- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,758
- Reaction score
- 1,110
- Location
- Land of the sodomizers
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Guess they can be taken off of welfare then...
As the information you provided said.Which means they were not liable...: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.
Be honest everybody,
How many of the things on Ex's list did you do in HS?
How many people do you know who did most or all of those things?
How many of them attacked a stranger and tried to kill them for no apparent reason?
No they didn't, yet they would have if it appeared he was actually working on jewelry. They didn't say it appeared that way.They did not specify what type of screwdriver it was.
Wrong.Nor does.jewelry repair require a specific type of screwdriver.
:dohAnd there is no crime without a victim, so.stop.slandering the dead kid with a false claim of a criminal record.
'Specially since it still doesn't support a predisposition to the kind of behavior upon which Zs narrative depends.
Pathetically weak argument.But we're talking about the HOA rolling over for a cool million.
No one has been able to show they were.I'm kinda surprised they were liable in the first place.
Not needed now she has her million, too bad she chose to be a whore instead of a mother
Guess they can be taken off of welfare then...
I'm just inexperienced and often forget to place a sarcastic emoticon with sarcastic posts.Ms mom has a middle class job.
They weren't on welfare.
How many other misconceptions are you basing your beliefs on?
:doh
iLOL
:doh
Read the release and weep sharon.
... is not to be construed as an admission of any liability ...Do you not understand the wording?
Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.Ms mom has a middle class job.
They weren't on welfare.
How many other misconceptions are you basing your beliefs on?
Stop with the theatrics...and stick to the case
There's no evidence that it was Z who approached M, rather than the other way around. Even W8 said it was M who first verbally confronted Z by demanding *why are you following me?*
Besides you being wrong, it is the reality of the situation it needs to be anchored on that specificity, as others obviously are not aware of it.Your repeated reliance on that one clause is a sterling example of what is known as The Focusing Effect, which is a form of cognitive bias
Anchoring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:dohSpeaking first has nothing to do with who approached who first.
And Z had been "approaching" M since he came on the property.
And M had retreated.
And Z continued to approach.
And M continued to retreat...
So yeah, Z approached M first.
Maybe not in the final seconds, maybe not for a few steps, but for an extended period of time peior to that.
No they didn't, yet they would have if it appeared he was actually working on jewelry. They didn't say it appeared that way.
Stop making excuses.
Your reply was weak.
You are trying to make excuses for Trayvon's actions.
Wrong.
Your reply was weak.
You are trying to make excuses for Trayvon's actions.
:doh
Your interpretation of what another says is off again.
There was no slander.
This is what I said.
"caught with what appears to be stolen goods"
Do you not understand that the statement allows for it not to be stolen goods?
Pathetically weak argument.
There was no rolling over.
No one has been able to show they were.
And you can not prove they were.
You got nothing but weak arguments.
She ain't fot it yet, and she got the trademarks pretty quick.
So you're saying you don't care that someone tricked you into parroting nonsense.
Again.
Why do you continue to allow yourself to be made to look foolish?
How much other stuff do you believe that is nonsense?
Holy ****!All you're.doing is.proving you debate dishonestly by using vague verbiage so you can claim you didn't mean what you clearly did when you get called out on it.
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually believe your own bs or you're just playing games on the internet.
Show they were not receiving any aid that is traditionally known as welfare.
Can you prove it?
she did it before he was even cold, I am not surprised you hold her values, pity anyone that has blood line to you
Speaking first has nothing to do with who approached who first.
And Z had been "approaching" M since he came on the property.
And M had retreated.
And Z continued to approach.
And M continued to retreat...
So yeah, Z approached M first.
Maybe not in the final seconds, maybe not for a few steps, but for an extended period of time peior to that.
And you don't know why, do you?
I do believe the statement was "prove it".Trayvon's mother earned $68,000 a year .. in the public housing administration.
... would serve as a lesson for housing associations with neighbourhood watch programmes and the use of force against any suspicious persons would be explicitly forbidden and volunteers would be screened more carefully in the future.
All neighborhood watch organizations here disbanned and those participating disconnected with law enforcement too as the wise legal choice. Instead, they all act individually or in small groups in pickup trucks with AR15s and shotguns. And they learned the lessson to not phone 911 either.
The amount is believed to be in excess of $1 million and the settlement would serve as a lesson for housing associations with neighbourhood watch programmes and the use of force against any suspicious persons would be explicitly forbidden and volunteers would be screened more carefully in the future.
As the information you provided said.
What about that do you not understand?
That means the greedy parents agreed that there was no admission of liability.
Do you not understand that?
The insurance company likely paid and it probably cost the HOA nothing, but rate increases. HOAs might be wise to not have insurance at all to eliminate the deep pockets.