Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?

roderickscott01His name is Roderick Scott.  He’s a 42-year-old black man with the build of a football player.  He also holds a New York State Pistol Permit, or he did until recently.  In fact, until April of this year, he kept a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol readily to hand.  Whether that pistol has been returned to him by now, and whether he still holds his permit (or will again) is anybody’s guess.  I don’t know Mr. Scott and have never spoken to him.

Roderick Scott is, to his misfortune, a resident of Greece, New York — a suburb of the crime-ridden, crumbling city of Rochester, NY.  I say this is to Roderick Scott’s misfortune because, were he a resident of a state that leans less perilously to the left, he might not just have endured several months of legal torture, followed by the longest 19 and a half hours of his life.

Back in April, after an argument with his common-law wife, Scott was asleep on the couch in his home.  At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car.  Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what in hell was going on.


He caught one Christopher Cervini, then 17, in the driveway across the street.  With Cervini were his cousin, James, and their friend Brian Hopkins.  They were busily rifling through the neighbor’s car when Roderick Scott confronted them.  These teenagers, you see, are (in Cervini’s case, he was) petty criminals.  They were working their way through all the cars in the neighborhood in order to find things to steal.

The teens had also been drinking earlier in the evening.  A toxicologist’s report confirmed that Christopher Cervini was legally drunk at the time of his death. (All three teenagers had, as at least one of them admitted, been drinking stolen gin before the incident.)  This fine, upstanding young man, who (we were repeatedly informed during the trial) had no criminal record, also had marijuana and amphetamines in his system. The marijuana traces were consistent with a history of such use, while Cervini had been perscribed no drugs that would have accounted for the positive amphetamine results.

Under oath, James Cervini claimed that he and Christopher were standing still with their hands up when Christopher was shot — an assertion James never made prior to the trial.  If it seems strange to you that he never brought this up before taking the stand, you aren’t alone in your incredulity. This seems to me an obvious lie — last-minute perjury intended to damn Roderick Scott by false witness.

Now, here’s something relevant, something you need to know about Christopher Cervini’s cousin James. James, at 15, has been on probation not once, but twice, for assisting in a burglary and for holding a knife to the throat of a ten-year-old boy (reportedly over a dispute involving marijuana).  Roderick Scott’s defense attorney, a brilliant lawyer named John Parrinello (to whom Scott owes his freedom), argued during the trial that it was very likely Christopher rushed Roderick Scott in an attempt to help his cousin James escape.  Both “kids” knew that James would be in trouble were he caught committing more petty theft.

Roderick Scott took the stand in his own defense, explaining that he “looked outside the front door to see what was going on,” identifying “three individuals walking out of [his] driveway.”   He “intended to go out and stop the criminal act or detain them.”  He then chambered a round in his weapon.  “I had no idea what was going on,” he said, “so I had to protect myself.”  He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenario.  When outnumbered, even if those facing you are unarmed, you are generally justified to use a force multiplier — a weapon — to defend yourself.

“I wanted to stop them before they could get away,” he admitted. “We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.”  When Scott told the three teenagers that he had called the police, Christopher Cervini broke from the group and ran at him, shouting either, “I’ll get you” to Scott or “I’ll get him” to his fellow thieves.  Scott fired two shots in response.

John Parrinello shrewdly released Scott’s 911 call following the shooting.  On it, Roderick Scott and his girlfriend can be heard; Scott’s statements to the operator come without hesitation.  His account of the incident is consistent with his testimony, and his tone and demeanor are anything  but that of a trigger-happy vigilante.

Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Julie Finnochio, by contrast, ruthlessly and relentlessly prosecuted Scottt.  She got the last word during closing arguments, too, and tried to tell the jury that, regardless of the circumstances, the shooting was not justified. After the jury came back with their verdict of not guilty, she couldn’t resist the chance to twist the knife in Scott’s guts — or to further the propaganda that has been spewing from her office from the outset.  “I just hope it’s not a message to this community,” she sniffed, “that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.”

This is intellectually dishonest. The woman is still trying to paint Scott, now a free and vindicated man, as a cold-blooded murderer.  These “kids” — these teenaged, drunken, drug-addled, sometimes knife-toting petty criminals — were not shot at for breaking into a car, but for trying to assault Roderick Scott when he caught them committing theft.

Cervini’s family, for their part, had the gall to shriek that Christopher was “brutally murdered” — that poor, innocent Christopher Cervini was essentially on trial alongside Roderick Scott.  In the Cervinis’ eyes, Scott “was the judge, jury, and executioner.”  Never you mind that Scott himself just sat before a jury and a judge whose job it was to pass sentence over him. In the twisted, unreal world of those who make excuses for drug-abusing, potentially violent thieves, it is a law-abiding citizen defending himself with a legal weapon who must prove his innocence after the fact.

Even the dead boy shared his family’s sense of entitlement — their indignant cries of “murder” after their boy died a victim of his own criminal stupidity.  By Roderick Scott’s own testimony, we know that, as Christopher Cervini bled out into a gutter on that suburban street, he uttered the words, “I’m just a kid.”  Those words will probably haunt Roderick Scott.  They should bother all of us, for Cervini clearly thought that, to the end, he should not be held responsible for either theft or attempted assault.

Worse still is the fact that there are plenty of people in Roderick Scott’s neighborhood, and in the greater Western New York area, who wrongly think he’s a murderer. The local AM talk shows featured many Monday morning quarterbacks, newly minted firearms experts pontificating from ignorance on why the shooting could not be justified.

Why, after the fact, we learned that those teenagers weren’t armed this time, so clearly Roderick Scott could not have feared for his life.  After all, the man dared to leave his home and confront those committing a crime.  Has he learned nothing from living in modern society in New York State?  You’re supposed to cower in your home, hiding under the couch, praying dearly that those terrible, mean people outside won’t choose to come inside.  You’ll have plenty of time to pray while you’re on hold with the 911 operator, waiting for police who can’t possibly get there in time.

This is what’s wrong with the culture of New York State.  Our state values victims over victors.  It enshrines passivity over direct action to preempt or thwart criminal activity.  It excuses the acts of teenaged thugs, revising history to absolve them of blame for their petty crimes, while pillorying good citizens who dare to defend themselves with legally permitted arms.

In a state with the strictest gun control in the union, to own a legal handgun is no small thing.  Roderick Scott is a decent person who did everything legally and correctly… yet in the minds of many, he is the villain simply because he dared not to do nothing.  Had this shooting occurred in another state with less liberal hand-wringing underlying its legal code, it’s possible Roderick Scott would never have stood trial.  It is, quite frankly, a miracle that the jury — deadlocked just a few hours before it came to the “not guilty” verdict — eventually granted Scott his life back.

Fortunately, Roderick Scott is not bitter.  “I feel that justice was served today,” he said after his legal ordeal.

His lawyer was diplomatic but more pointed: “I just want to say that I hope this case sends a message to families out there to watch their kids, to know where they are and what they are doing.”

