Original (overly long) post title: “If Only There Were a Case Where a White Teen Was Shot By a Black Man Who Claimed Self-Defense, We Could Evaluate Obama’s Comments That It Would Have Been Different . . . What’s That? There Is?”
And the black guy was acquitted? The hell you say!
So, as we all know, the Racial Healer in Chief included in his “historic remarks” the other day a suggestion that the Zimmerman case came out the way it did because the decedent was black:
So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or — and that context is being denied. And — and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Well, this past week, Instapundit linked to a story about a 2009 self-defense case where the shooter was black and the victim was white: the case of Roderick Scott. While no case can be similar to the Zimmerman case “top to bottom,” this case provides a compelling rejoinder to Obama’s grievance-filled suggestion that the Zimmerman acquittal was racially based.
Above: Roderick Scott, the “black George Zimmerman”
The article linked by Instapundit lacks any specific reference to the defendant’s race, but the Roderick Scott case is thoroughly analyzed at a blog called Decoded Science:
During the early morning hours of April 4, 2009, 42-year-old Roderick Scott was asleep on the couch of his Greece, New York home, just outside of Rochester. He was awakened by some noise outside.
Scott looked out the window and saw three teens attempting to break into his car. He grabbed his gun, for which he had a legal permit, put it in his waistband and told his girlfriend to call 911 before going outside.
When Scott went out, he confronted the youths, who were going through a neighbor’s car. According to Scott, he told them to stop and wait for the police. The incident ended after Scott fired two shots at Christopher Cervini, killing him.
According to 15-year-old James Cervini, one of the three, and Christopher’s cousin, Scott shot Christopher after the teen yelled, “Please don’t shoot me, I’m just a kid.” Scott, who testified in his own defense, said he only fired after Christopher came running at him in a threatening manner.
Above: Christopher Cervini, the “white Trayvon Martin”
As I see it, there were two key differences: 1) the white kid was clearly involved in illegal activity before he was shot, and 2) the white kid was not beating the shooter, but just rushing him.
Obama suggests that people in Roderick Scott’s position would be convicted in today’s AmeriKKKa if they shot a white kid.
Scott was acquitted. So much for your snarky little insinuation, Mr. Obama.
One other comment Obama made deserves a response:
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?
And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
The answer to that is not ambiguous. The answer is clear: no. Trayvon Martin would have been justified in shooting George Zimmerman only if he reasonably and genuinely feared for his life.
Let me repeat this for the left, because this is the point that you all seem to miss, from Obama to the New Yorker‘s Amy “What was Trayvon supposed to do” Davidson to Scott Eric Kaufman:
THERE IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT TRAYVON MARTIN WAS BEATING GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.
Since you probably missed that, let me repeat it:
THERE IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT TRAYVON MARTIN WAS BEATING GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.
That means, Mr. Obama, that your making Martin out to be a pathetic and sad little innocent kid who could have been your son — or you, 35 years ago — is outrageous. Whom did you beat unmercifully as a teenager, Mr. Obama?
It means, Amy Davidson of the new Yorker, that when you write an article asking: What Should Trayvon Martin have done? suggesting that Martin’s biggest sin was that he “fought back,” that is outrageous. Here’s what he should have done: not beat the crap out of George Zimmerman. Simple!
It means, Scott Eric Kaufman, that when you write a blog post that illogically drones on and on about the race of people George Zimmerman called 911 about, your focus on that issue while ignoring the evidence that Martin beat Zimmerman badly is outrageous.
Why? Because:
THERE IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT TRAYVON MARTIN WAS BEATING GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.
QUICK DETOUR FROM THE MAIN POINT JUST BEFORE THE END: Now, as regards SEK, I would like to say a couple of other things. He has taken actions on my behalf in the past, including standing up for me in a situation where I was being called a liar, and writing this post backing me up on the Brett Kimberlin saga. That latter post, especially, was courageous and relatively rare among the left. I continue to fundamentally think he is a good guy.
Second, I think my reader DRJ had an excellent point: that many of the supposed 911 calls made by Zimmerman may not have been 911 calls. Let me quote her comment in its entirety:
I think it could be unfair to criticize Zimmerman for calling 911 over potholes and animals. The Sanford FL Emergency Services website states:
The Emergency Communications Center also provides after-hours dispatch services for the Animal Services Division and other county operational departments and divisions.
We don’t know if Zimmerman called 911 or if he called another number and was routed or directed to 911 because his call was after hours. Look at the log of Zimmerman’s calls linked by SEK. Most of the calls SEK found objectionable occurred in the evening after the Animal Control and Maintenance departments were closed.
Excellent point. I may have done Zimmerman an injustice by agreeing that he had abused the 911 system.
BACK TO THE MAIN POINT: This is rather obvious, but Barack Obama is not post-racial. He continually finds racial grievances to emphasize in cases that don’t call for them (see: Henry Louis Gates, Trayvon Martin). His latest remarks are just the latest example of his opening his yap in an inappropriate way to stoke racial tensions.
UPDATE: Thanks to bobbingdale for the idea of adding the photo of Cervini.
