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

[Excon]

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?

As I said; "I doubt it."

 

[buck]

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?

I believe there is probably some truth and some lies to W8. W8 is clearly lying about the timeline, as Trayvon certainly did something other than running, so far and so long that he was too tired to run anymore.

But, if you choose to believe her...

She said: "An old man said, “What are you doing around here?”

That is Z asking T to explain his presense. Trayvon's response to that, with zero evidence to the contrary that I am aware of, was to hit the person asking a question in the 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.

The one thing that is clear and few, if any, on the jury will doubt, is that Zimmerman was getting the worst of a beating from Trayvon. Zimmerman has injuries that match what he described. In other words, the evidence predominantly supports what he stated.

 

[Excon]

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.

iLOL
You do not know that.
It is what you choose to believe.

Secondly, Zimmerman cooperated from the get.
Except for the person he saw/heard, he had no idea of whom or if anybody else saw anything. And yet his account is consistent with those witnesses and the physical evidence.
That is not something you would get if he was lying. Period.
Then you have him passing two "lie detection" tests as Serino stated.

 

[Excon]

This individual has a history at Leatherman.. So, probably not a sock, if that is what you thought.

I do not say "I doubt it" if I do not doubt it.

For all we know, the person you say has an account at Blatherman, is just someone from here.
Now what?


Like I said, I doubt it. To which I am entitled.

The person's further conduct will determinative.

 

[Paperview]

As I said; "I doubt it."

And I asked you why would you doubt it.

 

[buck]

I do not say "I doubt it" if I do not doubt it.

For all we know the person you say has an account at Blatherman is just someone from here.
Now what?


Like I said, I doubt it.

And actually, I just double checked... and they only have one post there that I can locate.. so I have no idea.

 

[Excon]

And I asked you why would you doubt it.

I am not going to elaborate.

Your further conduct will be determinative.

 

[Paperview]

I do not say "I doubt it" if I do not doubt it.

For all we know the person you say has an account at Blatherman is just someone from here.
Now what?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Like I said, I doubt it. To which I am entitled.

The persons further conduct will determinative.

Of course you are entitled to be wrong. I've never ever posted here before today.

Nice welcoming committee.

 

[What if...?]

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

There are limits to "legal" behavior.

If i run screaming at you with a realistic toy baseball bat you can shoot me before i hit you with it.

Theres no way M could know WHY Z was following him.

Just as likely he meant him harm as not.

Does "What are you doing around here?" mean you're on gang turf and this stranger is going for a weapon?

Not a cop or he would have identified himself.

The whole idea that "following" is ALWAYS legal, that simply trying to "keep tabs on somebody" can NEVER merit a defensive response is another piece of nonsense that has crept into these discussions.

How many of your armed heroes were being "followed" right up to the point their "follower" attacked them?

I don't have to let you attack me before I defend myself, I just have to reasonably believe you are going to.

Just like Z doesn't have to allow himself to be beaten to death before defending himself.

 

[What if...?]

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



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.

---

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.

---

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.

Again, according to Z.

And I do not believe Z.

If I see you creepin around looking for me on foot after following me all the way across the complex in your truck, you might indeed have passed me before I realized you were there.

I love how approaching M all the way across the complex in his truck and on foot while M retreated is perfectly OK, but walking the last few feet towards Z makes M a criminal.

 

[Paperview]

iLOL
You do not know that.
It is what you choose to believe.

Secondly, Zimmerman cooperated from the get.
Except for the person he saw/heard, he had no idea of whom or if anybody else saw anything. And yet his account is consistent with those witnesses and the physical evidence.
That is not something you would get if he was lying. Period.
Then you have him passing two "lie detection" tests as Serino stated.

Well, let's start with the biggest lie - that which REVOKED his bond and sent him off to jail again. He lied on his bond application and tried to deceive the court. Handwave it away or blame the lawyer if you like (which is even worse,as that shows unethical behavior, and we know his lawyer DID know about the money...) but **** like that isn't taken too kindly in a court of law. Or with most honest people.

Then it's the little lies, like, he knows everyone in the neighborhood, all the kids, and all the adults. Lie.
Or that he told the police "they told me I didn't have to go to the hospital" -- when he was asked three times that night to go, and HE refused.

And there are a bunch of lies in between, but I doubt if I expanded on them, considering you don't even think he lied at all, much of it will penetrate, so why bother.

 

[Excon]

Again, according to Z.

And I do not believe Z.

Of course you don't. Your bias will not allow you to.

If I see you creepin around looking for me on foot after following me all the way across the complex in your truck, you might indeed have passed me before I realized you were there.

The evidence suggests he laid in wait, as he had absolutely no reason to then approach and confront a person walking away from him.
That is what you do not seem to get.

I love how approaching M all the way across the complex in his truck and on foot while M retreated is perfectly OK, but walking the last few feet towards Z makes M a criminal.

First of all you categorizing it as him approaching Trayvon is no in accord with the evidence.
He did not want to make contact with him. As stated.
Looking for an address and/or trying to keep eyes on him is "ok". This is just another thing you fail to realize.

 

[Paperview]

Of course you don't. Your bias will not allow you to.
...

Are you biased?

 

[sharon]

Of course you don't. Your bias will not allow you to.




The evidence suggests he laid in wait, as he had absolutely no reason to then approach and confront a person walking away from him.
That is what you do not seem to get.



First of all you categorizing it as him approaching Trayvon is no in accord with the evidence.
He did not want to make contact with him. As stated.
Looking for an address and/or trying to keep eyes on him is "ok". This is just another thing you fail to realize.

