It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

agreed ... however, that question has bothered me since the beginning.
unknown territory + pathways frequently traveled by criminals, never quite added up for me.


Okay, outside my window at the moment is Dalston, a fairly low-income area of north east London. I imagine you've never visited.

There are bits of Dalston that are perhaps pathways "traveled by criminals". Let's assume you are standing outside my window now and you try to walk to somewhere nearby. How are you going to avoid those pathways?

You won't be able to because you're unfamiliar with the area.

In any case the whole description of the route as frequented by undesirables is just an attempt to exonerate Zimmerman and smear Martin. Nice thing to do to a dead kid.


edit on 10-4-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
There will be a civil case I'd have thought. But the Martin family cannot launch a criminal case.


I should have clarified; if for instance, Zimmerman is found guilty, the Martin family could seek the DA to pursue a case against the police department for their perceived failed actions; though it would be more along the lines of a civil one.


You think they haven't? Or are you saying that the state should not be questioned in this instance because they 'probably have their reasons'?
I am not presuming anything; we have tidbits of what the State has and what the defense team has. Until the court case, it is just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present (biased in both directions). The State should always be questioned but it still stands that the State needs to provide the burden of proof of guilt; not Zimmerman prove his innocence.


Oh right, that's fine then. If I shoot someone later I'll be quite annoyed if I'm not just freed after a bit of a grilling.

Are you really saying that due process was followed here? That the way the police dealt with the matter was satisfactory?


Settle the emotional argument down. I have always stood for proper due process and in this case, the due process is to Zimmerman; he is on trial against the State. If and when the civil case comes, that will be a different story, but that is between two private parties.


No. As you say they had a bit of a chat with him. And then let him go home.


And if it is shown by the State (they will have to throw their own under the bus on this one) to have failed in their initial investigation then they too need to be held liable. The thing is, that will be a pitfall for the State. The defense team has ample of ammunition to give doubt that the State's version of events lead to a cold-blooded murder.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

I should have clarified; if for instance, Zimmerman is found guilty, the Martin family could seek the DA to pursue a case against the police department for their perceived failed actions; though it would be more along the lines of a civil one.


I don't really understand what you mean. And it doesn't appear that relevant tbh.


I am not presuming anything; we have tidbits of what the State has and what the defense team has. Until the court case, it is just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present (biased in both directions). The State should always be questioned but it still stands that the State needs to provide the burden of proof of guilt; not Zimmerman prove his innocence.


This just seems a bit obvious and not relevant to what you wrote. You said

"The Martin family should surely be asking why the State initially took the stand they did by not at least pursuing that avenue."

To which I expressed disbelief, because of course they - and millions of other people - have done just that, and are dumbfounded by why the police acted as they did.

But you haven't clarified. Do you in fact mean that because the police acted in that manner they must have had some good reason? I reiterate - it takes an enormous leap of faith to extend the assumption of good intentions on behalf of the authorities given the known facts of the case.



Settle the emotional argument down. I have always stood for proper due process and in this case, the due process is to Zimmerman; he is on trial against the State. If and when the civil case comes, that will be a different story, but that is between two private parties.


I'm aware of the relevant jurisprudence. But you're avoiding my very direct question. Do you really think due process was satisfactorily followed here? Or are you hanging on for some as yet unknown fact that will somehow explain the police behaviour? Because if the latter that also looks very generous, to the point of bias.



And if it is shown by the State (they will have to throw their own under the bus on this one) to have failed in their initial investigation then they too need to be held liable. The thing is, that will be a pitfall for the State. The defense team has ample of ammunition to give doubt that the State's version of events lead to a cold-blooded murder.


Let me get this straight. When the police or Zimmerman's behaviour is criticised we don't have all the facts ("just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present") and should withhold our judgement? But when his defence is raised we suddenly have enough of the story to exonerate him?

Extraordinary.
edit on 10-4-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


It was said from the beginning that the moment she heard of her son's death she screamed racism without knowing any facts of the shooting at all. From the beginning this racist woman was out to profit from this. This whole thing reminds me of the movie The Bonfire of the Vanities. A young black boy was killed and immediately racism was declared because he was killed by someone other than a black person. Then his family and friends immediately paint a portrait of the perfect child, contributing member of society who never did wrong. Zimmerman was wrong in what he did, but I question the entire incident and his parents.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


For a christian, you're not very empathic.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


What empathy is needed here? Parents have profited from their son's death.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


They sued the Homeowners Association (which had nothing to do with this at all) because they are the only entity they could possibly get money from. Their beef is with Zimmerman but he's not wealthy so no point in going after money from him. But hey, they got their money so maybe they can move on now.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
To which I expressed disbelief, because of course they - and millions of other people - have done just that, and are dumbfounded by why the police acted as they did.

But you haven't clarified. Do you in fact mean that because the police acted in that manner they must have had some good reason? I reiterate - it takes an enormous leap of faith to extend the assumption of good intentions on behalf of the authorities given the known facts of the case.


It is neither here nor now in this regard to the current topic; that being the HOA issue. Now if the Martin family seek a civil suit, it will probably name Zimmerman and the police department. That is what I am talking about. The actions of the police on that fateful night work against the criminal case and the DA will have to throw them under the bus to help their case.



Do you really think due process was satisfactorily followed here? Or are you hanging on for some as yet unknown fact that will somehow explain the police behaviour? Because if the latter that also looks very generous, to the point of bias.


