TRAYVON MARTIN AND DANIEL ADKINS, WHAT A DIFFERENCE SKIN COLOR MAKES...

In a case that is being compared, by some, to the Trayvon Martin shooting, a BLACK man who shot and killed an unarmed man outside an Arizona restaurant is claiming self-defense. The incident occurred on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, around 7:30 p.m., when 29-year-old Daniel Adkins, who appears to be a WHITE male Hispanic, was killed outside a Laveen, Arizona, Taco Bell at 7233 South 51st Avenue, near Baseline Road, said Phoenix police. Authorities said the shooter, a 22-year-old BLACK man, was pulling out of the Taco Bell drive thru when he crossed paths with Adkins, who was walking his dog on the sidewalk. One report indicates Adkins struck the driver's vehicle with a bat or a metal pole after which he and the driver exchanged words. It's unclear if investigators found a weapon at the scene. However, an independent eyewitness said Adkins swung his fist in the direction of the driver several times, according to various local news sources. Like Florida, Arizona has a "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows a "victim" to use deadly force when faced with a life or death confrontation. Thus far, the shooter has not been arrested or charged with a crime. Adkins' family members are calling for justice. And rightfully so!! Hey Al, come on down!!

So taking the above scenario into account, can we say that we might have a bit of a problem here in that it would at least appear that Mr. Zimmerman is, in fact, the potential victim of a rather nasty racial double standard. Using the above incident as our example, it would seem that it's ok for a BLACK to shoot a WHITE or Hispanic and claim self-defense but God help anyone, except another BLACK of course, who shoots a BLACK and attempts to claim the same justification. So, do we think that Mr. Zimmerman is being railroaded here? Is this yet another victory for the likes of Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton? And is it actually possible that Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with a homicide? Look, I suppose anything is possible. But I just can't help but wonder if he is being charged because of evidence found or if there might be another, obviously distasteful, reason. I think it quite safe to say that even if there is not grounds for the charge, I think most of us, Mr. Zimmerman included, knew that the charge was always going to happen. Especially once a "special prosecutor" was appointed, and after a state-controlled media inspired lynch mob mentality was set into motion. We're now at the point where we're to assume Mr. Zimmerman is guilty unless proven innocent.

Not being up to speed on what constitutes the various available charges when it comes to the killing of another person, was the charge of second degree murder an appropriate one? If I understand things correctly it would seem that the only charge that the evidence really seems to support is a charge of manslaughter. So under those circumstances I suppose that the more severe charge fits quite well into the media "case" against Zimmerman. Hopefully it's safe for us to assume that it's the actual evidence that the prosecutor possesses and not just media speculation, that is the cause for the more serious charge. So maybe I shouldn't even speculate here, maybe the second degree murder charge is appropriate. I'm just a little leery here because assuming Zimmerman committed any kind of homicide, the most likely situation here, barring facts that we don't know but that the prosecutor should, it would appear that George Zimmerman did not intend to kill Trayvon Martin, but was "lashing out" in what he thought was "self-defense". It would seem to me that it would be difficult to get an intentional murder conviction, i.e., second degree murder, in a case involving an act of "incomplete self-defense". But hey, I'm just a novice here.

Is it reasonable for us to assume, then, that because of all the attention this incident has since received, that the prosecutor in this case specifically may have now set out, and for purely political reasons, to build the strongest case possible against Mr. Zimmerman? Again, based on my rather limited knowledge, a first degree murder charge I don't think was ever a serious consideration, and therefore I'm not about to give the prosecutor any amount of credit for choosing not to bring that charge. Personally I would have tended to give the prosecutor at least some level of "credit" if she would have had the courage to bring a charge of manslaughter, since it's that charge that would seem, to the untrained eye, to be the most appropriate. I would have given her the greatest amount credit had she chose to bring no charges at all. Instead she chose to do what is politically expedient, to use Mr. Zimmerman as the sacrificial lamb, so to speak, given the pressure on the "authorities" to charge Mr. Zimmerman with the maximum possible charge. The moment she got the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman had already been presumed to be guilty until able to prove himself to be innocent. That was the approach she has taken, perceiving her "job" as being to now build a case against Zimmerman.

Meanwhile, as you can well imagine, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, upon hearing the news of Mr. Zimmerman's arrest, was beside himself with joy, telling an Albany Law School lecture hall on Wednesday afternoon the arrest of George Zimmerman is a "great moment for our country" even though it is long over due. I guess I'm just not seeing why it was such a great moment. Jealous went on to say that, "People of Sanford (Florida) have been tortured." Jealous added, "Our country has been torn apart just waiting for the man to simply be arrested." And on that point, apparently you'll find no disagreement from some bimbo by the name of Ms. Alice Green who is, I'm told, the founder of something called the Center for Law and Justice. Ms. Alice Green founded this odd little group back in 1985 and according to its website is claims that tor the past 25 years, the Center has been serving the low-income and disadvantaged communities of New York through education and advocacy. Anyway, she goes on to make the claim, "It should have happened a long time ago." Going on to say, "There was certainly always probable cause to arrest him and people are outraged because they understand that."

"If it takes this long to get an arrest, something is wrong with the entire department," opined Albany Law School Professor Anthony Paul Farley. Old Farley seems to think the real crime was the one committed by Sanford Police. This dim bulb actually believes the case was bungled so badly from the outset that detectives also should be arrested. "One fears for any black person in Sanford, Florida," he says. "One fears for anybody who knows a black person in Sanford, Florida. One fears for anyone in Sanford, Florida with a police department like that." Also problematic, at least according to good old Mr. Jealous, is the Florida law that allows residents to carry concealed handguns so as to not have to worry about backing down from a confrontation. "We parted ways with Wild West justice a long time ago in this country," Jealous says, "Unfortunately, the Stand Your Ground Law is threatening to bring it back. It has brought it back in some places." Does it strike anyone but me that Mr. Jealous' analogy of "Wild West justice" is more than a little hypocritical, to say the least? I mean there was Sharpton, Jackson and Mr. Jealous himself, along with those thugs from the New Black Panthers, out there leading what was essentially nothing more than a lynch mob and advocating vigilante justice. Shades of the old west?

Lastly the general consensus, at least of this particular law school seems to be that the Trayvon Martin Case had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. They believe that what it had everything to do with was racial profiling. According to this racist jerk, Benjamin Jealous, if there is a silver lining here, he says it might be that the country is having its first honest conversation about racial profiling and he's hopeful that will lead to something beneficial. Beneficial from whose perspective, exactly? Which brings me back to the case of Daniel Adkins. I can only assume that the esteemed Mr. Jealous has no problem whatsoever with "Wild West" justice when it involves a BLACK man shooting and unarmed WHITE man. And maybe I missed it, but I don't seem to recall seeing Sharpton, Jealous or Jackson rushing off to Laveen, Arizona. Of course, should this BLACK shooter ever be brought up on the same charges as we're now seeing Mr. Zimmerman being brought up on, I'm sure we'd see these very same "Three Stooges" rushing to his defense. Because that's how racist scumbags like these guys operate. The only time they seem to be outraged is when it's a BLACK that's on the receiving end of bullet fired from a gun held by a WHITE. Otherwise you don't hear a peep from them.

So what's the moral from all this?  What can we walk away with having learned?  Well, apparently that it's ok for Blacks to shoot Whites.  Hell, it's even ok for Blacks to shoot Blacks.  Where the problems seem to arise is whenever Whites shoot Blacks.  That seems to be what is the most unforgivable sin of all.  And always cause for a good riot.