• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

Which means they were not liable...:lamo
As the information you provided said.

"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.

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?
 
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?

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?*
 
They did not specify what type of screwdriver it was.
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.


Nor does.jewelry repair require a specific type of screwdriver.
Wrong.

Your reply was weak.
You are trying to make excuses for Trayvon's actions.


And 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.
: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?




But we're talking about the HOA rolling over for a cool million.
Pathetically weak argument.
There was no rolling over.

I'm kinda surprised they were liable in the first place.
No one has been able to show they were.
And you can not prove they were.

You got nothing but weak arguments.
 
Not needed now she has her million, too bad she chose to be a whore instead of a mother

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?
 
Guess they can be taken off of welfare then...

Ms mom has a middle class job.

They weren't on welfare.

How many other misconceptions are you basing your beliefs on?
 
Ms mom has a middle class job.

They weren't on welfare.

How many other misconceptions are you basing your beliefs on?
I'm just inexperienced and often forget to place a sarcastic emoticon with sarcastic posts.
 
: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?​

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
 
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?
 
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?*

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
: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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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?

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

And you don't know why, do 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.

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
 
And you don't know why, do you?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
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".
 
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.
 
... 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.

Or have the opposite effect.

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.

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.
 
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?

We all know how it works Excon:lol:

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

You don't understand the reasons for carrying liability insurance. If they neglect the property and someone is injured... If they use "volunteers" to paint the pool house and someone takes a bad fall, they are covered.

It also serves to keep whoever is managing the property legit and on their toes.

This is an outstanding settlement in advance of a trial.

The HOA screwed up endorsing George... and linking themselves to NW.

Since they chose him and let him carry a gun... they are liable.

NW is a good program that has been successful for over 40 years... as long as the volunteers agree in writing to the rules and protocols.

HOAs will be more careful in the future and call their lawyers for advice.

Remember.. George had NO vote and no financial exposure.... Unlike the homeowners.. George was a renter who's parents paid his rent.

Now the Martin family will sue George civily...

It won't bring Trayvon back, but it will go a long way towards preventing another idiot vigilante from doing what George did.
 
Back
Top Bottom