That lawyer’s message is clear: If your kids live like garbage, trade in garbage, and contribute nothing to their community but garbage, they very well may die like garbage.  If that happens they have no one to blame but themselves… though their parents ought to think good and hard about whether they share responsibility.

Be Sociable, Share!

94 thoughts on “Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?

  1. Thumbs up to Mr Scott for doing the right thing,How would the trial have gone if he was the one killed? I believe every American has the right to defend himself from criminals and thugs with whatever means are necessary.The Right to Bear Arms is a Constitutional Right and should never be taken away.It’s time to stand up to the thugs and criminals and take back our streets.As I see it there’s one less crook that the taxpayer has to support in prison,parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children.Way to go Mr Scott.

    1. Cervini was shot in the back.
      That was left out of the above spew.
      Scott maybe intended to do what with his gun if the kids ran away?

  2. I am saddened to hear of Mr Scott’s ordeal and I respect the not guilty verdict. It takes a lot of minerals to confront 3 drunk / high [petty or not] criminals by yourself.

    I think Mr Scott’s actions should be seen as a vehicle to send the message to other would be criminals – and their parents to stay off / [tell their kids to stay off] of private property.

    Usually the police are neglecting those who need their help and annoying those who do not. Fortunately, in this case the court was able to pick up and do right.

    Mr Scott, you did right.

    1. Yeah if he were white and shot a black kid he’d have the DoJ investigating him and the New Black Panthers wanting to kick down his door. Here’s your racial disparity in law, Mr. President.

      1. This man was at HIS HOME where the 3 drunk white teens were breaking into HIS car so yes i feel he was entitled to go outside HIS HOME and defend himself/property. That is a big difference in the two cases. George Zimmerman did not observe Trayvon Martin breaking any laws, he followed him based on the racial profiling principal that he was a black youth and therefore obviously “up to no good” Also notice that this gentleman was promptly arrested and charged in this incident, unlike the GZ case where it took national scrutiny and tremendous social media pressure to even have GZ arrested and charged. THAT is the difference.

        1. It’s not illegal to challenge someone for being where they are. If I say to you, “Hey, what are you doing in my neighborhood?” you are completely free to tell me to go to hell. Where a crime occurs and where this became a lethal-force case is the point at which Martin attacked Zimmerman.

        2. Bigface, please re-read the story. He confronted the teens in his neighbor’s driveway, not his. He actually legally can’t defend his neighbor’s property with his gun, only his. He can legally defend himself with his gun, but he also willingly put himself into a dangerous situation, confronting three males, knowing that he had a gun to use against a possible attack.

          Zimmerman didn’t confront the teen, the teen attacked him. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, he noticed suspicious behavior and called the police. Unlike Scott, his gun was concealed, unlike Scott, he was physically assaulted, head bashed, nose broken, before he shot, one shot; Scott fired two rounds. Unlike Scott, Zimmerman, and his family, had and has death threats against him for shooting a black.

        3. GZ has the injuries to show that Trayvon was not just walking home. Where are Roderick Scotts injuries?

  3. I will not leave name my name because our family has kept a low profile through this whole tragedy and have wanted to maintain it as such. However, myself and Mr Scott were in a relationship for 5 years, share an adult daughter and grand daughter. His wife, Rod, and I are close friends with no animosity between us. Rod and I separated well over 15 yrs ago and have maintained a PLATONIC friendship over the years. He was and still is hurt, sad and dealing with the affects of that night. He is a kind individual who is protective of those he loves and is not afraid to go the extra mile to look out for a friend or neighbor. We appreciate all the support that has been shown and how you have all left him and the family alone since that tragic night to rebuild and reconnect. I constantly pray for the Cervini family even to this day. I could not imagine losing my son whether it was a result of his folly or not. I want to thank you for this article that I happened to stumble upon while doing research for an article that I am currently writing myself. Thank you for your honesty and candidness. I pray blessings upon you and yours.

      1. Mr. Zimmerman defended himself legally while being physically assaulted. He broke no laws, although he was foolish to confront Trayvon Martin on foot in the first place.

        1. If Zimmerman had never decided that a black boy “did not belong”, and if he had never decided to follow him with a gun (after being instructed by the police NOT to) he would never have shot the boy. I also don’t recall from the trial about Trayvon’s rap sheet; you must have watched a different trial than the rest of us. I love this attitude that you have that YOU would never have confronted some dude who was following you for no reason, and that Trayvon deserved to die for that.

          1. Actually, no; if Trayvon Martin had never physically attacked, George Zimmerman, he would not have been shot. You’re leaving out that critical part of the altercation.

  4. Thank you Mr. Scott. I am white and think you did the right thing by protecting yourself and your property. I am soooooooo happy you were found innocent. Those punks could have killed you and were up to no good, i am sorry you had to got through the ridiculous process of a trial. However, you know the old saying, “Better to be judged by 12, than carried by six.” God bless you sir.

  5. “I just want to say that I hope this case sends a message to families out there to watch their kids, to know where they are and what they are doing.”

    That lawyer’s message is clear: If your kids live like garbage, trade in garbage, and contribute nothing to their community but garbage, they very well may die like garbage. If that happens they have no one to blame but themselves… though their parents ought to think good and hard about whether they share responsibility.

    What is this author’s take on the Trayvon Martin case?

    1. This author, who has had significant in-person training in use-of-force and in dealing with an attacker while mounted (including sim-gun training and hands-on close quarters combat), thinks Zimmerman was foolish to put himself in a vulnerable position, but once Martin attacked him, Zimmerman was within his rights by Florida law to use potentially deadly force to save himself.

  6. If you check Roderick Scott’s facebook page you will see that he supports Trayvon martin and thinks Zimmerman is a racist…I guess its ok for him to murder a white boy since the media doesnt give a hoot about that, but god forbid if a not-white hispanic kills a black kid.

    1. Locally the media was all over this case. It didn’t go national, but he endured, on a smaller scale, exactly the same type of criticism as Zimmerman did. I can’t speak to his opinion on the Trayvon Martin case except to say that neither you nor I have killed a teenaged boy, whereas Mr. Scott has, and this may inform his feelings on the subject, rightly or wrongly.

  7. Can we have this tattooed on the faces of every idiot Trayvon Martin protestor? This 17 year never even laid a finger on this person yet here the black community is going after Zimmerman the exact same way and many seem to be joining the chant. The hypocrisy is so blaring they have all lost any credibility.

    1. SMH the difference…..A crime was being committed and Mr. Scott stopped it, as with Zimmerman he assumed a crime was being committed…The fact people don’t see the difference is crazy to me…

      1. Zimmerman investigated the possibility of a crime; that is not illegal. Asking Martin what he was doing there is likewise not illegal. Martin would have been well within his rights to tell Zimmerman to mind his own business, but instead he attacked and beat the man. That’s when a crime occurred and that’s why potentially lethal force was used.

  8. Very well written, Phil. Interesting to compare/contrast the media hyped GZ trial.

    “Trayvon Martin could’ve been me…”
    Barack Obama, July 19, 2013
    Time Man of the Year, 2008 and 2012
    Nobel Peace Prize Winner, 2009

  9. This man is black and was acquitted of killing a white
    teenager that never touched him, but yet George Zimmerman killed a black kid that was pounding his head into the sidewalk was acquitted and every thug in the country is protesting. Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Holder should use their position to tell them that the jury has spoken but instead they are making things worse with all their press conferences. They are just giving the thugs a reason to get out and act like criminals.

