Barrack Obama chimed in with "If I had a son he'd look like Trevon".

Ever the agitator the smartest man in the room just ensured any verdict other than guilty would further divide the nation. Progressivism – working as intended.

reply to post by FlyersFan

yeah really, knock it off.
the amount is confidential.

you don't know if it was 100,000 or 1,000,000
the likelihood of an increase is slim to none.
especially considering the 'damage claims' that were excluded.

seriously dude, your fantasy is just that, yours.
why do you think i'm desperate about anything ?

i find it offensive that you or anyone would assume to know what they will never know, unless those involved voluntarily divulge such info.

again, the point is, your fantasy is yours.
enjoy.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

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?

because the immunity hearing concerns the SYG defense and that is not what is being presented.
this is NOT a stand your ground defense ... it is 'self-defense'.

and, considering the 'defense' being presented, the HOA could potentially win an aquittal if it were proven in open court that Trayvon initiated the assault.

like Doc said, they took what they could, while they could.
no point in having the facts presented in an open forum that could potentially prevent any payout at all.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Too bad. He is innocent of everything but protecting his own life.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


None of that changes anything really. It doesn't matter if he was or wasn't he was a guy looking out for his neighborhood that was jumped and then shot the attacker while he was having his head pounded into the ground. He had previously caught burglars so maybe he did better work than the company sued. However I have to wonder if you are correct about him having no connection because if he didn't then why was this organization even brought into the mix?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Of course it's for profit. His parents already copyrighted his name so they were the only ones that could profit from it (and profit they have).

Originally posted by Honor93because the immunity hearing concerns the SYG defense and that is not what is being presented.
this is NOT a stand your ground defense ... it is 'self-defense'.

So, GZ wasn't standing his ground when he claims TM marched right up to him and punched him for no good reason? Isn't it more likely that he didn't go for SYG immunity because his legal team know that TM would be entitled to that same standard were he still alive?

Originally posted by Honor93
and, considering the 'defense' being presented, the HOA could potentially win an aquittal if it were proven in open court that Trayvon initiated the assault.

The only proof that TM initiated any attack is the not-so reliable evidence given by the man who killed him. Hardly surprising they didn't want to put much faith into relying on that.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The only proof that TM initiated any attack is the not-so reliable evidence given by the man who killed him. Hardly surprising they didn't want to put much faith into relying on that.

Please do divulge; do you have access to State evidence? Defense evidence? The 'only' evidence? Or the only 'evidence' portrayed by an ever salivating media that needs ratings?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

None of that changes anything really. It doesn't matter if he was or wasn't he was a guy looking out for his neighborhood that was jumped and then shot the attacker while he was having his head pounded into the ground.

Well, according to George, that is what's supposed to have happened. The guy is facing a murder charge, so his testimony shouldn't have ever been taken on face value' like SPD did, when letting a teen's killer walk free of the station without even knowing who the dead guy was. For all SPD knew, GZ might have just shot dead his drug dealer after arguing over the recent price hike. Or worse still, shot dead an unarmed young man heading home from the store..

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
He had previously caught burglars so maybe he did better work than the company sued.

Care to cite some good old evidence that George ever actually caught someone committing a crime on his estate?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
However I have to wonder if you are correct about him having no connection because if he didn't then why was this organization even brought into the mix?

edit on 9-4-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Either they had no confidence in GZ's chances in court, or they just like giving money away. Which one do you think it is?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The only proof that TM initiated any attack is the not-so reliable evidence given by the man who killed him. Hardly surprising they didn't want to put much faith into relying on that.

Please do divulge; do you have access to State evidence? Defense evidence?

The 'only' evidence? Or the only 'evidence' portrayed by an ever salivating media that needs ratings?

I have access to the same information any other interested person has access to. As someone who has never been swayed by MSM hyperbole and hysteria, I value my ability to sift out the real info from the actual crap they are trying to peddle as knowledge.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


If that is the case then you are subject to the same hearsay as we all are. It is a he said/he said case. The State has a large task in front of them; prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He will justly be tried by his peers but because so many have staked an emotional plot in this, if it doesn't go their way, it isn't justice. See any recent overly media hyped case: Knox, the girl in Florida (can't remember her name) etc.

It is the State's responsibility, in a criminal case, to provide the burden of evidence for the charges against him. Zimmerman has the easy part: show enough probability that he was defending himself. The State on the other hand has to show he was aggressor and without eyewitness testimony, and shaky evidence, they have a large mountain to scale.

You and I can have our opinions on the matter but that makes no difference. As I pointed out in one of our most public cases at the start of the nation; the Boston Massacre. The "public" was out for blood and they wanted the British soldiers to burn so to speak. The thing is, at the time, the State could not prove they were at fault for the incident.

Mob justice isn't justice.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


Okay, let me be clear for the last time I'm going to say this...as people are choosing to ignore and cherry pick what I'm saying here. I'm about done debating brick walls.

Yet you have apparently erected one.

In the United States Justice System, Civil Court operates under DRAMATICALLY different rules of evidence than does the criminal court system. Preponderance of the Evidence is the standard required for a finding in favor of the plaintiff. This is opposed to BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in a Criminal Court. Civil cases are normally where much of the stuff a jury never hears in a criminal court will come out and be heard.

