Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:16 pm

http://jetmag.com/news/trayvon-martins- ... eath-suit/

Apparently Trayvon Martin's parents just won a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Anyone been following this or know anything about it? I always thought that civil actions took place after criminal actions. No reason I thought that other than examples in the past. What will this mean to the criminal trial?
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 pm

They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ctdeathfrombelow » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:30 pm

Hopefully they waste it on hoodies and skittles
User avatar
ctdeathfrombelow
hunter
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Connecticut: The Confiscation State

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:30 pm

WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:31 pm

ctdeathfrombelow wrote:Hopefully they waste it on hoodies and skittles

That's not right, brother.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:32 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:http://jetmag.com/news/trayvon-martins-parents-win-wrongful-death-suit/

Apparently Trayvon Martin's parents just won a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Anyone been following this or know anything about it? I always thought that civil actions took place after criminal actions. No reason I thought that other than examples in the past. What will this mean to the criminal trial?



I didn't read the link, but did just watch a bit about it on the news. The homeowner's association's insurance company made them offer the settlement, which was accepted.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:43 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:http://jetmag.com/news/trayvon-martins-parents-win-wrongful-death-suit/

Apparently Trayvon Martin's parents just won a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Anyone been following this or know anything about it? I always thought that civil actions took place after criminal actions. No reason I thought that other than examples in the past. What will this mean to the criminal trial?



I didn't read the link, but did just watch a bit about it on the news. The homeowner's association's insurance company made them offer the settlement, which was accepted.

I still can't help but wonder if this was a bad precedent for those defending Zimmerman.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:44 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:46 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

And which group do you think will sit on the jury of the criminal trial?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:48 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:http://jetmag.com/news/trayvon-martins-parents-win-wrongful-death-suit/

Apparently Trayvon Martin's parents just won a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Anyone been following this or know anything about it? I always thought that civil actions took place after criminal actions. No reason I thought that other than examples in the past. What will this mean to the criminal trial?



I didn't read the link, but did just watch a bit about it on the news. The homeowner's association's insurance company made them offer the settlement, which was accepted.

I still can't help but wonder if this was a bad precedent for those defending Zimmerman.


Not really. Again, ignorance of what's going on is working against you.

An insurance company can get royally screwed if they refuse to settle a case where an offer is made within the limits of the policy. Insurers are bound to cover liability up to a certain amount, which is outlined in the policy. Past that amount, they are not obligated to cover. If an insurer receives an offer to settle a lawsuit that is within the limits of the policy and they refuse, if the matter goes to trial and the jury awards a monetary amount that exceeds the policy limits, the insurer can be made to pay beyond the policy limits and cover the increased amount.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:48 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

And which group do you think will sit on the jury of the criminal trial?


We're very good at weeding morons out, don't worry.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:56 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

And which group do you think will sit on the jury of the criminal trial?


We're very good at weeding morons out, don't worry.

I've been party to more than a few jury selections. I would liken it more to a carnie's idea of who is an easy mark than an exact science. Granted, some are blatant examples of those you don't want on your jury. In this case, I would think that a guy with "AB" tattooed on his forehead would not be good for the defense. And a black mother would probably not be the best choice for the prosecutors.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:18 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

And which group do you think will sit on the jury of the criminal trial?


We're very good at weeding morons out, don't worry.

I think I'll take this as my new signature. It's an incredibly revealing statement.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:17 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:http://jetmag.com/news/trayvon-martins-parents-win-wrongful-death-suit/

Apparently Trayvon Martin's parents just won a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Anyone been following this or know anything about it? I always thought that civil actions took place after criminal actions. No reason I thought that other than examples in the past. What will this mean to the criminal trial?



I didn't read the link, but did just watch a bit about it on the news. The homeowner's association's insurance company made them offer the settlement, which was accepted.

I still can't help but wonder if this was a bad precedent for those defending Zimmerman.


Not really. Again, ignorance of what's going on is working against you.

An insurance company can get royally screwed if they refuse to settle a case where an offer is made within the limits of the policy. Insurers are bound to cover liability up to a certain amount, which is outlined in the policy. Past that amount, they are not obligated to cover. If an insurer receives an offer to settle a lawsuit that is within the limits of the policy and they refuse, if the matter goes to trial and the jury awards a monetary amount that exceeds the policy limits, the insurer can be made to pay beyond the policy limits and cover the increased amount.

