A Tale of TWO Shootings

Trayvon Martin     (Top)                       George Zimmerman  (Bottom)

In a Florida community beset by a rash of burglaries, a black man is alerted by a neighbor that “kids are breaking into cars along his block.”

The 43 y/o man calls 911 and is told to “Stay put” and NOT to go outside armed as Police are on the way, but the former football player goes outside armed anyway and upon seeing three Hispanic teens who look like they may have just come from an opened car with its doors left open, decides to draw down on the youths and hold them for Police.

The black man outweighs the largest of the teens by around 50 lbs. It is late and there are few witnesses and the few witnesses aren’t close enough to the action to be completely sure of exactly what transpired.

There are conflicting accounts past this point, the armed man claims a 17 y/o youth rushes his gun and he fires two shots, killing him, the other two teens swear that the white man shot the unarmed Hispanic teen with his hands in the air.

Given Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, was this black man, under that law, justified in shooting this unarmed Hispanic teen?

If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

In New York State, which has no “Stand Your Ground” law, a white homeowner in a neighborhood beset by a rash of recent burglaries, virtually ALL of them committed by young black males, sees a young black male walking between homes along a secluded street. He gets out of his vehicle to observe. He is armed. He knows people along this street. He also calls 911 and is told NOT to follow.

He starts to head back to his car, but the teen is angered by the man following him and waylays him on the way to his car. The teen surprises the older homeowner and flattens his nose with his first blow, then straddles the fallen man and begins raining down blows MMA style upon the prone homeowner.

With the teen atop and astride him, this white homeowner is able to get his gun out and fire a single shot that kills this black teen. Is he justified in killing this unarmed black teen under New York State law, which DEMANDS that a victim exhaust ALL other possibilities before resorting to violence?

Again, If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

Chris Cervini (Top)     Roderick Scott (Bottom)

Oh...ONE more thing, I got the States and the races in these two incidents mixed up.

It was a hulking black (Roderick Scott) shot an unarmed white teen in Rochester, NY, where there is no “Stand Your Ground” law. New York State DOES NOT recognize a “Citizen’s Arrest” (that’s “unlawful imprisonment” and possibly “kidnapping,” depending upon how ambitious the Prosecutor is) AND its laws on Self Defense are very clear – the VICTIM MUST exhaust ALL other possibilities before resorting to self defense. The Prosecutor argues that Roderick Scott’s imposing size difference, and his ability to escape (flee) in the open street, should’ve made the use of a gun unnecessary if rushed by a single unarmed 17 y/o, which is what HE claims.

In effect, Roderick Scott engaged in “Stand Your Ground” in N.Y. State, a state WITHOUT a “Stand Your Ground” law.

In Florida, Jorges Zimmerman (a Hispanic male) followed a teen before Police dispatch told him, “We don’t need you to do that,” and was allegedly waylaid on his way back to his vehicle. His injuries and the lack of any to his assailant (Trayvon Martin) seem consistent with that scenario.

While pinned to the ground beneath a flailing teen, Zimmerman is able to get to his gun and fire a single shot that kills Trayvon Martin.

Does the change in locales or races, change your perception of the events at all?

Again, If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

I’ve been pondering these two cases and have become convinced that the ONLY way the Trayvon Martin movement can claim a consistent moral principle would be to demand that BOTH the Trayvon Martin AND the Chris Cervini killings be examined by the DoJ.

Anything less appears entirely racially motivated on their part.