    1. SMH, Stop reaching my friend….The difference is that Mr. Scott actually stopped a crime…Zimmerman assumed a crime was going on….”Thugs” are mad because they are tired of being profiled for no reason….If you ever get time you should check out ABC’s tv show “WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? This is the closest you’ll ever get to understanding what “Thugs” go through….

      1. Being “tired” of getting “profiled for no reason” does not justify physically attacking someone.

        1. What about using a little common sense people? EVERYONE KNOWS that black people are killing each other off in record numbers and the FBI reports show many of the BLACK YOUTH are turning into criminals at a very young age. (14 is not uncommon. In fact a 14 year old boy RAPED a 14 year old black girl in New Orleans just recently, i think this month or last month)

          One FACT that I never hear mentioned about the TM/GZ incident is that the FBI investigated Zimmerman to determine if his actions were racially motivated or not. The FBI interviewed approx. 30 people in the neighborhood and other people that knew him.

          The result of the investigation was that George Zimmerman’s actions were not racially motivated. Zimmerman DID NOT PROFILE MARTIN because he was black or wearing a hoodie. That is almost laughable. The Operator asked him to DESCRIBE the person. ANYONE AWARE of the AMOUNT OF CRIME IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD would have thought it strange to see a person walking non-chanlantly or standing alone in the rain!

          ON TOP OF THAT….right after Zimmerman spotted Martin, he then lost visual on him, then Zimmerman got in his vehicle. AND IT WAS MARTIN who came toward him and made a complete CIRCLE walking around Zimmerman’s vehicle; while looking directly at ZIMMERMAN.(But, remember he was so afraid he could not run home!) I dare say that circling someone’s vehicle WHILE THEY ARE IN IT (like a vulture does it’s prey) would be considered BOLD, PROVOCATIVE, and CHALLENGING in ANY COMMUNITY; black white or otherwise. BUT IS ESPECIALLY out of character for ‘a child’ who is supposedly so very afraid of you.

          I thought it curious behavior. So, I asked several men, and they say they would ABSOLUTELY take that as a threat or challenge unless the person was obv. mentally challenged or something. So, was Martin was issuing a ‘challenge’to Zimmerman. Most think he wanted to fight him.
          He was bored at home playing with a 12 year old. HOW MANY 17 year olds want to hang out with 12 year olds these days?

          How many times had Martin been suspended from school? 3? So was he just in a rebellious state of mind? Is it really a stretch to think that Martin WANTED to FIGHT.

          DONT LIE PRETEND LIKE THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY. Many say that CRIME SI THE BIGGEST problem in just about EVERY INNER CITY in AMERICA! Look at Chicago! How many blacks were SHOT and KILLED on July 4 of this year (in Chicago or Detroit)? I believe it was 12 or 14 BLACK PEOPLE SHOT AND KILLED BY BLACK PEOPLE in a single DAY!!! Where the heck was Sharpton, Jackson, OBAMA??????? This just PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that they DO NOT CARE about you!!!!

          Where is the “outrage”? Where is the half-black/half-white President’s SPEECH? No SPEECH about how that could have been him? It’s ridiculous! A shame!

          Martin realized that Zimmerman thought he was behaving a little strange and he didn’t like that someone was ‘on to him’ – maybe even messing up his plan to break in someones house or some other trouble. And considering the FACT that it was raining, AND considering the recent crime in that neighborhood AND considering THAT HE DID NOT RECALL SEEING MARTIN in the neighborhood before – He decided to call for help and to keep an eye on him.

          Another thing IF MARTIN was out looking for a ‘negro’ to kill, someone please explain why Zimmerman didn’t have his gun drawn after he got out of his vehicle? When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle he should have had his gun drawn then when Martin came at him he could have shot him in the leg or foot. BUT BECAUSE HE HAD NO INTENTION ON KILLING ANYONE he didn’t draw his gun until he felt he ABSOLUTELY HAD TO!!!

          It’s NO SECRET that Martin was really into fighting and liked watching other people get beat up. But, being young – he acted foolishly – he assaulted a man that was LEGALLY ARMED. Tell me this, would you advise your son to circle around someone’s car like that? WHITE OR BLACK?

          If Martin had used his common sense, instead of circling Zimmerman’s car he could have simply gone home. Or he could have just walked to a neighbor’s and knocked on the door and told them he ‘was afraid’ of the creepy ass cracker that spotted him and thought he was suspicious. Or he could have behaved like A NORMAL person and Said; “Hey, what’s up man? I noticed you watching me and was wondering if there is there a problem?” THAT’S WHAT A NORMAL PERSON, USING COMMON SENSE AND WHO IS NOT LOOKING FOR TROUBLE WOULD DO.

          And don’t give me this line about how black people are running around afraid that whitey is gonna get him. That is so funny cause it;s NOT TRUE! The FACTS JUST DON’T back such non-sense. You go ahead and circle around a black man in his car, THAT BLACK MAN IS GONNA THINK YOU ARE UP TO NO-GOOD! He will likely see it as a challenge!

          In FACT, Zimmerman wanted to help his community be a better place. And realizing the FATE of many a black youth,(70% of black FATHERS DO NOT MARRY THE MOTHER AND ARE OFTEN ABSENT from the home or simply have NO PART in raising their OWN children) Zimmerman VOLUNTEERED his time to help mentor a couple of young black boys in the community.

          But, these FACTS are NOT WHAT THE RACE BAITERS want. They don’t want to address the FACTS!

          If you are black the chances you will be shot by another black is 94% – that is A FACT of TODAY!

          WHITEY is NOT after blacks. WHITEY don’t even want to go in your neighborhood. Mostly, WHITEY would just as soon AVOID being around you though. But that is ONLY because so many blacks today act all ghetto, rude, loud and ignorant.

          The way the media HAS BLOWN the TM/GZ CASE OUT OF PROPORTION is AMAZING! It has simply validated something that most people – regardless of race – have known for years; that black people today (not all but too damn many!) are the TRUE RACIST. It’s called – REVERSE DISCRIMMINATION. Look it up.

          Because WHITEY has allowed the racist to make them ‘feel’ guilty for slavery no matter that there isn’t a white person in the entire country ever take part in slavery! You are NOT on the back of the bus people! You have EVERY opportunity that WHITEY has and then some. If people don’t want you around them it’s because of the way you behave. Or rather they way you conduct youselves. You are your own WORST enemy!

          It was a white mans idea to free the slaves. And it was white people that put a black man in office. NEWSFLASH: Whitey is NOT YOUR PROBLEM!

