|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight.
A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really.
|
On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules.
I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really.
the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation.
|
On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation.
Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from.
|
On April 06 2013 11:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:38 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help. How do the police factor into a civilian on civilian case, though? Have there been accusations of anything getting covered up? I dont remember there being accusations when I last followed this. The police didn't initially arrest Zimmerman. Only after public outcry from media sensationalizing was Zimmerman charged. I'm pretty sure the pol ice chief also resigned as a result of this case.
This is the part I am super confused about. From my mind, he did nothing wrong.
|
On April 07 2013 14:07 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:40 Kaitlin wrote:On April 06 2013 11:38 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help. How do the police factor into a civilian on civilian case, though? Have there been accusations of anything getting covered up? I dont remember there being accusations when I last followed this. The police didn't initially arrest Zimmerman. Only after public outcry from media sensationalizing was Zimmerman charged. I'm pretty sure the pol ice chief also resigned as a result of this case. This is the part I am super confused about. From my mind, he did nothing wrong.
the city commissioners originally voted to reject his resignation. but everyone knows how politics work when there is an angry mob.
|
On April 07 2013 03:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
are you really referring to me as a lying asshole? i just want to make that clear.
What should I call someone who purposely distorts the truth and argues like a politician? You're point of view on this subject is a joke. Zim is innocent and will be free and all those people who wanted to hang him for legally defending himself will have many nights of trying to sleep in tear soaked pillows..
Assaulting a innocent man just watching out for his neighborhood.. You'd teach your kids this?
Martins family got their money.. it's more than they deserve. A million dollars for not teaching your son how to properly deal with people in the outside world. I hope it was worth it.
|
On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules.
I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really.
It's really not an argument to attribute blame. It's an argument as to whether Zimmerman is criminally liable for Trayvon's death. The argument about whether Trayvon acted appropriately or not would be relevant if, for example, he were able to wrestle Zimmerman's gun away, and shoot him with it. Then, Zimmerman's behavior would no longer be an issue, since he would be dead, and Trayvon would (potentially) be the one on trial for murder. If these were the facts, then the debate would be over whether Trayvon acted in self-defense or not, which an argument could possibly be made, but since in the current real scenario, Trayvon is not on trial defending himself, he is dead.
|
On April 08 2013 01:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 03:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
are you really referring to me as a lying asshole? i just want to make that clear. What should I call someone who purposely distorts the truth and argues like a politician? You're point of view on this subject is a joke. Zim is innocent and will be free and all those people who wanted to hang him for legally defending himself will have many nights of trying to sleep in tear soaked pillows.. Assaulting a innocent man just watching out for his neighborhood.. You'd teach your kids this? Martins family got their money.. it's more than they deserve. A million dollars for not teaching your son how to properly deal with people in the outside world. I hope it was worth it.
There seems to be always to be one on the internet.
|
On April 08 2013 02:33 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 01:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:On April 07 2013 03:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
are you really referring to me as a lying asshole? i just want to make that clear. What should I call someone who purposely distorts the truth and argues like a politician? You're point of view on this subject is a joke. Zim is innocent and will be free and all those people who wanted to hang him for legally defending himself will have many nights of trying to sleep in tear soaked pillows.. Assaulting a innocent man just watching out for his neighborhood.. You'd teach your kids this? Martins family got their money.. it's more than they deserve. A million dollars for not teaching your son how to properly deal with people in the outside world. I hope it was worth it. There seems to be always to be one on the internet.
What, someone who can't put together a cogent sentence or someone who just can't stand a person who disagrees with them? Daphreak did not distort the truth in any way; the truth is inherently distorted in this case, that is the entire problem.
|
On April 08 2013 01:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 03:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
are you really referring to me as a lying asshole? i just want to make that clear. What should I call someone who purposely distorts the truth and argues like a politician? You're point of view on this subject is a joke. Zim is innocent and will be free and all those people who wanted to hang him for legally defending himself will have many nights of trying to sleep in tear soaked pillows.. Assaulting a innocent man just watching out for his neighborhood.. You'd teach your kids this? Martins family got their money.. it's more than they deserve. A million dollars for not teaching your son how to properly deal with people in the outside world. I hope it was worth it.
That's funny, because when I was paying attention to this thread, I sort of felt dAPhREAk was maybe a little biased on Zimmerman's behalf.
There are people in this thread, such as yourself, who've jumped to conclusions and made presumptuous judgments, and you're lashing out at the one guy who most likely hasn't.
I also just continue to find it creepy that people think following random strangers with a gun at-the-ready is somehow a good thing for society, when this case has shown quite clearly that it isn't.
