Travyon Martin Parents Settle Wrongful Death Claim for Over One Million Dollars

How quickly some of you forget about the scam Georgie boy & wifey went through: abcnews.go.com...
abcnews.go.com...
I don't agree with the majority here. Trayvon was just walking home, Georgie shoulda stayed in his car, hence, the INNOCENT 17 year old boy would still be alive. I've taught my own kids to fight, scream, bite, anyone who they think is considered stranger danger.....Trayvon said this creepy guy was following him....he did what most of us parents taught our children, & is now being condemned......this is just WRONG! Leave the parents alone...I'm not bothering to read anymore posts or threads here regarding this subject, thank God the majority out there see it for what it really is...

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


LOL, watever. Trayvon was the nly criminal here. So you taught your kids if you think someone is following you, instead of going in the house, run up and attack the person? Good job.

Trayvon was a criminal,. I don't blame Zimmerman and his wife at ALL! He was charged with a crime he sold have never been charged with after he was already cleared of it, because Obama admin stuck their nose in before all the facst were out to appease race baiters. Then got a special prosecutor to falsify an arrest warrant. He will go free. His money was drained and I would have tried to hide some to provide for my wife too.

It's garbage, he defended himself from a criminal assaulting him and idiot racists brought the world down on him, he had a bounty on his head, his bank account emptied and his health sffered. I hope he sues them all. I hope he sues, the media, corey, the martins. He probably has cases against the mayor, and eric holder too.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

idiot racists brought the world down on him, he had a bounty on his head, his bank account emptied

And then filled up again.

Making money from killing kids. Nice. And have you checked that all the cash donated has been spent on legal costs, because if not I'm going to go right ahead and assume he's stolen it. Which is what you're doing with the Martins.

The difference of course is that in Zimmerman's case there's actually some evidence that he's behaved dishonestly

reply to post by JuniorDisco


There is a ton of evidence the Martins behaved dishonestly. I don't thin Zimmerman did at all. He shouldn't have been in the court, he was rail roaded by corrupt officals so screw declaring his moey. All of it wasn't donated for his legal fees, but to help out however. If he put it back so he wasn't broke when he goes free, so be it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

There is a ton of evidence the Martins behaved dishonestly.

So you keep saying. And yet you can't provide any of it.

And you've gone awfully quiet on being shown that you did in fact accuse them of profiting form their trademark.

I don't thin Zimmerman did at all. He shouldn't have been in the court, he was rail roaded by corrupt officals so screw declaring his moey. All of it wasn't donated for his legal fees, but to help out however. If he put it back so he wasn't broke when he goes free, so be it.

What an extraordinary double standard. You require proof that the Martins have already distributed monies or they automatically become embezzlers, but you don't even care if George stole the cash. He even admits he's managed to spend 62k of his "defense fund" on living expenses in 8 months. Nice work if you can get it.

I'm just trying to work out what the difference is between the Martins and Zimmerman, what difference would make you hold them to a different standard. Apart from the dead kid. I'm sure it has nothing to do with their ethnicity

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I didn't say they did. I said they trademarked his name with the likely intention of profiting. They profitted from scamming people at the pass the hat rallies, and getting the HOA to settle.

I don't know if they profited from the trademark, but they may have (and may still). After the attention is off them they will probably start law suits and marketing.



The rest of your comment is non sense. You are the one that brought in the word embezzled. I said the Martin's did not need to embezzle because the money was given to them.

Zimmerman was the same the money was given to him, it wasn't embezzled. No one ever accused him or his wife of embezzlement.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Go read this thread here: click here

And you will MAYBE finally realize what kind of people the Martin's are.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I didn't say they did.

That's a simple lie. You wrote this:

"...on top of HOW MUCH? they were given by the idiots that bought the false narrative from the media and racists like Sharpton. Oh and from their copyrighting of their sons name."

Unless you're going to try to persuade me that the HOW MUCH refers to something other than money.

They profitted from scamming people at the pass the hat rallies

Which you can't find a shred of evidence for.

Unlike George and his wife who have actually been proven to be dishonest with regard to their donations, and who have spent over 60k on living exes from gifts.

and getting the HOA to settle.

The only evidence you have regarding this is that their lawyer behaved unethically. I think that's probably the case, but I'm not sure that it definitively implicates them.

I don't know if they profited from the trademark, but they may have (and may still). After the attention is off them they will probably start law suits and marketing.

Okay, you've backpedalled from actually claiming this, but now you're just involved in baseless conjecture.

The rest of your comment is non sense. You are the one that brought in the word embezzled. I said the Martin's did not need to embezzle because the money was given to them.

You don't understand the meaning of the term then, because it's what you accused them of. Again

Zimmerman was the same the money was given to him

So why are they crooks in your eyes while he is beyond reproach?

NOT GUILTY. The Home Owners Association shouldn't have paid that settlement money.
If they had waited, they could have used this 'not guilty' as proof against the claims
against them. I'm sure the HOA insurance company is kicking itself this morning ...