I won't argue that it's my ignorance that makes me question this, WTN, but isn't this a complete non sequitur?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:23 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

This is so contrary to prior posts, WTN. You adamantly stated that your company vociferously contested settlement cases regardless of guilt because of the impression cast upon future litigants that you would fight, rather than acquiesce, making their suits more subject to costly judicial determination as opposed to monetary convenience. What's up?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:31 am

I recall you asking for advice on the brake system of a toyota, if I remember correctly, WTN. I have worked with my hands and a knowledge of mechanical items my entire life. It would be very easy for me to say that most people are ignorant when it comes to mechanical contrivances, and apparently you are a poster child. It is just experience in a field. Don't go off cocky thinking your experience in a specific field makes everyone else idiots, WTN.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:26 am

Glimmerjim wrote:A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.
Because most people are stupid.

WTN10 wrote:If an insurer receives an offer to settle a lawsuit that is within the limits of the policy and they refuse, if the matter goes to trial and the jury awards a monetary amount that exceeds the policy limits, the insurer can be made to pay beyond the policy limits and cover the increased amount.
I did not know that. Very interesting. It probably explains a lot.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:06 am

Glimmerjim wrote:I recall you asking for advice on the brake system of a toyota, if I remember correctly, WTN. I have worked with my hands and a knowledge of mechanical items my entire life. It would be very easy for me to say that most people are ignorant when it comes to mechanical contrivances, and apparently you are a poster child. It is just experience in a field. Don't go off cocky thinking your experience in a specific field makes everyone else idiots, WTN.



But yet he didn't try to tell anybody why their opinions of brake work were incorrect, nor did he try and explain that your knowledge of something you consider yourself an expert in is incorrect. Matter of fact, he didn't try to imply how other people's non-expert opinions influence the working of those brakes.

I hope you can see the difference.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:59 am

Glimmerjim wrote:I recall you asking for advice on the brake system of a toyota, if I remember correctly, WTN. I have worked with my hands and a knowledge of mechanical items my entire life. It would be very easy for me to say that most people are ignorant when it comes to mechanical contrivances, and apparently you are a poster child. It is just experience in a field. Don't go off cocky thinking your experience in a specific field makes everyone else idiots, WTN.


This makes the least sense out of anything you've posted in this thread.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:59 am

Glimmerjim wrote:I've been party to more than a few jury selections. I would liken it more to a carnie's idea of who is an easy mark than an exact science. Granted, some are blatant examples of those you don't want on your jury. In this case, I would think that a guy with "AB" tattooed on his forehead would not be good for the defense. And a black mother would probably not be the best choice for the prosecutors.


The people you were involved with weren't very tech savvy then.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:00 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:They didn't win anything. Their lawsuit was settled out of court. Settlement is no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, and no jury has made any determination as to fault.

Oh buddy. That's an attorney's take. I thought I remembered you in the past condemning the practice of settling regardless of guilt. Further, if this settlement was accepted simply to avoid cost and/or testimony regarding Zimmerman, I think that his attorney made a poor decision. Let's deal with reality rather than the intricacies of the law. A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.


Not at all. Cases are evaluated all of the time irrespective of guilt. Attorneys are paid to evaluate cases to determine the risk of liability. They they perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether its worth it to settle it or try it.

Most people can think it's an admission of guilt, but most people are simplistic idiots that don't take the time to understand complex subjects.

And which group do you think will sit on the jury of the criminal trial?


We're very good at weeding morons out, don't worry.

I think I'll take this as my new signature. It's an incredibly revealing statement.


Your signature 100% forsakes the play on words that I made, probably due to the fact that you didn't recognize it yourself.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:01 am

Glimmerjim wrote:This is so contrary to prior posts, WTN. You adamantly stated that your company vociferously contested settlement cases regardless of guilt because of the impression cast upon future litigants that you would fight, rather than acquiesce, making their suits more subject to costly judicial determination as opposed to monetary convenience. What's up?


What my company does and what other companies do aren't necessarily the same thing. "One of these things is not like the other," that's what's up.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:48 am

I am wondering how the home owners association's insurance company has any responsibility in this. Is it because he was part of a neighborhood watch program?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:04 am

That's what they made it sound like, although it could just be a blanket liability policy for anything which may occur in the neighborhood.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:20 am

assateague wrote:That's what they made it sound like, although it could just be a blanket liability policy for anything which may occur in the neighborhood.

Also, there is no amount included in the settlement. It may be far less than everybody is assuming. How much would it cost to fight this case? How much might you lose if all goes badly? Even if on appeal, you get an insane verdict knocked down, that's another big expense. Unless I missed something, we just don't have enough info to have any opinion. They may have settled for $10 or $10M as far as we know. If it was closer to one or the other, I'm sure it would strongly impact our opinion.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buckmeister and 4 guests