          I can remember talking to an elderly black man and he was saying he was concerned for the future of the black man because of the way he saw them RUNNING OUT on the MOTHER of their children and running out on their children as well. All of the drug-dealing and so on. He said the WORST thing the government could have EVER DONE for the black people was to GIVE them Welfare because it created a sense that they didn’t have to take responsibility for their own futures. That man had more sense then EVERY ONE of these HATE filled RACE BAITERS who are getting RICH off the ignorant black folk. Cause they know you are so filled with animosity toward white people and they know the tendency for violence in the black community. THEY TREAT YOU LIKE LITTLE PUPPETS and you people FALL FOR IT EVERYTIME! Wake-Up Black People and take care of your children, go to school, get a job, volunteer to help someone other than yourself! Show RESPECT to others and you WILL BE RESPECTED by others. BE FOR SOMETHING AND NOT AGAINST SOMETHING. BE FOR POSITIVE NOT NEGATIVE. Selfishness is a terrible way to be because you get what you give and if you aren’t giving (as in making a positive contribution to society) then your life will be empty and you will feel like the world is a mean place.

          Look at OPRAH. Sh overcame GREAT ODDS because she used her BRAIN and CARED FOR PEOPLE!!!! There is NO excuse to be so full of RAGE! Stop WORSHIPPING these rappers who put women down and most all they sing about is money or sex. Greed and Lust! That is basically living like an animal! Life is more then money and you were created by God with a purpose and that purpose is to show love to others. Start in your OWN HOUSEHOLD and FAMILY and work out from there. Don’t export what you can’t import. SHOW kindness to EACH OTHER and to the world around you. To be fair, it’s NOT just Blacks behaving stupid like that. It’s just that for only being approx. 13% of the population your race has proven to be one of the most violent so far.

          There are black boys and girls getting SHOT UP ALL over this country EVERY SINGLE DAY! If you REALLY believe Jackson, Sharpton and Jealous are “for the black man” then you are deceived. They are just against the white man. That’s ALL. IF THEY CARED so much about the black communities then WHY THE HELL HAVEN”T THEY BEEN ON THE TV EVERYDAY – I MEAN EVERYDAY – telling ya’ll to stop shooting each other!!!!!

          But no, you are also against whitey and so you VALIDATE these frauds and race-baiters and they are getting RICH RICH RICH! I just don’t understand why you are so BLIND TO THE TRUTH.

          And I’ve said all this to say that you have been tricked. you have been tricked by the government MAKING YOU DEPENDANT on them and now they can USE YOU like a puppet w/o a brain of it’s own. They pull a string and you REACT. And the man in office IS NOT DOING anything to help the black community. HE TALKS LIKE HE IS. But if you LOOK AT what he DOES you will see that he is NOT HELPING YOU. He is just making more and more people DEPEND on gov. just like Hitler did, then he turned on those same people! WAKE-UP PLEASE people. Put down the rage and the anger for YOUR OWN SAKES!

          Oh, one more thing. Whitey has been so anxious to PROVE that they are not racist they actually VOTED for a black man that attended a racist church for 20 years! . So, white people – you are pretty stupid too!

          EVERYONE – I urge you to Look at your paycheck from 1 year ago, 2 years ago…If you have it look at it from 8 years ago!!!! YEP. You get to keep LESS and LESS. Our gov. is just OPPRESSING everybody. EVERYBODY! Welfare is NOT sustainable.

          They have made a MOCKERY out of ‘social security’ as well. Common sense tells you if you have MORE taken out of the bank than you have going in, SURPRISE it will be EMPTY and when they tell you (and that day is going to come) that they can no longer afford to GIVE AWAY HOUSING, FOOD and MONEY then the system will collapse under it’s own weight. JUST LIKE GREECE!! Look it up. Socialist systems have NEVER worked and they ONLY ENRICH the Rich. They are NOT sustainable.

          Why do ‘public servants’ make more than they people they serve? They are not servants. THEY ARE THIEVES, and they get the BEST of everything. They DON”T CARE ABOUT “THE PEOPLE” – We should be MAD at these damn politicians – ALL OF THEM. Allowing this country to go into MASSIVE DEBT then taking from the middle class and just GIVING IT AWAY TO COUNTRIES THAT HATE US ALL!! We should be Damn Mad and FED UP with BEING LIED to by our gov. not mad at each other.

          All PEOPLE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER before this gov. DESTROYS us completely with hate. HATE NEVER EVER made the world a better place! When will we wake up and tell the truth and start taking responsibility? Stop making excuses to hate and be violent? WHEN?

        2. The Trayvon Martin case is interesting, because he might very well have been bashing Zimmerman’s head on concrete, as Zimmerman asserted (though since Martin is dead, no one can challenge that “eyewitness account”), but you have to wonder what you would do, if you were being followed by someone brandishing a firearm, and you were unarmed.

          Martin might very well have been bashing Zimmerman’s head in because he was unarmed, and thought that was the only way he might survive being followed by someone with a gun. He was wrong, sadly, but he was taking “preemptive action” against a real threat, a man following him with a gun. Yes, challenging someone on the street is no crime, nor a threat, but challenging someone on the street while holding a firearm is a threat, and all of us would consider it as such. Is an unarmed person expected to stand around and wait and see if the guy holding the gun is intending to shoot you?

          Scott was also confident enough in the rightness of his shot (at least legally, since he seems, rightfully, emotionally troubled by it) that he took the stand in his own defense. Zimmerman has no legal obligation to take the stand (thank you 5th Amendment- has probably saved a TON of innocent men and women), but this is a stark contrast between the two men as well.

          Elmore and others have said that Scott would have been let off more easily in “less liberal” states… really? Does anyone believe “justice” would have been easier on him if he, as a Black man, had shot a white teenager in South Carolina or Florida? Seriously?

          1. Your claim that Zimmerman was “brandishing” a weapon while following Martin is unfounded.

    2. Who was the thug? The guy breaking into a car at 3 in the morning and drunk off of whiskey he stole?

      or the guy carrying some skittles for his brother?

      It’s funny how you don’t call Chris a “thug,” even though he was killed in the middle of criminal activity with other criminals.

      If breaking into people’s property with convicted felons doesn’t make you a thug then what the hell does? oh that’s right! TATTOOS make you a thug! It’s so obvious now! The people who break into your vehicle are innocent,
      It’s not ACTUAL CRIMINALS who are the thugs…It’s the people with gold teeth in their mouth.

      1. Skittles for his brother? … or Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Tea, two-thirds of what’s needed to create a codeine drink for getting stoned when added to Robitussin cough syrup as was posted on his Facebook page?

  10. If you’re going to use the records of these White teens and THC in the system at least be consistent and report on Martins dirty laundry. After reading your character assassination of these White teens, I am satisfied that Zimmerman put a bullet in Martin. As for you, you’re nothing more than filthy hypocrites!

    1. Smh you do know that this was published in 2009.. And as far as, what you call “character assassination of these White teens” lol Those “White Teens” where actually committing a crime you “filthy hypocrite”

  11. I’m just a kid?
    Sorry Charlie, (cue the tuna)

    Even 15 is NOT a kid. Not these days and maybe never.
    And, in case anyone should forget, “kids” have been known to kill in cold blood. Here in the UK, it’s almost common.