LOLOL George wasn't looking for an address. He was roaming around in the dark looking for Trayvon. He could see the "address" when he got out of his truck.

 

[Excon]

Well, let's start with the biggest lie - that which REVOKED his bond and sent him off to jail again. He lied on his bond application and tried to deceive the court.

No!
You do not know that.
He very well may have believed those funds were not reportable.
So until you provided evidence that he knew he had to report those specific funds, you have nothing.
For all you know, his lawyer wrongly told him he didn't have to report it.
That is what the law required. His knowledge.

So like I said. Prove otherwise, or as it stands, you have nothing.

or blame the lawyer if you like (which is even worse,as that shows unethical behavior, and we know his lawyer DID know about the money...) but **** like that isn't taken too kindly in a court of law. Or with most honest people.

And again. The law requires that he knew.
You have thus far failed twice at showing any such knowledge.

Then it's the little lies, like, he knows everyone in the neighborhood, all the kids, and all the adults. Lie.
Or that he told the police "they told me I didn't have to go to the hospital" -- when he was asked three times that night to go, and HE refused.

Show that that is a lie.
Come on do it.
He was involved in a traumatic event and that is what he believed he was told. That is not a lie.
So is this really all you have? Irrelevant bull**** like this that isn't a lie?

And there are a bunch of lies in between, but I doubt if I expanded on them, considering you don't even think he lied at all, much of it will penetrate, so why bother.

No there isn't.
You want there to be, but there isn't.

 

[Excon]

LOLOL George wasn't looking for an address. He was roaming around in the dark looking for Trayvon. He could see the "address" when he got out of his truck.

Oh look, sharon has raised her head again.
No sharon. The evidence is that he was getting an address.

 

[Excon]

Are you biased?

Yes. I am biased towards the evidence and what it says.

 

[Paperview]

No!
You do not know that.
He very well may have believed those funds were not reportable.
So until you provided evidence that he knew he had to report those specific funds, you have nothing.
For all you know, his lawyer wrongly told him he didn't have to report it.
That is what the law required. His knowledge.

So like I said. Prove otherwise, or as it stands, you have nothing.

Wow. The koolaid runs deep here. As I said, none would penetrate. I was right.
You know that little stunt cost him a ****load of cred. The ruling in his revocation was pretty damn stern. He lied. You don't believe it. You're entitled to not believe that. You're wrong, but you're entitled.

Show that that is a lie.
Come on do it.
He was involved in a traumatic event and that is what he believed he was told. That is not a lie.

He was never told it. You see, that it the lie.

No there isn't.
You want there to be, but there isn't.

Like I said...

 

[What if...?]

iLOL
You do not know that.
It is what you choose to believe.

Secondly, Zimmerman cooperated from the get.
Except for the person he saw/heard, he had no idea of whom or if anybody else saw anything. And yet his account is consistent with those witnesses and the physical evidence.
That is not something you would get if he was lying. Period.
Then you have him passing two "lie detection" tests as Serino stated.

Yeah,you know, the lie detection tests that are no better than chance at determining if someone is lying. The ones Z admitting to studying in school.

You know, criminal justice school, kid of parents who both work in the courts.

Where in the world would Z obtain knowledge that would benefit him in concocting a story?

That would be like expecting a farm kid in the ffa to know anything about cows.

Preposterous!

 

[What if...?]

Of course you don't. Your bias will not allow you to.




The evidence suggests he laid in wait, as he had absolutely no reason to then approach and confront a person walking away from him.
That is what you do not seem to get.



First of all you categorizing it as him approaching Trayvon is no in accord with the evidence.
He did not want to make contact with him. As stated.
Looking for an address and/or trying to keep eyes on him is "ok". This is just another thing you fail to realize.

The evidence does not support the assumption that M knew Z was out of his truck, so laying in wait is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Excon]

Wow. The koolaid runs deep

Yes, with you.

As I said, none would penetrate. I was right.
You know that little stunt cost him a ****load of cred. The ruling in his revocation was pretty damn stern. He lied. You don't believe it. You're entitled to not believe that. You're wrong, but you're entitled.

Said the person with no evidence.

He was never told it. You see, that it the lie.

:naughty
No!
A lie is purposely told.
When a person is mistaken, it isn't.
Sorry you do not know the difference.

Like I said...

Like you said? :doh
Like you said nothing.

You are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.

 

[Excon]

The evidence does not support the assumption that M knew Z was out of his truck, so laying in wait is not supported by the evidence.

Yeah it does.
As that is the only way he would have been able to approach Zimmerman. He had to have known to do so.
Next!

 

[Paperview]

Yes. I am biased towards the evidence and what it says.

"The evidence is strong."

 

[Excon]

Yeah,you know, the lie detection tests that are no better than chance at determining if someone is lying. The ones Z admitting to studying in school.

You know, criminal justice school, kid of parents who both work in the courts.

Where in the world would Z obtain knowledge that would benefit him in concocting a story?

That would be like expecting a farm kid in the ffa to know anything about cows.

Preposterous!

Yes your position is preposterous.
You keep ignoring the following.

He cooperated from the get.
He had no idea who saw what, or where it was seen except for the person he saw/heard.
And yet his account is consistent with theirs.
You would not get that if he was lying.

The administered tests are just icing on the cake. As they support the above. Duh!

 

[Excon]

"The evidence is strong."

The evidence is strongly in Zimmerman's favor.