Or are you convinced that someone, Martin or Zimmerman, just HAD to die that day? One thing I don't think can really be argued is that if Zimmerman had just minded his own business -- there would have been no fight between them, no deaths. Whether Zimmerman was "stalking" or not, he certainly was the one who initiated contact, which started the whole chain of events. If he hadn't, that would obviously have been better for everyone.
|
|
|
On April 07 2013 08:15 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 07:49 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. What he did was probably known as "stalking," not "following." I mean, if you're tracking someone with deadly force, that's stalking. If you end up killing them, that's stalking. If you harass them, that's stalking. No....stalking has to do with harassment or intimidation, and it's done repeatedly over time. I'd love to know how me following you for less than an hour, in your eyes, would constitute me "stalking" you.
So this thread is quickly becoming people repeating the same talking points/talking past each other. What is a shame because dAPhREAk did a excellent job on the OP. People are still arguing if this is stalking or if a EMS operator ordered Zims (what is silly because they can't order you to do anything).
|
New Video Content | Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim
Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful-death claim for an amount thought to be more than $1 million against the homeowners association of the Sanford subdivision where their teenage son was killed.
Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, filed that paperwork at the Seminole County Courthouse, a portion of which was made public Friday.
In the five pages of the settlement that were available for public review, the settlement amount had been marked out. Lower in the agreement, the parties specified that they would keep that amount confidential.
When asked during an earlier interview whether the amount was more than $1 million, Crump said: "I have no comment on that subject … I know you did not get that from me."
Trayvon was shot to death by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhomes in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012. Zimmerman served as head of the Neighborhood Watch and called police that evening, describing Trayvon as suspicious. He has said the teen attacked him and he fired in self-defense.
The community-association manager, Kent Taylor, did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel about the settlement. Neither did its attorney, Thomas R. Slaten Jr.
Robert Taylor is founding partner of Taylor & Carls P.A., a law firm that represents homeowner associations but has no connection to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
"When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability," he said. Trayvon's parents must have concluded that Zimmerman's homeowners association did, he said, thus the claim.
In the settlement, the association did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Taylor said its decision to settle was most likely a business decision.
"It's really nothing more than a risk-versus-reward analysis," Taylor said.
The association's insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, filed suit in federal court in August, asking a judge to clarify its liability in the case, but that suit was dropped in November.
"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," the company said in a prepared statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners association and/or the property managers."
The policy had a $1 million limit, according to federal-court records, and went into effect March 30, 2012, a few weeks after Trayvon was shot. Trayvon's mother filed a claim with the insurer after it went into effect, according to federal-court records.
During an interview in February, Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Trayvon's parents had tried to settle through mediation and the association or its insurer had offered $1 million, but Trayvon's parents had rejected that amount.
O'Mara said the two parties then renewed talks and agreed to settle several months ago.
The portion of the settlement made public Friday had been edited to eliminate the names of the parties and people making payment.
"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.
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.
Crump provided a copy of the settlement to O'Mara's office, that of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and the judge Thursday, according to a cover page attached to the settlement that was placed in Zimmerman's criminal-case file. It was not immediately clear whether in those versions the settlement amount was blacked out as well
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-05/news/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405_1_trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump-george-zimmerman
|
On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from.
Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me.
|
On April 08 2013 03:16 dAPhREAk wrote:New Video Content | Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim Show nested quote +Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful-death claim for an amount thought to be more than $1 million against the homeowners association of the Sanford subdivision where their teenage son was killed.
Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, filed that paperwork at the Seminole County Courthouse, a portion of which was made public Friday.
In the five pages of the settlement that were available for public review, the settlement amount had been marked out. Lower in the agreement, the parties specified that they would keep that amount confidential.
When asked during an earlier interview whether the amount was more than $1 million, Crump said: "I have no comment on that subject … I know you did not get that from me."
Trayvon was shot to death by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhomes in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012. Zimmerman served as head of the Neighborhood Watch and called police that evening, describing Trayvon as suspicious. He has said the teen attacked him and he fired in self-defense.
The community-association manager, Kent Taylor, did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel about the settlement. Neither did its attorney, Thomas R. Slaten Jr.
Robert Taylor is founding partner of Taylor & Carls P.A., a law firm that represents homeowner associations but has no connection to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
"When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability," he said. Trayvon's parents must have concluded that Zimmerman's homeowners association did, he said, thus the claim.
In the settlement, the association did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Taylor said its decision to settle was most likely a business decision.
"It's really nothing more than a risk-versus-reward analysis," Taylor said.