  12. I would argue that Zimmerman put himself in no more of a foolish position than Mr Scott. The details of tehse 2 cases are amazingly similar.

    Both men called 911 to report suspicious activity.

    Both men had a strong sense of protectiveness toward their neighborhood.

    Both men were concerned with the suspicious characters getting away prior to police arrival.

    Both men could be criticized for not staying inside and letting the police respond. (I am not one who would)

    Scott shot before he was physically harmed, Zimmerman was not prepared for Martin with a drawn gun.

    But the greatest difference is the media coverage.

    Just yesterday President Obama made public comments about Race, saying in clear unambiguous language that if the racial roles had been reversed, the outcome would have been different.

    Well Mr President here is a case where the roles WERE reversed, and the outcome WAS the same. Not Guilty. Buy a predominantly white jury.

    The Cervini family, like the Martin family believe the shooter is a murderer, and reject the verdict. They make the same inane comments that now it is ok to murder teenagers in NY.

    But no one else is. Al Sharpton has no rallys for Chris. Bruce Springsteen has not dedicated any songs to Chris. The media all but ignored this and the web seems to be being scrubbed of any news stories. Nobody rioted, nor protested by marching on the NY Thruway, or I-84.

    I stand by Roderick Scott.. and I also stand by George Zimmerman. I am happy that Roderick Scott is able to live a relatively normal life without coast to coast death threats.

    I wish President Obama would lecture the people about the Scott/Cervini case.. and tell them that he was wrong; that there WAS a race reversal case.. and the white jury found the Black man not guilty just as they did the brown man (caste as white for political purposes)

    Site owner, I suppose you never imagined this story would take on the significance it has due to the Zimmerman/Martin case, but it has. and I applaud you for maintaining this page even as official new organizations are deleting any trace of it.

    Thank you, and God Bless Roderick Scott, and all caring people with TRUE justice in their hearts.

    1. I actually failed to make the comparison when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred and became news. I had forgotten all about writing this article. Somebody did find it, however, probably looking for an example of the same scenario with the races reversed, and when the comments blew up, I realized just how similar the two cases are.

    2. While I generally agree with you, and the outcome of the Scott case, there is a large difference. Trayvor Martin was not doing anything wrong when Zimmerman went after him. A crime was not being committed. However, I do agree with the Zimmerman verdict.

      1. Challenging Martin, asking him why he’s there, or simply monitoring him while out in public is not illegal. It may be rude, but it is not a crime. Martin was under no legal obligation to listen to Zimmerman’s questions or to answer them, either. The point at which a crime occurred is the point at which Martin, apparently angry at being so treated, decided to respond with violence. In terms of use-of-force, that violence was unprovoked — i.e., Zimmerman did not initiate force. He used retaliatory force when attacked.

    3. Killing another human being is NOT without it’s share of lifelong emotional impact. This is not television. The average adult is deeply impacted if they hit and kill a dog or cat who runs out in front of their car. Much less a person! As was stated by Mr. Scott’s friend/ex he continues to be impacted to this day. My son, caused the death of a pedestrian when he was 17 years old. He continues to be impacted to this day (21 years after the event and after much therapy). In spite of the fact that he did nothing wrong and could not have done anything to prevent it (the gentleman was seriously inebriated and suddenly walked/stumbled into the street,walking between two parked cars); accident investigators, the police and the DA, stated there was not sufficient response time available to avoid hitting this man). That did not prevent my son having guilty feelings, nightmares and time spent going over and over the incident in his head wondering if he could have done anything different to save this man. His grades were affected, his friendships soffered (he had always been easy going but began to be easily irritated, snapping at people in his depression). He felt, he said in therapy, alone, like no one could understand and he had no one to talk to about it. After all, the number of private citizens who have caused the death of another, even accidently, is pretty small. The man’s relatives sent a letter to the DA stating that they had tried to help their father for years and had always feared something like this happening. They wanted to be clear that they had no animosity toward my son and wanted to request that they hoped there would be no charges and my son be saved from having to carry a criminal record due to this accident. This was a tragedy all the way around. Our family was devastated, for the man and for my son and the knowledge that he would have to live with this for the rest of his life. We knew that would not be easy to do, and it was not. The ordeal of dealing with police, the justice system, having to deal with the media, time off school, work, your regular life and the emotional trauma was overwhelming. My son would have given anything to turn the clock back, to have driven down a different street, to have been driving slower (he was NOT speeding), anything that would have saved that man’s life. I dealt with guilt and recriminations for a long time because my son had asked me to take him to work that day and I had given him the keys and told him he could take the car. “Why, I asked myself over and over, “did I not just get up and take him”? The point is, some here have a cavalier attitude about the death of another human being; with the, “he asked for it”, approach. Let me warn you, it is an action that stays with you for the rest of your life! I will bet, even though he was justified legally, Mr. Scott has some of these same feelings about that night as probably does GZ. I bet both men wish for a do-over of that respective night, so they could make different choices. The long and short of it is this; it is the better part of valor to, perhaps, think hard and long, BEFORE something happens. Or, even, as some here have stated to ‘cower in your house’ until the police come and handle it. The law is the least of the problems, in my experience. Our legal issues were resolved LONG before the emotional aspects of this were resolved. In fact, the residual effects have not been. I relive the horrors of that day, crawling into bed that night, holding my 6 foot, 17 year old son as he sobbed. Calling relatives and trying to explain, through my own trauma, that D had hit someone and killed them. Hearing my older son (who was away at college) crying into the phone, “No Mom, don’t say that, my brother didn’t do that!” Hearing my sister, in her fear, saying, “send him here, to us, don’t trust the system to KNOW he was in the right” (this because my son is black, the man he killed was white). Being legally right, not at fault, had NO effect on our emotional reactions. It was a dark time for our family, too. This is what everyone should hear, be taught, when they get that legal gun or that CCW license. Hardened policemen have similar reactions to shooting criminals caught in the act. There is human suffering for everyone and their family involved. Think first, is it worth that? As for GZ/TM; this case has similarities, yes, but far more important differences. This young man was caught in the act of committing a crime, not just walking down the street. It was NOT his appearance that alarmed Mr. Scott or got his attention. Mr. Scott was outnumbered. The 911 operator did not tell Mr. Scott to stay in his house (though I am certain she would have, had she had the chance, this is precisely the result the police try to avoid when they tell citizens not to take the law in their own hands)! These are important differences that make this case more different than similar.

      1. Thank you for sharing. It was long, but i did read it. It was written with truth and love. And I hope we all can understand and respect it. Please tell your son not to feel guilt. Humans are the only animals that do. He had no choice in the matter. It’s just something that happened and God still loves him.

    4. Respectfully, Mr. Toohey, as to your dubious’ list of similarities:

      Both men called 911 to support suspicious activity, you say. Well, no; one reported he ‘saw a person’, he deemed suspicious by appearance. The other called to report a crime.

      Both has a “strong sense of protection toward the neighborhood”; I don’t know how you assume that. It is, you are aware, an assumption.

      You say you are “happy” Mr. Scott is able to live a “normal life without death threats”; killing another human being probably interferes with that “normal life” thing. Ask soldiers and police offers who have done so because they had to.

