I think we can all admit that racism does exist right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. But the practitioners of said racism are not the ones the race baiters would have you believe. They are, instead, no one but the race-baiters themselves and those who choose to follow them. And, they are rather selective in their application of the rather toxic accusation. And to find an example of something that makes that point all the more obvious, we can go back to 2009, to a night when a man, Mr. Roderick Scott, was asleep on his couch when he woke to hearing some noise outside of his home. He grabbed his gun, told his girlfriend to call 911, and then proceeded outside. Once there, he confronted three youths who were attempting to break into a neighbor’s vehicle.
Scott’s only intent upon arriving at the scene was to merely detain the three. He specifically stated he was not there to shoot anyone, but to make sure they staid put until the police arrived. As he approached the three, he could see that the dome light of the vehicle was on and at least one person was inside the vehicle, rummaging around. From that point on, things started to deteriorate. "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, but there were still two who were looking through things on the inside of the vehicle.
And it was at this point, Scott said that he took the "shooter’s stance" because he said he did not know what he, exactly, was up against and had no idea 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 familiar? Like maybe the Zimmerman/Martin situation? While there are similarities in the events that took place, there are also some very obvious differences.
One of those differences is the fact that the shooter, Mr. Scott, was immediately arrested and charged with murder. A citizen’s grand jury would later recommend the lighter charge of manslaughter, which was what the prosecution decided to go for in trying Mr. Scott. There was a trial, which resulted in Mr. Scott being acquitted of all charges that were placed against him. Oh, and there is one other rather important difference worth mentioning here. And that is, that Mr. Roderick Scott, is black. And the person that he shot, Chris Cervini, was white and was only 16-years-old. That means that Scott shot a child who was, in fact, unarmed.
In fact, as it turns out, Cervini was actually an honor student. Following the verdict of not guilty, Cervini’s father, Jim 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 eerily familiar to what Tracy Martin has said about his son, Travyon, who, most definitely, was not an honor student. But still, we're supposed to believe that he too, was a gentle child, simply on his way home after "not stealing" a packet of skittles.
But the differences don’t stop there. Because, you see, before Zimmerman ever touched his gun, Martin had already sucker-punched him, most likely breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground. Then, Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and allegedly began pounding his head into the concrete slab. In the case of Roderick Scott and Chris Cervini, Cervini never even come in contact with Scott and yet Scott opened fire, essentially gunning him down. There are a lot of people who believe that Zimmerman was at fault for what happened the night Martin died. They say that he didn’t have to follow Martin. He should have simply stayed in his vehicle, etc.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the same could be said about Mr. Scott. I mean, 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 Scott remained inside his apartment, or simply followed the three individuals at a safe distance noting where they went, he could have been very helpful to the police. Moreover, he also could have taken a video of the individuals from his phone to help the police track down the suspects later. But he did none of those things. And yet, were there claims that he was the one at fault for what happened that night?
Because of instead acting in a more precautionary fashion, Scott made the decision to use deadly force against Chris Cervini and he, Scott, didn’t even have a scratch on him. There was no broken nose. There were no cuts and/or bruises on the back of his head. Nothing. Because Cervini never got close enough to lay a hand on Scott before he was shot down in what was, essentially, cold blood. Most likely, Scott could have very easily subdued the 16 year old white kid without ever having to resort to deadly force, but he chose not to do so, because he felt threatened by someone who he had no way of knowing whether or not they too had a weapon. So he pulled the trigger.
I’m sure everyone remembers hearing Barry "Almighty" when he recently stated that had Trayvon Martin been white, the outcome might have been different. Well we have that scenario and we can very plainly see that the outcome was NO different. ‘No' different at all. I’d say that that kinda shoots down that little theory of Barry’s, wouldn’t you say? In fact, comparing the two situations, it appears that Zimmerman was much more careful than Scott, and far more justified in choosing to use his weapon. This situation proves that race-baiters like Barry, Holder, and Sharpton are just that, race-baiters speaking lies that are far too often received as truth with no one willing to take the time to look past the lies.
Roderick Scott shot not once but twice and killed a child, 16-year-old Christopher Cervini, and in, what many could argue was cold blood. And he was still fully acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers. And yet, the white community did not come so completely unhinged. There were to cries from within the white community to announce a 100-city tour of "Justice for Chris" rallies. And white people did not go on rampages, 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. Because race was no more a factor in this incident than it was in what occurred that between Zimmerman and Martin. At least on the part of Zimmerman.
Roderick Scott is a black man who appears to have gone above and beyond what the situation called for. He could have done things differently, but he didn't. Because of his actions, along with the actions of Chris Cervini, the latter died that not for no other reason that because he made a bad decision. It’s too bad that Cervini made that terrible decision to be with his friends 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 don’t believe for a moment that Roderick Scott actually "profiled" the three intruders, who, as it happens, were all white. He simply heard a noise and went out to investigate. Unfortunately, the situation turned south rather quickly and in Scott’s mind, it forced him to defend himself and to the point where he felt he was left with no real choice. I don’t 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 started bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete. 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 about to lose his own life that night? Neither the Scott nor 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. And sadly, 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, and then attacked, George Zimmerman. Each case has its problems. Each case resulted in murder charges being filed. And each case involved blacks and whites, or in one case, a White-Hispanic. And each case resulted in acquittals. But only one case is being used to stoke the fires of racial discontent. The media did not mention Roderick Scott at anytime during the entire Zimmerman trial. They did their best to paint Zimmerman as a racist, as it turns out, to push for more gun control.
If Zimmerman can be accused of being a racist, then why can’t it also be argued that Roderick Scott is also a racist? Are we to believe that just because Scott is black he's incapable of being a racist? Zimmerman had far more reason to shoot than Scott did, and yet in both cases, juries ruled that the shootings were, in fact, justified. I think both of these cases make it all the more apparent that if this world did not have professional racists, people would likely 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.
