Not Guilty of Murder, a few other cases.

Roderick Scott was found no guilty of murder in 2009.

Who is Roderick Scott? Why, I’m glad you asked!

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

“How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, ‘Please don’t kill me. I’m just a kid,’ and he just kept on shooting him.”

Scott says the last seven months have been difficult for him and his family. If he could go back to the events in the early morning hours of April 4, there are things he says he would do differently.

“If it meant a person not losing their life, absolutely,” he said. “Would I still have tried to stop what was going on? That I would have done. But if I knew ahead of time that I could do something to help somebody from losing their life, I don’t want anyone to lose their life.”

Of course, the “child” was black, and Scott was white. Oh wait, silly me – it was the other way around.

While sticking a gun in someone’s face and telling them you’re all waiting for the police is, um, provocative, the parrellels with the Zimmerman case are odvious. And in spite of the fact Zimmerman wasn’t white, people (even idiots in this country) have claimed that that verdict means it’s “open season” on black children.

Of course, that’s hysterical nonsense for a variety of reasons. In particular, because there simply was no real evidence that Zimmerman had lied about what had happened, and there was plenty of evidence (including eyewitnesses) that collaborated his story. That is why he was released so quickly originally, and that is why the jury found him not guilty. It was clearly a case of self-defense.

The problem is, this whole “white guy gets away with it” meme is not old. Calling someone who was clearly defending themselves a racist murder isn’t new. And lionising the person who was shot in self-defense is not new either.

The case most like George Zimmerman’s is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, the New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.)

A few weeks after the shooting, the New York Times called Perry “a prized symbol of hope.” In a telling bit of obtuseness, the Times said that “all New Yorkers have extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was killed.” I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous racist hoped for that.

…Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer’s story in testimony to the grand jury

Judging by the current idiot-storm, Perry was lucky that people listened to reason. It’s been months since it was revealed that Zimmerman is black enough to be considered so for most college applications, is in fact Hispanic, and has a long history of good relations with the black community, including standing up for a black man who was being persecuted by the police.

Let alone all the other facts, the evidence that Martin was himself racist, a thug, was seen on top of Zimmerman and all the rest.

The media storm over this one should have been over long before the trial started. Heck, the evidence was so weak, the trial should never have started in the first place.

So what gives? Well, here’s something else to consider.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

[…]

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times.  Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

So it seems that in chasing a case of fake racism, some people have so lost sight of the big picture that they are actually going to push for the removal of a law that benefits the very people they are claiming to protect!

But the stupidity goes even beyond that. Because had it been Martin who died that night, he would be claiming “Stand your Ground”.

But for a case where Stand Your Ground might have applied, let’s perform a mental exercise that changes the situation. Same Zimmerman trial, same evidence, and let’s assume from the start that the version of events Zimmerman gave at his trial is totally false. But then add this twist: pretend the struggle between the two men ended differently — Zimmerman was killed.

In our alternate universe, Martin is questioned by the cops that night. He tells them the truth: Zimmerman chased him through the apartment complex where he was staying. Martin, who had noticed this creepy fellow following earlier, heard the footsteps and turned around. Zimmerman reached for his gun.

Martin, fearing for his life, then made a split-second judgement. He wasn’t 100% sure Zimmerman was going to shoot him, but he didn’t want to find out. He could have attempt to flee, but that carried risks as well. So he lunged for the gun, the two ended up on the ground, with one hand each struggling for it. Unable to get the gun out of Zimmerman’s hand, Martin says he punched Zimmerman in the nose. He says he then put his free hand on Zimmerman’s forehead and bashed it into the concrete, hoping he’d let go of the gun. He didn’t, so Martin kept it up, fearing he was a dead man if he let go. Zimmerman suddenly went limp.

Martin was walking home that night, and Zimmerman was following. That is well established. It was in fact Martin’s decision to turn around and walk away from his home and towards Zimmerman which lead to the confrontation (among other things of course).

So what to make of all this?

It’s pretty clear that America does have a problem with racism. There are people who are more than happy to tar someone as “racist” without any evidence whatsoever, and keep doing so even after the evidence is more than clear.

It’s also clear that these people will not stop because you are black, or voted for Obama (Zimmerman is a Democrat) or anything else. It’s not about truth, it’s about getting the mob whipped up, and about getting political support for what you want.

It’s also clear that the media are not interested in addressing this problem. Story after story on the Zimmerman trial has just ignored basic facts, because those facts do not agree with the narrative. But the narrative is a lie.

Finally, it’s clear that the justice system has some big issues. This case should never had made it to court, and should have been dismissed well before the jury was given instructions. There were some diabolically bad calls made by the trial judge. That’s bad enough, but now, after all the evidence had been heard, the Justice department has opened a tip-line on Zimmerman. Imagine that, completely exonerated by the evidence (in spite of the state doing it’s best to illegally hide said evidence), not a single credible witness who can support the state’s case (in spite of massive publicity), then after the jury finds you not guilty the federal US government simply opens a new case with a fresh blaze of publicity solely to persecute you.

(And then they wonder why people don’t get involved when they see someone being beaten up. )

So finally, for all those people out there saying that America is screwed up, I agree with you.  The very fact you’re still claiming it is, is ironically proof positive that your claim is true. You disgust me, you really do. You are freely participating in what is unquestionably the modern-day version of the good old fashioned lynch mob.

I hope you’re proud of yourselves.