And you are providing no bias towards this? My only stance is that Zimmerman, in the case of the State v. Zimmerman, is innocent until the State can prove guilt. That is due process. The happening from the first contact between Zimmerman and Martin up until the court will all be vetted for a jury of his peers to decide if his actions were justified or not.

Interesting you are saying I am biased when it is obvious that you have made up your mind; Zimmerman is guilty. That is fine, you and I are not in a court of law and personal opinion is fair game. I only hold Zimmerman innocent against State actions until they can prove otherwise; that is paramount.



Let me get this straight. When the police or Zimmerman's behaviour is criticised we don't have all the facts ("just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present") and should withhold our judgement? But when his defence is raised we suddenly have enough of the story to exonerate him?


Read above; I never claimed he is innocent of the crime levied against him nor have I said he was guilty. All burden at this point is on the State and we here, at our desktops are operating on bits and pieces of information.


Extraordinary.

Indeed



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


More than likely they'll use that payday for bankrolling their further law suits against Zimmerman, the SPD and the State of Florida, so prepare your ass for more butthurt.


edit on 10-4-2013 by IvanAstikov because: typoo



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


What is that supposed to mean? More butthurt?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


What is that supposed to mean? More butthurt?


Well, you're wailing like a kid who's had his butt smacked about TM's parents getting a million + off the HOA, so you'll be having a proper good cry if they get an even bigger pay out from further lawsuits. Clear now?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


For a christian, you're not very empathic.


This is a remarkable statement. You just recently proclaimed that if you were in TM's shoes, you would have used your special "ground and pound" technique (that's a quote), to convert Z into pulp. I find it a little too rich of you to accuse others of not being very christian and/or empathic.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


For a christian, you're not very empathic.


This is a remarkable statement. You just recently proclaimed that if you were in TM's shoes, you would have used your special "ground and pound" technique (that's a quote), to convert Z into pulp. I find it a little too rich of you to accuse others of not being very christian and/or empathic.


I see no reason to have empathy for incompetent cop-wannabes - parents who've had their teen son's life taken by said incompetent cop-wannabe are a different matter.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

It is neither here nor now in this regard to the current topic; that being the HOA issue. Now if the Martin family seek a civil suit, it will probably name Zimmerman and the police department. That is what I am talking about. The actions of the police on that fateful night work against the criminal case and the DA will have to throw them under the bus to help their case.


how awful for them!

Look, you're right that your opinion is irrelevant, but I find it interesting that you are so enthusiastic at the notion of an acquittal and so keen to enlist the police's bizarre behaviour as evidence in favour of Zimmerman.




And you are providing no bias towards this? My only stance is that Zimmerman, in the case of the State v. Zimmerman, is innocent until the State can prove guilt. That is due process. The happening from the first contact between Zimmerman and Martin up until the court will all be vetted for a jury of his peers to decide if his actions were justified or not.

Interesting you are saying I am biased when it is obvious that you have made up your mind; Zimmerman is guilty. That is fine, you and I are not in a court of law and personal opinion is fair game. I only hold Zimmerman innocent against State actions until they can prove otherwise; that is paramount.


This is just a series of platitudes. I already said I'm aware of the procedure and reiterating it in lofty terms doesn't alter the fact that you refuse to say whether you think the polices behaviour was justified or not.

And I have not made my mind up at all.




Read above; I never claimed he is innocent of the crime levied against him nor have I said he was guilty.
Indeed


You seemed fairly certain he'd get away with it. Which is my point. You suddenly seem to have enough facts when discussing his guilt.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Don't see that one happening. What grounds would there be ever to pay them more money? Noone owes them anything. Their son died, that sux but from the evidence he started it and Zimmerman finished it. I will agree that Zimmerman probably should not have followed him and put himself into the position he was in but he did and he shot him in self defense. The Martins are not owed money from anyone because of this. The fact that they are seeking monetary damages shows where their heart is. So I guess when Zimmerman is acguitted of all charges you will have to deal.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 

until you get back on topic, i'm not responding further.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

back at ya, nothing like smearing the living in lieu of the dead

(Sandy Hook ring any bells ?)

as for the 'region', clearly you are unfamiliar.
while you may not have paved streets, lighted walkways and a plethora of options to avoid slinking around private property where you have no business being, the region they were, did.

so, willingly putting yourself in places where you are not supposed to be, might be something you'd do, not i.
and, as mentioned to another, until you can get back on topic, i offer no further response.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You are my favorite ATS member. I wish I could send you some chocolate chip cookies, a fluffy teddy bear and a hug! But in all reality... v v v

TM got what he had coming. If it wasn't GZ that did it, it would have been someone else. That reminds me of a song, it's got big boy lyrics so You might wanna ask mom and dad if you can listen to it.

...tell me I'm wrong.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


There is no right to a jury in civil trials in state court.
...


What country are you from? At least here in The USA, for now, we have a Constitutional right to have a jury of our "peers."
Or are you just talking out of your ...backside?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


He's not meaning a jury as in 11 jurors type of jury trial. Like if you get a harassment charge or something and you plead not guilty you then go to a jury trial.
I had a jury trial 2 months ago (Re: txt messages during late hours), the District Justice was the Juror. Yeah, it didn't go to well for me.

edit on 11-4-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)







 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join