If we're looking for justice and truth in criminal court? It'll be a long search with disappointing results almost every time.

The purpose of a civil suit is one of two things. TRUTH and accountability against those who criminal court can NEVER touch, like the HOA. Or.....to exploit an event for cash in pocket. The best indicator as to which someone is after is how quickly they settle ..if at all.

This is untrue. The rules of evidence are not that different. The standard of proof is. You seem to be saying that a civil case is better at getting at the truth because it can use evidence unavailable to a civil court, but that's incorrect.

In actual fact the criminal case is better for establishing guilt, which is what the parents presumably want.

In any case, this action was against the HOA, not Zimmerman. So the discovery of the 'truth' of the actual situation that occurred between Zimmerman and Martin is unaffected.

Now, some can say "but but but but....They will sue some more! Another trial will come!" abd I'll say, getting to trial in the first place is ALWAYS a crap shoot to the Judge presiding in that courtroom on that case and circumstances. THIS one was obviously good to go and they wasted the opportunity to get rich. I hope their kid would approve. I find it a pathetic example of materialism over principle in as large a way as might be imagined.

But as I say, the facts of the situation between Zimmerman and Martin were not germane to this case. It was going to be about the HOA's liability. Do you really think that is what the central truth of this affair is about - the HOA's involvement? Or are you just trying to find ways to bolster your view of the parents as money grabbers for some reason of your own?

Now... On the "killer"..as it's obvious he IS guilty to many, despite conflicting statements by many and injuries consistent with mutual combat (as legal terms often describe it), I am not going to be as quick as the President of the United States was to declare this a guilty man without so much as a trial. I want to see the criminal trial and I'll be watching it very closely when it comes..............but no criminal trial will *EVER* match civil court for the ability to get at the TRUTH, not simply the law for end result.

That truth is something we may never see ...and it's obvious, the parents couldn't care THAT much about when a stack of cash is calling their name to ...just sign this agreement making all terms and conditions secret forever ....while no one had to admit a thing, on anything.

I hope that clarified things a tad.

It clarified for me that you are keen to extend every nicety to Zimmerman but not to the parents, who you've never met and whose motives you couldn't hope to assess.

You say "That truth is something we may never see". Perhaps you could explain how a settlement regarding the HOA has any bearing on whether the parents will be able to discover the truth about Martin's death? Remember that they can still bring a civil suit against Zimmerman so your anxious pleading for your magical civil court process is still available to them.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

None of that changes anything really. It doesn't matter if he was or wasn't he was a guy looking out for his neighborhood that was jumped and then shot the attacker while he was having his head pounded into the ground. He had previously caught burglars so maybe he did better work than the company sued. However I have to wonder if you are correct about him having no connection because if he didn't then why was this organization even brought into the mix?

edit on 9-4-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

When you think about it it's a disgrace that he even had to go to the police station. I mean, he was clearly attacked viciously. Never mind that there doesn't seem to be a reason, when have those people ever needed one? And of course we know this because, er, Zimmerman told us. And since he's the only guy who was there - well, now he's the only guy who was there - what possible reason could he have to lie?

Man, if you want a bridge I've got one sitting across the Thames that you might like.

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.

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.

Take the following out of your post "...for killing a young man who was just minding his own business..." and I agree. We don't know that.

We don't know the sequence of events. There is conflicting evidence so far in the two stories. Some say Zimmerman was headed back to his vehicle, others say he approached Martin. We just don't know and unless we are on the jury, we will only be able to see how whatever media outlet wants to present it; there is no unbiased journalism nowadays.

That is the major point of my participation in this thread. The media is already not to be trusted in this case since they were caught doctoring potential evidence and tainting the jury pool with the edited tape they pushed to the public. On top of that, we have conflicting eyewitness accounts, unsubstantiated and vague evidence from the 9-11 call, a girlfriend who has some serious character defects that will be challenged, etc, etc.

Given all that above, how anyone can say one is in the right is beyond me; and please understand that by rejecting the emotional pleas of guilt towards Zimmerman doesn't mean I think he is innocent. I am just trying to view it from an honest stand point without letting someone else dictate how I feel about it. So at this point, Zimmerman is innocent (in regards to being tried by the State), until the State can show otherwise.

It is the basic and most fundamental cornerstone of our justice system; otherwise we would have to daily prove to the State we are innocent just to go about our lives.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Mob justice isn't justice.

Absolutely. But does that mean one should just give up trying to apply any justice at all in controversial cases? As you say, if Zimmerman is found guilty the judgement is almost certain to be the correct one as the evidence will have to be overwhelming.

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.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Mob justice isn't justice.

Absolutely. But does that mean one should just give up trying to apply any justice at all in controversial cases? As you say, if Zimmerman is found guilty the judgement is almost certain to be the correct one as the evidence will have to be overwhelming.

The goal should be to deny injustice, not seek justice. I have no opinion on the civil portion of the case. That is a private matter between Martin's family and the HOA; not the State v. Zimmerman. A potential settlement doesn't prove guilt; rather it proves the HOA doesn't want to bother with litigation and is offering a buyout. They are not inherently bad, for either party and proves nothing.