      These stories, to me, are similar in that they are both cautionary tales about the use of deadly force; when it may be legal, but a deadly mistake that one can not reverse.

  13. Hi Phil, do you also believe that Scott was foolish to confront 3 criminals? There are definitely some parallels to the Martin case.

    1. I think it was foolish, yes, but I sympathize heavily with his motives. He wanted to do something about rampant crime in his neighborhood, and I applaud any citizen who takes responsibility for direct, dynamic action in response to what is wrong and what is right.

      Still, if you’re going to carry a gun, you ought to have other options. I train in martial arts and close quarters “combat” methods specifically because I don’t want my only option to be shooting someone. I have taken classes, in fact, that directly simulate the type of conditions these men faced.

      I think the widespread uproar over the Zimmerman verdict is the result of a society-wide ignorance of use-of-force principles, strategies, and tactics.

      1. It is possible for people to be a part of the “wild uproar”, as you call it without being “ignorant”. As for the suggestion that this story was not covered nationally because it did not fit the “template” that furthers the notion of white racism, that is a narrow viewpoint. My son’s case (a white man WAS the ‘ersatz’ victim) was only a local story, as well. A big story in our county that attracted no national news outlets. Lately, just as many people have dug out the horrible Marissa Alexander story, where a black woman shot a warning shot into the wall hitting no one, attempting to scare off her abusive boyfriend, and she got 20 years. This is being used to demonstrate there is a ‘racist component’ to the justice system. Certainly, you are aware there are too many (sadly) stories about people shooting and killing others, sometimes white victims, sometimes black; sometimes white shooters, sometimes black, for them ALL to be covered by the national media, aren’t you? So, it noight not be that the media is only interested in stories that further the notion of ‘white racism’! That is patently ridiculous. In fact, I have a sneaky suspicion that all the comments, all the people who mention the disproportionate numbers of blacks being the violent killers, robbers, etc. is not based on everyone’s personal experience but on the fact that this same media that is being now castigated for looking for and hyping up crimes that are white on black; are the same media that produced all the stories, presented all the statistics and showed all the ‘black man in handcuffs’ on the news. Why everyone keeps behaving as if they had to figure out for themselves that blacks were perpetrators of these type of crimes (against blacks and whites) is beyond me. Black people and crime has gotten a huge amount of ‘exposure’; it has never been the ‘dirty little secret’ that is being alluded to now!

        1. People who are informed (that is, not ignorant) on the use of force aren’t outraged over this case because no crime was committed by Zimmerman.

          Challenging Martin, asking him why he’s there, or simply monitoring him while out in public is not illegal. It may be rude, but it is not a crime. Martin was under no legal obligation to listen to Zimmerman’s questions or to answer them, either. The point at which a crime occurred is the point at which Martin, apparently angry at being so treated, decided to respond with violence. In terms of use-of-force, that violence was unprovoked — i.e., Zimmerman did not initiate force. He used retaliatory force when attacked.

  14. I’m a supporter of the Zimmerman verdict, and I am also in favor of the verdict of this man, even though he shot a white kid. Regardless of ethnicity, the man defended himself against teenagers trying to be little punks by going after him… and yes, I am white.

  15. Mr. Scott is welcome to leave a place where he is treated like that and move down to Louisiana. I’d be honored to have him as my neighbor.

  16. It is okay for the media to assassinate the character of this victim?

    God forbid the media says anything derogatory about little baby Tray.

  17. Scott & Zimmerman both foolishly engaged in persuit of their subjects. The cases differ because Scott actually observed a crime, and claimed persuit to apprehend or detain the crimminals, much more of a foolish move in my opinion. Zimmerman had not observed a crime. In the end both Scott & Zimmerman assert self defense and per the law, have that right. No one will ever really know what Scott & Zimmerman’s true motives were, if even different, from what they claimed…”neighborhood watch”. It is obvious to this person that both shootings could have been avoided.
    That said…where is Rev. Sharpton to defend Chris’ s rights…where are the rioters, protesters and the like. Racism exists cause people will not let it die. Its a money maker. Thanks Media!

    1. Zimmerman did observe a crime. It was when he was sucker punched and his head was being bashed against the cement.

  18. So does what I’m reading here suggest that Travon Martin’s parents should have known where Travon was & what Travon was doing? I think this article is saying the Martin’s should have been aware Travon was suspiciously walking slowly in the rain hiding his identity with a hoody, thru yards & between the houses laying in wait four minutes to attack that “creepy ass cracker”.
    But I’m not completely clear if these writers are placing blame on Travon or his parents!! It is abundantly clear, from what is being said here, the neighborhood watchman, in both cases has no fault.
    The part I don’t understand is where the press was? Maybe I missed it back in 2009 along all the demonstrations!

    1. If you raise the type of teenager who is out late at night, has a criminal history, and is inclined to attack strangers who have offered no physical force, then yes, you probably bear some responsibility in your child’s unfortunate death.

  19. Mr. Elmore, I’d like to ask if you think that Trayvon Martin should have been considered entitled to defend himself against reasonable fear of bodily harm from GZ?

    1. Everyone has that right. Had Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, to lay hands on him, or otherwise offered a credible threat of imminent bodily harm, Martin would have been justified in using force in self-defense.

      The problem with the question is that Zimmerman did not offer any reasonable fear of bodily harm. To walk up to someone, even to walk up to someone and ask them a question, is not inherently threatening. If you advance on someone and they warn you off, and you then *continue* to advance, an argument could be made that this is a threat.

      At the point that Martin had Zimmerman pinned on the ground and was beating him bloody, he was clearly the aggressor, regardless of whatever motivation he had for using force. Our self-defense laws generally do not permit repeatedly striking a fallen opponent.

      1. Who’s to say Zimmerman didn’t use force initially on Trayvon? This is all speculation. Personally Scott should be in jail for manslaughter because there is conflicting stories as to whether he was being threatened. I think consideration should go to the deceased party and that if a person is going to invoke self defense , they need to prove it. The state should not have to prove that the person invoking self defense is right. Same thing with reason of insanity. The person has to prove they were mentally unstable. People who think they need to shoot every time someone looks at them funny should be in jail

        1. The evidence in the case does not support an assertion of Zimmerman initiating physical force. No such allegation was made during the trial, either. To the extent that we can know what occurred and to the limits of what we can corroborate, there is no indication that Zimmerman was the first to use physical violence in this exchange.

          1. That is what Rachel Jeantel, the woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin, said. What she said came out in interviews after the trial because the prosecution did not try to advance any scenarios that Zimmerman started the altercation by trying to detain Martin so he wouldn’t get away. Remember Ms. Jeantel said she heard Trayvon Martin telling Zimmmerman, “Get Off, Get Off?” However, because of her attitude and the way she talks, most people just ignored her testimony.

          2. I think most people ignored her testimony because she was clearly both a moron and a liar.

  20. Wow! This story sounds eerily familiar! I wonder if the author of this story sides with George Zimmerman or with Trayvon Martin!

