Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful death claim for over one million dollars

[JackFrost]

Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.

Can you prove it?

You just asked someone to release personal financial information about Trayvon Martin's parents...:lamo

 

[Excon]

We all know how it works Excon:lol:

"I/we are not liable, but take this money."

Obviously you do not, otherwise you would not have made claims counter to that reported.
Which again needs to be pointed out, that you were the one that provided said information.
:doh
:lamo

"It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties," the settlement said.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and his estate, agreed to set aside their wrongful death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses.

 

[Excon]

You just asked someone to release personal financial information about Trayvon Martin's parents...:lamo

:doh
I asked her to prove her claim.
If she can not, that is not my problem.

 

[JackFrost]

:doh
I asked her to prove her claim.
If she can not, that is not my problem.

It was more of a rhetorical response. I know what you asked:lol:

Kind of reminded me of Oscar Wilde's "the foolish ask questions the wise cannot answer" quote from Epigrams. Obviously not exactly the same, but in purpose it is very similar.

You ask a question you are certain she will not be able to answer so you can "win" the argument.

No one ever provided any credible evidence Martin's parents were receiving any kind of welfare aid, except for a Facebook rant, maybe some rants from places like stormfront(?), which is clearly not "evidence".

Yet you are approaching this from the "Martin's parents are on welfare, prove me wrong" point of view.

Very peculiar...

 

[Excon]

It was more of a rhetorical response. I know what you asked:lol:

Kind of reminded me of Oscar Wilde's "the foolish ask questions the wise cannot answer" quote from Epigrams. Obviously not exactly the same, but in purpose it is very similar.

You ask a question you are certain she will not be able to answer so you can "win" the argument.

No one ever provided any credible evidence Martin's parents were receiving any kind of welfare aid, except for a Facebook rant, maybe some rants from places like stormfront(?), which is clearly not "evidence".

Yet you are approaching this from the "Martin's parents are on welfare, prove me wrong" point of view.

Very peculiar...

:doh
iLOL
Prove that she can't prove it.
She said That Trayvon's mother made 68,000 a year.
She supposedly knows that much. So maybe she knows more.
Maybe it was released somewhere that we are unaware, but that she knows.

My asking does not suggest that she doesn't know, or that I do know she doesn't know.
That is you assuming.

The problem here is those making claims they can not support.


Secondly to clear up any possible confusion.
Although I had asked sharon to also prove her assertion, it was What if... that I had asked to prove his assertion, in what you quoted.

Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.

Can you prove it?

Trayvon's mother earned $68,000 a year .. in the public housing administration.

I do believe the statement was "prove it".
That only suggests that she wasn't (not that you have proven that either).
But it does not "prove it".

Ms mom has a middle class job.

They weren't on welfare.

How many other misconceptions are you basing your beliefs on?

Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.

Can you prove it?

 

[What if...?]

Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.

Can you prove it?

Theres no need for proof of assertions in Z threads.

You established that precedent.

 

[What if...?]

:doh
Conveniently leaving out that Zimmerman was walking away from Trayvon, when he came out of hiding to approach, verbally confront, and attack Zimmerman in the process.
Dishonesty at it's best.

So is it a reading comprehension problem?

Read the last sentence again, fanboy.

 

[sharon]

:doh
iLOL
Prove that she can't prove it.
She said That Trayvon's mother made 68,000 a year.
She supposedly knows that much. So maybe she knows more.
Maybe it was released somewhere that we are unaware, but that she knows.

My asking does not suggest that she doesn't know, or that I do know she doesn't know.
That is you assuming.

The problem here is those making claims they can not support.


Secondly to clear up any possible confusion.
Although I had asked sharon to also prove her assertion, it was What if... that I had asked to prove his assertion, in what you quoted.

For God's sake.. Look it up for yourself.. Its been in the news for a year. Trayvon's mother earns $68K and has been with the housing authority for a couple of decades.

Jeez .. you are such a racist that you automatically assume all black families are on welfare.

 

[What if...?]

she did it before he was even cold, I am not surprised you hold her values, pity anyone that has blood line to you

She claimed she did it to prevent OTHERS from exploiting the tragedy.

Since SHE never used his name to even attempt to make money, she must have been tellinh the truth.

And your belief system is based on nonsense you read somewhere or heard on the radio.

It's not the first time you rattled off some nonsense as truth and doubled down when called on it.

I'm sure it won't be the last.

Blather on, dude, blather on.

We find it funny.

 

[What if...?]

Holy ****!
There is nothing dishonest about what I said.

You conveniently leaving out the fact that Zimmerman was walking away from Trayvon when Trayvon attacked, is dishonesty.

Learn the difference.

Your failure to read the last sentence is the source of your indignation.

 

[What if...?]

Z did what he was told *SPD told him that* was the responsible thing to do as a citizen trying keep his neighborhood free of crime -- the man called NEN to report a suspicious person. Z was trying to do was to keep M in sight so that he could tell, the cops where M was when they arrived.

NO priors of Z chasing down suspicious persons plus it's not illegal to follow a suspicious person for a reasonable amount of time.

M had no right to assault Z. M attacked Z without adequate provocation.

Which translates into....an act of unlawful force

Lets clear up a little nonsense that has leaked into this narrative.

Z was NOT trying to keep M in sight.

He had lost sight of him before be ever got out of his truck.

He was trying to find him again.

And how the **** was M supposed to know he was just being "followed" and not pursued?

There is NO evidence that M even knew Z was out of his truck until they encountered each other on foot.

How many times does someone have to flee before they accept that fleeing simply isn't going to work?

 

[dolphinocean]

Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.

Can you prove it?

