In 2009, Roderick Scott was asleep on his couch when he heard noises outside. He grabbed his gun, told his girlfriend to call 911, then went outside. Once there, Roderick Scott confronted three youths who were attempting to break into a neighbor's vehicle.
His desire was to merely detain the three. He specifically stated it was not his intent to shoot anyone. As he approached the three, he could see that the dome light of the vehicle was on and at least one person was inside rummaging around.
From that point, things start to ramp up. "At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. 'I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,' Scott said." As he approached one individual, that individual began walking away. There were two still left looking through things on the inside of the vehicle.
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
At this point, Roderick Scott said he took the "shooter's stance" because he said he did not know what he was up against and did not know if any of the individuals were armed.
"He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him."
Sounds a lot like the Zimmerman/Martin situation, doesn't it? There are some differences. The shooter - Roderick Scott - was immediately arrested and charged with murder. A citizen's grand jury recommended the lighter charge of manslaughter, which was what the prosecution went with for Scott.
There was a trial and Scott was acquitted of all charges.
Roderick Scott is black. The person he shot - Chris Cervini - was white and was only 16-years-old. That means that Scott shot a child who was unarmed.
In fact, as it turns out, Cervini was an honor student.
Cervini's father Jim, following the verdict of not guilty said: "The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact...My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”
Sounds strangely familiar to what Tracy Martin has said about his son, Travyon. There are some major differences here though. Trayvon had already sucker-punched Zimmerman, most likely breaking his nose and knocking him down. Then, Martin got on top of Zimmerman and allegedly began pounding his head into the concrete slab.
In the case of Roderick Scott and Chris Cervini, Cervini had not even come in contact with Scott yet when Scott opened fire, gunning him down.
There are a lot of people who believe that Zimmerman was at fault for what happened. He didn't have to follow Martin. He should have stayed in his vehicle, etc. The same could be said about Scott. Did he have to physically go outside and confront the three intruders? Did he have to take out his gun, assume the "shooter's stance" and then shoot Cervini two times as he ran toward Scott?
Had Roderick Scott remained inside his apartment, or simply followed the three individuals at a safe distance noting where they went, he could have been helpful to the police. Moreover, he also could have taken a video of the individuals from his phone (Zimmerman could have done the same) to help the police track down the suspects later.
Instead, Scott used deadly force against Chris Cervini and he - Scott - didn't even have a scratch on him. No broken nose. No cuts and bruises on the back of his head. Nothing. Cervini never got close enough to lay a hand on Scott before he was shot down in cold blood.
Mr. Obama very recently stated that had Trayvon Martin been white, the outcome might have been different. We have that scenario and we note that the outcome was NOT different. In fact, comparing the two situations, it appears that Zimmerman was much more careful than Scott.
This situation proves that race-baiters like Obama, Holder, and Sharpton are just that: race-baiters speaking lies that are received as truth.
Roderick Scott shot (twice) and killed a child, 16-year-old Christopher Cervini, in cold blood. He was fully acquitted of all charges.
The white community did not come unglued. No one stood up from within the white community to announce a 100-city tour of "Justice for Chris" rallies. White people did not go on a rampage, attacking blacks and other minorities that had nothing to do with this senseless killing. Whether we agreed with the verdict or not, we were content to allow the system to work.
Roderick Scott is a black man who appears to have gone above and beyond. He could have done things differently, but did not. Because of his actions, along with the actions of Chris Cervini, the latter died. It's too bad that Cervini made that terrible decision to be with his buds that night and it's too bad they chose to break into a vehicle across from Roderick Scott's apartment.
It's too bad that Scott went outside and helped to create a situation where he wound up deliberately shooting a 16-year-old "child." It's also too bad that the police hadn't arrived sooner.
I do not believe for a moment that Roderick Scott "profiled" the three intruders, who were all white. He heard a noise and went out to investigate. Unfortunately, the situation turned bad rather quickly and in Scott's mind, it forced him to defend himself.
I do not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin either. He saw something, so he said something by calling 911. He followed Martin to see where he was going. At one point, Martin ran past Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone to 911, as Zimmerman asked them to send officers quickly. He even said "please."
After Martin disappeared, he came back and confronted Zimmerman. He sucker-punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him down. He jumped on him and went MMA on Zimmerman's head.
If Scott felt he was being threatened and was forced to shoot, how much more did Zimmerman believe he was put in the position of wondering whether he was going to lose his own life that night?
Neither the Roderick Scott nor the George Zimmerman case is about race, except to race-baiters everywhere. It's about poor decisions and justice. Chris Cervini - an honor student - should not have been doing what he was doing that night. It ultimately cost him his life.
Trayvon Martin - a thug - should have kept going to Brandy Green's townhouse where he was staying. Instead, he circled back and confronted, then attacked George Zimmerman. Each case has its problems. Each case resulted in murder charges being filed. Each case involved blacks and whites (or Hipanics, as Zimmerman saw himself). Each case involved acquittals.
Only one case is being used to stoke the fires of racial discontent. The media did not mention Roderick Scott during the Zimmerman trial. In fact, they did what they could to obfuscate actual facts. They wanted to paint Zimmerman as a racist, as it turns out, to push more gun control.
If Zimmerman is a racist, then so is Roderick Scott. Zimmerman had more reason to shoot than Scott did, but in both cases, juries ruled that the shootings were justified.
If this world did not have professional racists, people would get along a whole lot better. Proof of that is the very low turn outs for the "Justice for Trayvon" rallies held by racist-in-chief, Al Sharpton.
This world would actually be a far better place if people did not constantly stoke the fires of racial hatred. Sometimes, it is simply self-defense.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.