    1. The author of this story doesn’t “side” with anyone. The author of this story believes in the lawful right of self-defense and believes that both Zimmerman and Roderick Scott engaged in reasonable personal protection (after perhaps foolishly walking into situations that put them in danger).

  21. Here is the major difference in both these cases:

    “Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Julie Finnochio, by contrast, ruthlessly and relentlessly prosecuted Scottt. She got the last word during closing arguments, too, and tried to tell the jury that, regardless of the circumstances, the shooting was not justified.”

    “Feb. 26, 2012 – At about 7:17 pm George Zimmerman shoots Trayvon Martin as the 17-year-old is walking back from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, had called 911 about the “suspicious teen” and allegedly followed him. He immediately told police he shot Martin in self-defense after a scuffle. He is taken into custody but released that night. No charges are filed.”

    Why was the black man charged immediately, and it took months to charge the Hispanic man?

    Different arrest procedures on what basis?

    1. The most obvious difference is that this is New York, which is much more left-leaning than Florida and thus much less likely to view lawful, justified self-defense as lawful and justified. Another factor is that Cervini never touched Roderick Scott; he merely charged him. Zimmerman, by contrast, was physically assaulted and losing that fight when he used his gun.

  22. See a negro kills a white and the communist media applaud it. Trayvon martins rap sheet was longer than these white boys was.

    1. Nobody “applauded” the shooting. Scott was condemned almost universally in the media where he lives. The story did not fit, perhaps, a larger template wherein news stories furthering the notion of white racism always seem to get more attention, which might explain why Roderick Scott’s case did not see more national exposure. But nobody was cheering him on for shooting a white kid.

    2. I didn’t hear anybody applauding a black person for killing a white person. I did hear a lot of people applauding George Zimmerman for killing a black teenager.

      YOU sound like a racist by saying that “Trayvon’s rap sheet was longer than these white boys was” — even though the facts disagree with you.

      What you are doing is making a generalization based on guesses about how you think the thing is ‘supposed’ to be.

  23. People are ridiculous. This is nothing like the Trayvon Martin case. Those boys were actually committing crimes at the time. Trayvon was walking. Doing absolutely nothing wrong. There is no proof to support Trayvon started the fight. Only Zimmerman’s words, which his story has never been consistent so he’s a proven liar. You don’t get scratches having your head slammed into concrete. Wake the hell up! He had accomplices.

    1. Your account of the events is supported neither by the evidence presented in the case nor by the facts of objective reality. You are furthering a specious conspiracy theory because you hate white people.

  24. Sounds like he shot him because he didn’t want them to get away because it would take the police too long to get there. He was trying to make a citizens arrest on the boys.

    1. That’s not what it “sounds like” at all. It “sounds like” exactly what it was: He used force because he was being beaten and feared that he was going to sustain serious bodily harm. The evidence presented in court supported this.

  25. This in comparison to the Zimmerman case doesn’t really prove much, in my opinion. Zimmerman supporters rally together and draw comparisons to these 2 cases as if race is the only issue people have with the Zimmerman trial. Though I do think race played a factor, it was minor in terms of the profiling (which is understandable, given the neighborhood’s history), how the police on scene handled the situation (immediately believing GZ’s version of accounts enough to not gather the necessary evidence for the case to go to a fair trial – toxicology and background check on the victim ONLY? Really? – and letting releasing GZ the following morning), and almost inconsequential to MY issues with the case.

    The glaring differences I see between this case and the Zimmerman case – NOT INVOLVING RACE – are:
    1) Scott witnessed the teen boys in the act of committing a crime before confronting them; even if TM was coming back after killing the 7-11 clerk (instead of legitimately purchasing candy for his step-brother and a drink, then walking home), there would have been no way Zimmerman could have known that. There is no need to attempt smearing TM’s (the VICTIM’S name) to me. It hardly makes killing TM more justifiable from GZ’s perspective that night.
    2) In the end, there are eye-witnesses alive from BOTH sides of the conflict to testify in court – Scott, and the other 2 teens. In the Zimmerman case, we have GZ’s undisputed account, though clearly full of holes, and modified/enhanced to obviously further support his claim for self-defense (for example… Does it makes sense that TM would backtrack after being closer to home if he wasn’t cut-off? What would have provoked TM enough to attack seemingly out of nowhere? Did TM jump from a bush, come out of the darkness, or approach openly? Why are his, GZ’s, injuries superficial and inconsistent with the incessant beating he claims to have gotten? Why was none of his blood found anywhere on TM? Why did TM have no injuries consistent with delivering such a beating?) To be fair, there were eye-witnesses, but none from the victim’s side.
    And to be MORE fair, no eye-witness testimony is strong enough to undoubtedly claim who made physical contact first, who was yelling for help, or if there were even punches being thrown. GZ had plenty of reason to embellish or even completely falsify his turn of events, 25 year’s worth; and to blindly accept his story would be foolish, especially for law enforcement.

    Now, given all of this, I do have a theory as to what ACTUALLY happen that night, which is consistent with the injuries, location, and Jeantel’s account of what may have happened. Regardless, it is just that: a theory. I am not saying I disagree with the verdict… under current law, GZ was acquitted and rightfully so as there is not enough evidence to convict. However, I do think our self-defense laws should be modified to include some clause for ‘self-defense with provocation’, meaning the ‘imperfect self-defense claim’ in which you can claim self-defense even after having started the altercation. Though it would be up to the attorneys to convince the jury of such, I would argue that GZ provoked TM’s attempt to defend himself by creepily following him on a dark, stormy night; in Scott’s case, the teens were the instigators by committing a crime, one of which Scott was witnessing at the time of the shooting…

    TL;DR: Taking race out of the picture, the Zimmerman case is not a great comparison to Scott’s case… Our self-defense laws should be reviewed for potential amending to include self-defense after having been the initial aggressor.

    1. That’s not an accurate interpretation of what the laws now read or what occurred in this case.

      Challenging Martin, asking him why he’s there, or simply monitoring him while out in public is not illegal. It may be rude, but it is not a crime. Martin was under no legal obligation to listen to Zimmerman’s questions or to answer them, either.

      The point at which a crime occurred is the point at which Martin, apparently angry at being so treated, decided to respond with violence. In terms of use-of-force, that violence was unprovoked — i.e., Zimmerman did not initiate force. He used retaliatory force when attacked.

      Martin was the aggressor. Zimmerman was not, although he could have avoided being “aggressed on” entirely had he not chosen to confront Martin.

    2. GZ’s story was pretty consistent with the evidence. Your right we dont know Trayvon’s motives for backtracking but it was established that he did. Zimmerman followed the instructions of the dispatcher and to have been considered the instigator or aggressor when he was standing there at the T some 20 yards from his vehicle after Martin came back 100 yards is ridiculous. Lack of blood on Trayvon doesnt mean the assault didnt happen Trayvon was on top and since blood runs downhill its possible he didnt get much on him (there was some). The injuries we saw on the outside were superficial but since GZ didnt die we dont know any underlying damage. Not withstanding the fact that a person doesnt need to have their head cracked like an egg before defending themselves. He was resisting at that point in time, what would happen had he got KO’d?