The association's insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, filed suit in federal court in August, asking a judge to clarify its liability in the case, but that suit was dropped in November.
"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," the company said in a prepared statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners association and/or the property managers."
The policy had a $1 million limit, according to federal-court records, and went into effect March 30, 2012, a few weeks after Trayvon was shot. Trayvon's mother filed a claim with the insurer after it went into effect, according to federal-court records.
During an interview in February, Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Trayvon's parents had tried to settle through mediation and the association or its insurer had offered $1 million, but Trayvon's parents had rejected that amount.
O'Mara said the two parties then renewed talks and agreed to settle several months ago.
The portion of the settlement made public Friday had been edited to eliminate the names of the parties and people making payment.
"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.
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.
Crump provided a copy of the settlement to O'Mara's office, that of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and the judge Thursday, according to a cover page attached to the settlement that was placed in Zimmerman's criminal-case file. It was not immediately clear whether in those versions the settlement amount was blacked out as well http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-05/news/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405_1_trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump-george-zimmerman
As someone who handles these types of civil claims, it sounds like the homeowner's insurance company decided to simply roll over and wash their hands of the whole affair rather than fight it (and I strongly suspect that they had grounds on which to fight it). I can't say that I blame them. The press and publicity on this case is toxic, and an adverse judgment would probably exceed liability limits.
|
On April 08 2013 03:43 lolmlg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from. Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me.
There is a big difference between "downtown" and a gated community, such as this, don't you agree ? Do you not believe residents have a right to be vigilant in their own residential areas, especially when there has been a rash of home invasions lately ?
Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you.
|
On April 08 2013 05:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 03:43 lolmlg wrote:On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from. Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me. There is a big difference between "downtown" and a gated community, such as this, don't you agree ? Do you not believe residents have a right to be vigilant in their own residential areas, especially when there has been a rash of home invasions lately ? Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you.
You need to check your definition of vigilance when compared to yelling at stranger walking on a public street. If he was in someones yard, picking up a dangerous object or in anyway acting outside the norm except for his 'look' then you can confront but you're making it seem like just because you want to play 'cop' for a community you can impeach on others rights at your own free will.
It's a poor argument.
|
On April 08 2013 05:56 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 05:40 Kaitlin wrote:On April 08 2013 03:43 lolmlg wrote:On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
[quote]
This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from. Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me. There is a big difference between "downtown" and a gated community, such as this, don't you agree ? Do you not believe residents have a right to be vigilant in their own residential areas, especially when there has been a rash of home invasions lately ? Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you. You need to check your definition of vigilance when compared to yelling at stranger walking on a public street. If he was in someones yard, picking up a dangerous object or in anyway acting outside the norm except for his 'look' then you can confront but you're making it seem like just because you want to play 'cop' for a community you can impeach on others rights at your own free will. It's a poor argument.
Zimmerman didn't confront. He kept an eye on Trayvon, while calling the authorities. I have no idea what "rights" of Trayvon that you think Zimmerman was "impeach"ing upon.
|
On Someday Sometime Someone wrote:
Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you.
The personal attacks (such as this one) being tagged onto the ends of several posts are degrading the quality of the thread. Why do them?
Personally, since Martin was not committing any offense other than "looking suspicious" and Zimmerman had contacted the police and been instructed to not involve himself I find it hard to believe there's no culpability on Zimmerman's behalf. Getting violent as a reaction to being confronted and questioned by a stranger is not a sound response, but he probably shouldn't have confronted him in the first place. We also don't know exactly what the confrontation entailed.
On April 08 2013 06:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 05:56 Hitch-22 wrote:On April 08 2013 05:40 Kaitlin wrote:On April 08 2013 03:43 lolmlg wrote:On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:
[quote]
A guy kills another guy in self defence.
"Man, what a jackass"
Lol. It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from. Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me. There is a big difference between "downtown" and a gated community, such as this, don't you agree ? Do you not believe residents have a right to be vigilant in their own residential areas, especially when there has been a rash of home invasions lately ? Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you. You need to check your definition of vigilance when compared to yelling at stranger walking on a public street. If he was in someones yard, picking up a dangerous object or in anyway acting outside the norm except for his 'look' then you can confront but you're making it seem like just because you want to play 'cop' for a community you can impeach on others rights at your own free will. It's a poor argument. Zimmerman didn't confront. He kept an eye on Trayvon, while calling the authorities. I have no idea what "rights" of Trayvon that you think Zimmerman was "impeach"ing upon.