The person who advances the assertion that they received welfare is the one having the burden of proof, not the other way around. But, I don't expect you or any zimmerman supporters to be logical. Turning the table and turning everything upside down is your trademark.

 

[Paperview]

I think it's wonderful the Martin family is getting this money.

It was all, in the words of Zimmerman, "God's plan."

 

[ric27]

Lets clear up a little nonsense that has leaked into this narrative.

Z was NOT trying to keep M in sight.

He had lost sight of him before be ever got out of his truck.

He was trying to find him again.

And how the **** was M supposed to know he was just being "followed" and not pursued?

There is NO evidence that M even knew Z was out of his truck until they encountered each other on foot.

How many times does someone have to flee before they accept that fleeing simply isn't going to work?

You are not clearing nothing up because Z did nothing illegal *the profiling/the keeping tabs on M, etc before the gunshot. The unsupported nonsense is on you

The issue is whether Z was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury as a result of M beating the crap out of him and if Z could have freed himself and avoid using lethal force

Dude, asking someone to explain their presence is not provocation for being hit in the nose in the context of self defense laws.

Hell, even *if* Z was calling M names/being rude/vulgar*...did not give M the right to physically attack Z

 

[jamesrage]

Trayvon Martin wrongful death claim more than $1 million - OrlandoSentinel.com

One down, one to go

1.You do realize that a criminal trial has to you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and civil trial only has to prove more likely than not?

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

2.The HOA settled to avoid any future costly lawsuits with the parents.It means no one was proven guilty in a court of law nor does it mean anyone admitted to guilt.

 

[sharon]

You are not clearing nothing up because Z did nothing illegal *the profiling/the keeping tabs on M, etc before the gunshot. The unsupported nonsense is on you

The issue is whether Z was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury as a result of M beating the crap out of him and if Z could have freed himself and avoid using lethal force

Dude, asking someone to explain their presence is not provocation for being hit in the nose in the context of self defense laws.

Hell, even *if* Z was calling M names/being rude/vulgar*...did not give M the right to physically attack Z

That's why Trayvon asked George, "Why are you following me?"

Of course George was too stupid to answer.

 

[Paperview]

Dude, asking someone to explain their presence is not provocation for being hit in the nose in the context of self defense laws.

...

When did Z do that?

 

[JackFrost]

1.You do realize that a criminal trial has to you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and civil trial only has to prove more likely than not?

The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

2.The HOA settled to avoid any future costly lawsuits with the parents.It means no one was proven guilty in a court of law nor does it mean anyone admitted to guilt.

Crump has made clear that he intends to file suit later against Zimmerman, and the settlement spelled out that Zimmerman was not part of this deal.

One down, one to go. Zimmerman is next

 

[ric27]

That's why Trayvon asked George, "Why are you following me?"

Of course George was too stupid to answer.

When did Z do that?

One down, one to go. Zimmerman is next

Why are you all ättempting to propagate bull**** regarding the evidence

 

[Paperview]

Why are you all ättempting to propagate bull**** regarding the evidence

I'm new here. Is it always your habit to answer a question with a question?

 

[Excon]

Theres no need for proof of assertions in Z threads.

You established that precedent.

You seem to be confused between what you have established and what I have established.

Your failure to read the last sentence is the source of your indignation.

As I said;

"You conveniently leaving out the fact that Zimmerman was walking away from Trayvon when Trayvon attacked, is dishonesty.

Learn the difference."​

Really. Learn the difference.

---

For God's sake.. Look it up for yourself.. Its been in the news for a year. Trayvon's mother earns $68K and has been with the housing authority for a couple of decades.

Jeez .. you are such a racist that you automatically assume all black families are on welfare.

Oh boy! :doh
iLOL
You made the claim. You provide the proof.
And I have not assumed anything about Trayvon's mother in regards to welfare.
Nothing I have said is racist.
You assuming I have, is what is racist.

---

The person who advances the assertion that they received welfare is the one having the burden of proof, not the other way around. But, I don't expect you or any zimmerman supporters to be logical. Turning the table and turning everything upside down is your trademark.

I don't expect for you to understand that I made no such claim because of your inability to read without bias.
It is on sharon to support her claim.

 

[buck]

When did Z do that?

If you mean when did Z ask him to explain his presense, it would be right at the beginning, at least if you believe Dee's mumbled claim that she heard an "old" man say "what you doing around here" or something similar.

If you mean when did he get hit in the nose, it was right at the brginning of the encounter. Are you one of those that claim that Zimm went out that evening with the injuries already present (and then had to rub Trayvon's blood all over himself) or do you beleive that Zimm was grabbing on to Trayvon while Trayvon swung him around until Zimm hit a tree causing scratches on his head and a broken nose?

 

[Excon]

I'm new here.

I doubt it.

 

[Paperview]

If you mean when did Z ask him to explain his presense, it would be right at the beginning, at least if you believe Dee's mumbled claim that she heard an "old" man say "what you doing around here" or something similar.

The statement was "Dude, asking someone to explain their presence is not provocation for being hit in the nose in the context of self defense laws."

And you seem to think that's what Z did too. So do you believe Witness 8?

If you mean when did he get hit in the nose, it was right at the brginning of the encounter. Are you one of those that claim that Zimm went out that evening with the injuries already present (and then had to rub Trayvon's blood all over himself) or do you beleive that Zimm was grabbing on to Trayvon while Trayvon swung him around until Zimm hit a tree causing scratches on his head and a broken nose?

I'm not sure what to beleive.

I do know Z is a liar, and that I won't take the words of an alleged murderer and repetitive liar at face value.

 

[Paperview]

I doubt it.

Why would you doubt it? It's your first words with me here, I have less than 10 posts and you somehow think I'm lying?