Trayvon and tort law-what have we done?

The internet and the airwaves (I suspect—I refuse to watch broadcast “news”) are still full of opinions and disinformation about the Trayvon Martin killing and the  lack of an arrest.

No single report I have read had all the facts or accurate details.

I listened to the 911 calls—the dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to follow. The phrase “We don't need you to do that” does not constitute an instruction. (In fact, it is narcissistic in the extreme… and speaks to what the cops needed--not to what might protect EITHER of these two men. If the “suspicious” walker had indeed been, say, a gang member bent on shooting a rival gang member, the caller would have been at risk.)

Most of the responses have been visceral. Most have confused the racism in the situation with  the inescapable result of the NRA sponsored BAD law.

In fact, this law is a gross distortion of the common law rules regarding duties of people toward one another,  and was a disaster waiting to happen.

Most people do not realize that English Common law—which we ex-colonies adopted promptly upon revolting from the Crown and declaring independence—impose duties on all citizens, upon all adult humans. (We Americans like to think we are above all strictures on our free will—and this law follows that line of reasoning—but the duties are there and have always been.) Trayvon was an adult for tort law purposes--I did not check on Florida criminal law rules, but he was a juvenile for most purposes.

Here is what a former “peace officer” had to say: “In fact, I, along with other Florida chiefs of police, said ... in a letter to the Legislature in 2005 ... we opposed the passage of a law that not only enshrined the doctrine of “your home is your castle” but took this doctrine into the public square and added a new concept called “stand your ground.”  See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?_r=1

"Proponents also maintained that there should be no judicial review of such a shooting...

As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.”

This law never served any useful purpose. It is very easy for me to take as credible the claims I have seen that the NRA lobbied for it to gin up business.

And the reason there has been no arrest may well be tinged with racism—I grew up in the South and I know this theme well. But after some digging, I saw that the cops here have been I the same spot in numerous homicides—even gang shootings. The law grants IMMUNITY.

This is not good. It was DESIGNED to shut judges out. This is… insanity.

Yes, Zimmerman pursued the kid. Yes, it now seems the kid may have bloodied Zimmerman’s nose—whether purposely or not we don’t know. We know (it is in the 911 calls) that someone screamed for help. (Armed men usually don’t scream for help unless they have been disarmed---and we know this didn’t happen.) We know the kid was on his cell. We know Zimmerman pursued Trayvon. These are ALL that is fact.

We know –now that  it has blown up in their faces-- no one wants to say this law applies if there is pursuit, but the wording of the law is silent on that and there is NO case law interpreting it,  as it CHANGES all the literally 400 years of law that preceded it . Because of this, it is NOT clear what the law says about “pursuit.”

Alas, I cannot reconstruct any scenario in which an armed man lets an unarmed kid bloody his nose. I hate to say it, but I find it much easier to imagine Zimmerman knew this law said he could “stand his ground’ and he used the blood he himself had he spilled –and smeared it on his face before the cops arrived.Then again, some reports say there was damage to Zimmerman's head. Then three-- Zimmerman had two previous run ins with the law. Trayvon had none.

I may be paranoid, but the Zimmerman fast thinking manipulation notion fits the things we know about each of these two  far better then then a fight in which this teen used a  tea can to hit a man who has a weapon-- who then shoots him. (The kid in the pictures has an open happy face. The self appointed “good guy” has a dark past and a dark take on a kid on cell phone. And a gun.)

You decide. We will never know if Zimmerman was bruised, as he was not taken into custody. (He was "questioned and let go.") I predict he never will be; it’s too late. Whatever evidence existed is now gone. It’s the word of the possibly immune shooter against a dead kid and some 911 calls and a girlfriend’s testimony she was talking to him all the way from the store until just before the shots. Oh--and a grand jury that is not going to hang anyone out to dry

However you FEEL in your gut about your right to defend yourself—every right has a duty. This law removes all duties. Heaven help us.