Replies

So, now, there are two cases that compare - both from New York.

2009: Roderick Scott found not guilty when he armed himself and confronted teens breaking into cars. He shoots and kills a 16-year-old.

2010: John White found guilty but released early after he'd armed himself and walked out of his house to confront a group of teens, and then shot and killed a 17-year-old.

White had walked out of his house to confront of a group of teens. When John White was found guilty, Al Sharpton organized protests in support of him.

Zimmerman, armed, exited his vehicle. When George Zimmerman was found not guilty, Sharpton organized protests against him.

There are some differences: The first two cases were in New York, where the law requires you to retreat to a safe place (right?) In the John White case, the group was targeting his family and came to his house. In the Roderick Scott case, the teens were (allegedly?) breaking into cars. According to Zimmerman's own account, Martin was just walking down the street (at first). (There are no eyewitnesses to what happened between GZ exiting the vehicle and TM being on top of GZ, right?) But we do know that GZ didn't shoot until TM was literally on top of him.

But, there's another main difference: Both Scott and White walked out of their own homes and brandished guns at a group of teens. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, and it doesn't sound like he brandished his gun at T. Martin.

It doesn't matter what anyone out there reading might think about the GZ trial and its outcome. (I personally am not a fan of GZ.) You'd have to admit that Sharpton and his minions of all races, along with the media, are playing both sides, just to pit people against each other. These protests, the uproar - it's about money and politics, and nothing else.