The opposite of Zimmerman-Martin...and no conviction...

[billc]

For those out protesting the Zimmerman verdict and claiming that if Martin had been white the process, and the outcome would have been completely different...well, here is the exact opposite case, plain to see, and the outcome was the same...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_post-racial_presidents_profiling.html

The man's name is Roderick Scott, and he shot teen Christopher Cervini in 2009 in Greece, New York. As with Zimmerman, Scott was aware there had been crimes in his neighborhood; unlike Zimmerman, Scott wasn't a neighborhood-watch volunteer. But after observing some individuals preparing to break in to a neighbor's vehicle on an April 4 night, Scott grabbed his handgun and walked outside "to stop or detain the criminals," as he put it. He then saw someone rummaging around inside the vehicle and saw two suspects altogether, at which point he drew his weapon, chambered a round, took a shooting stance and ordered the teens to freeze, prompting one them to run off. But the other, Chris Cervini, charged toward him yelling that he was going to get him, claims Scott. Having already warned the criminals he was armed, Scott testifiedthat he then shot the teen so he would not "kill me or hurt me."

Other similarities between the two cases are that Scott was also faced with a manslaughter charged and was judged by a mostly white jury. But then there are some more differences. The national media didn't pick up his story and make it a cause célèbre. We didn't see news outlets plaster articles with a picture of a smiling, cherubic, pubescent Chris Cervini or NBC doctor a tape to provoke racial unrest and make Scott appear a bigot. We didn't see the DOJ send operatives to NY to foment demonstrations, and Eric Holder never contemplated civil-rights charges against Scott. And no one said "It's now legal to shoot white kids in America."

Oh, yeah, and the best information has it that Cervini was not armed with a bag of Skittles.

It is also inconceivable that muscular martial-arts competitor Scott couldn't have taken the teen down in mere seconds with his bare hands. But I suspect he was a no-nonsense type, that his attitude was, "If those punks make one wrong move, I'm gonna' smoke 'em." But this is conjecture. Scott is a human being, deserves fair treatment, and I accept that reasonable doubt existed in his case. From a practical standpoint, however, that wasn't the main reason why - unlike Zimmerman - his case proceeded without fanfare. It's not the main reason he is not now a marked man.

Some other coverage of this case...

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

 

[granfire]

Oh well, once you read past the quoted part, it becomes painfully clear that the tinfoil hat is slipping....

Sucks, because the beginning was promising.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, the issue of whether this was a justifiable use of deadly force by a civilian comes to the forefront. According to the law, this was justified.

 

[arnisador]

It's about the statistics, dude.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's about the statistics, dude.

What do the statistics tell us about the context of this incident?

 

[MJS]

Again, the issue of whether this was a justifiable use of deadly force by a civilian comes to the forefront. According to the law, this was justified.

Agreed. So, this begs the question of how much difference was there between this case and the GZ/TM case, other than the race? IMHO, from what I've seen, not much is different, other than a bunch of idiots being provoked into rioting by the media and idiots like Sharpton and Jackson, and of course, the picking and choosing of the DOJ.