Zimmerman got out of his car and approached Martin. How is that not confronting?
|
On April 08 2013 06:20 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On Someday Sometime Someone wrote:
Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you. The personal attacks (such as this one) being tagged onto the ends of several posts are degrading the quality of the thread. Why do them? Personally, since Martin was not committing any offense other than "looking suspicious" and Zimmerman had contacted the police and been instructed to not involve himself I find it hard to believe there's no culpability on Zimmerman's behalf. Getting violent as a reaction to being confronted and questioned by a stranger is not a sound response, but he probably shouldn't have confronted him in the first place. We also don't know exactly what the confrontation entailed. Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 06:19 Kaitlin wrote:On April 08 2013 05:56 Hitch-22 wrote:On April 08 2013 05:40 Kaitlin wrote:On April 08 2013 03:43 lolmlg wrote:On April 07 2013 14:01 docvoc wrote:On April 07 2013 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 07 2013 12:01 Zooper31 wrote:On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:
[quote]
It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that). Following someone is not provoking a fight. A strange adult is following you in the midle of the night, he is following your exact path and he probably doesn't look friendly. What do you do? Who knows what this guy wants from you, he could mug you, kill you, rape you, etc. Theres 100 bad things that could happen and like literally nothing good. Run for your life, scream for help or stand your ground and attempt to defend yourself from this mysterious stranger. My response would be run for my life. Trayvon's was to defend himself. Trayvon could've chose to flee and not defend himself but so could've Zimmerman by not pursueing someone in the night. It's an arguement to say who was more to blame really. the "girlfriend's" rendition of the affair does not make it seem like trayvon considered himself in danger. although that could be up to interpretation. Zooper is looking way too far into this. Trayvon literally said that he THOUGHT someone MIGHT be following him, not that he was in any imminent danger. He also said he was going to the corner store and did not turn back, indicating as such. Zimmerman didn't chase the guy until Trayvon was forced to fight him, and Zimmerman didn't even start a confrontation, he just asked the kid what he was doing; cops do things like that all the time to people who could look suspicious in any area, especially those who are in places with spiked crime rates. It wasn't the middle of the night either, I'm confused where half of this is even coming from. Can we just be real about this one thing? If some man I'd never seen before, who isn't dressed as a cop, yells "what are you doing" at me for what appears to be no reason, I'm not going to react in a positive way. People yell stupid shit at me downtown all the time and I'm white. At best it's confusing, at worst it puts you on the back foot and makes you confrontational. Why anyone would consider that acceptable for anyone to do is beyond me. There is a big difference between "downtown" and a gated community, such as this, don't you agree ? Do you not believe residents have a right to be vigilant in their own residential areas, especially when there has been a rash of home invasions lately ? Based on your last sentence, you don't seem to have much ability to comprehend the world around you. You need to check your definition of vigilance when compared to yelling at stranger walking on a public street. If he was in someones yard, picking up a dangerous object or in anyway acting outside the norm except for his 'look' then you can confront but you're making it seem like just because you want to play 'cop' for a community you can impeach on others rights at your own free will. It's a poor argument. Zimmerman didn't confront. He kept an eye on Trayvon, while calling the authorities. I have no idea what "rights" of Trayvon that you think Zimmerman was "impeach"ing upon. Zimmerman got out of his car and approached Martin. How is that not confronting?
edit: It's not confronting because confronting means: Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent. That's why. If anything Trayvon confronted Zimmerman, or they confronted each other eventually. Following him is not confronting.
end edit
A personal attack is "You are a moron". Commenting that, based on something they've said, they don't seem to have an understanding of something is not a personal attack.
Now, reading your post, it seems you don't have an understanding of the facts in this case. To avoid being accused of making a personal attack, I'll address them specifically.
Personally, since Martin was not committing any offense other than "looking suspicious" and Zimmerman had contacted the police and been instructed to not involve himself I find it hard to believe there's no culpability on Zimmerman's behalf. Getting violent as a reaction to being confronted and questioned by a stranger is not a sound response, but he probably shouldn't have confronted him in the first place. We also don't know exactly what the confrontation entailed.
First, Zimmerman hadn't "been instructed" by anyone to do or not do anything. Second, Zimmerman followed, and tried to keep an eye on Zimmerman, but didn't "confront" him. The "confrontation" occurred after Martin had approached Zimmerman and asked if he had a problem.
Also, I'm not sure what the relevance of "Martin was not committing any offense" has to do with anything. If I see someone in my neighborhood that I don't recognize, I am perfectly within the law and my rights to watch them from public property, whether they like it or not. My reason for watching them can be anything from wearing a red hat, to being black, to no reason at all. If that person doesn't like me watching them, they should either get over it, or move to somewhere they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as inside their home. If they come over and physically attack me, I have a right to defend myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
