Liberal hypocrisy: George Zimmerman vs Roderick Scott
Trayvon Martin broke Geroge Zimmerman’s nose, gave him two black eyes, and repeatedly smashed his head against the concrete. Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman was put on trial for murder. During the trial, the medical evidence and witnesses called by the prosecution showed that Martin had violently assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had killed Martin in self defense. The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Liberals across the country responded with huge amounts of criticism and protest. Martin was black, and Zimmerman is a “white hispanic,” and to the Zimmerman haters, the killing and verdict must have been racist.
Roderick Scott is a black man in New York who, in 2009, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. A jury found Scott to be not guilty of murder because Scott had killed the teen in self defense. Liberals have been silent on this.
Both killers were found not guilty by a jury because the killing was done in self defense. Yet liberals have gotten hugely emotional and hysterical over one killing, while having zero reaction to the other. Why is that?
Here’s my take on this. In order to be objective regarding the issues of race and crime, you have to ask yourself this: if the races of the killer and killee had been reversed, would your opinion of the verdict still be the same? For me, the answer to that question is “yes.” As a strong advocate of self defense, I agree with both verdicts. But for the Zimmerman haters, the answer to that question is clearly “no.” Their hatred of Zimmerman has everything to do with the races of the people involved, which is why they have been silent regarding the Scott verdict.