  26. The substantive difference in the two cases is that Mr. Scott saw an actual crime being committed and confronted the thieves from his own property.

    Mr. Zimmerman stalked a minor who was doing nothing wrong, and then left his vehicle to pursue him. From that point we only have Zimmerman’s side of the story; he has some history of poor judgement and violent behavior, to assume that Martin attacked him out of the blue is not more or less likely that Zimmerman, already pursuing Martin, started a confrontation that he could not control.

    If those white teens had been getting something they had left in their aunt’s car instead of robbing a stranger’s car, I highly doubt Mr. Scott would have his freedom today.

    1. Mr. Zimmerman did not “stalk” anyone. Becoming concerned at the presence of an unfamiliar individual and challenging that individual is not “stalking,” because it does not in any way present a credible threat of physical harm or emotional distress.

      Challenging Martin, asking him why he’s there, or simply monitoring him while out in public is also not illegal. It may be rude, but it is not a crime. Martin was under no legal obligation to listen to Zimmerman’s questions or to answer them, either.

      The point at which a crime occurred is the point at which Martin, apparently angry at being so treated, decided to respond with violence. In terms of use-of-force, that violence was unprovoked — i.e., Zimmerman did not initiate force. He used retaliatory force when attacked.

  27. These comments are nutty. Of course, Mr. Scott should not have confronted these teens with a loaded weapon. He should have called the police and this boy would not have lost his life.

    Whatever valuables he had in his car are certainly not more valuable than a young man’s life.

    Of course, what George Zimmerman did is exponentially worse as Trayvon was committing no crime and only attempting to get home.

    Shame on all of you who support child killers. I am sure your tune will change if the next child shot by an overzealous nutjob is your own.

    1. Actually, Trayvon was committing a crime. That crime was assault and battery.

      Challenging Martin, asking him why he’s there, or simply monitoring him while out in public is not illegal. It may be rude, but it is not a crime. Martin was under no legal obligation to listen to Zimmerman’s questions or to answer them, either.

      The point at which a crime occurred is the point at which Martin, apparently angry at being so treated, decided to respond with violence. In terms of use-of-force, that violence was unprovoked — i.e., Zimmerman did not initiate force. He used retaliatory force when attacked.

  28. While these two cases appear similar they are in no way the same. Scott was immediately arrested and held in jail until he was released on bond (after more than 30 days when a friend put up his house). Zimmerman was allowed to roam free for over a month and would not have been charged if the media did not intervene. Martin was walking to his father’s girlfriend’s home, a place he was legally authorized to be and there was no evidence that he was committing a crime. Cervini was on someone else’s property without permission and he was committing a crime.
    It’s unfortunate that both of these teenagers lost their lives but state all the facts not the ones that suit your agenda and until we can come together and admit that we all have issues (For instance: No one looks at the statistics that show whites kill each other at the same rate as blacks), we will continue to be a country divided.

    1. Trayvon Martin WAS on someone else’s property without permission. Despite the rain and darkness, he cut onto Frank Taffey’s property and just stopped there. That’s why Zimmerman called 311, the non-emergency police. Zimmerman had previously called police and stopped a burglary in progress at Taffey’s house.

      During the trial, Taffey appeared nightly on CNN and HLN defending Zimmerman. Taffey twice said that Trayvon was trespassing on his property.

      A woman testified about a home invasion in that gated community by two young black males. She locked herself in a bedroom with her toddler, which they tried to enter. Like Trayvon, one of the intruders was 17. He was arrested, charged as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to 5 years in prison, (by the same judge who tried Zimmerman.) This young man lived in that community, just doors away from where Trayvon Martin’s father was living with his girlfriend.

  29. Excellent and balanced responses, Mr. Elmore. If I saw a teen behind my neighbor’s house I would ask what he was doing there. If he said “Just taking a short cut” I would watch until he left. If he attacked me for asking I would be justified in defending myself.
    I wonder if Ms. Jeantel wasn’t the true catalyst for the event when she told Trayvon that perhaps Zimmerman was a gay rapist looking to attack him. According to her interviews she says that’s what happened. Perhaps Trayvon would have just continued back to his father’s girlfriend’s home if she hadn’t suggested such an outrageous thing and both he and Zimmerman would never had made headlines.
    Guess we’ll never know.

  30. For any idiot that thinks getting your head smashed to the point it breaks open is superficial needs to know that you don’t need to break the skin open to render unconcious or kill a person when you are slamming the body part that holds the brain against the pavement…. I live with epilepsy because I banged my head on a dashhboard during a car accident that didn’t leave a scratch none the less a broken nose…all though I have one of those too….the rush of intense pain is dulled only by the panic of not being able to see because your eyes immeadiately tear up…

  31. Is this the same Phil Elmore who actually made the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate in the Mainstream”?

    Taken from the Southern Poverty Law Center Website:

    “This movement is a third-world rot that will infect us all if we do not sterilize it now.”
    — WorldNetDaily columnist PHIL ELMORE, in a Nov. 16 column calling for the use of flame-throwers and truncheons to remove the “shiftless human filth” of the Occupy Wall Street movement

    Wow! Really? Flamethrowers? This Phil Elmore guy has every right to say what he wants. That’s the great part about America…Freedom. I mean if you want to be a bigoted douche you can be! You have the constitutional right to be a paranoid, zombie obsessed(google him and you’ll see), hate-spewing jerk. Stay classy Phil! Gotta love that 1st Amendment!

    1. The very same.

      The Southern Poverty Law Center is a tiny progressive organization that happens to have the ear of the left-wingers in our government. Dees and the SPLC use the new scarlet letter — accusations of racism — to brand as persona non grata any conservatives or libertarians deem worthy of notice. There is absolutely no correlation between the SPLC’s enemies lists and any real-life behavior. Occasionally they manage to list a skinhead or neonazi group among the various ordinary people they are maligning.

      I’m very proud to have made the SPCL’s bogus “hate list,” because it means my opinions carry enough weight for them to bother trying to defame and libel me. I’d be very worried about myself if they actually approved of me.

      And, yes, I did mention the use of flamethrowers in my column about the cleanup after Occupy Wall Street — but my thinking was that flamethrowers would be needed to purge the area of pathogens once the dirty hippies were rousted from their festering Obamaville. (To be perfectly fair, I did leave this implied, so I don’t fault anyone for concluding otherwise.)

      It was my hope that they be beaten with truncheons in the course of their removal — mostly because I consider Occupy Wall Street to be a terrorist organization whose M.O. is to demand political change by plaguing public locations with crime and disease.

  32. Mr Scott’s case seems like a clear example of self defense, with him defending his own residence after spotting a crime. On the other hand he could have very likely shot the perpetrator unprovoked. From the limited information in this article I can’t be positive one way or another but the jury has decided that one and my personal feelings after reading this article would probably side with Mr Scott.

    In the George Zimmerman trial I remain a skeptic of his story. It can neither be confirmed nor denied in my opinion with the only other witness being dead. But common sense tells me that the unprovoked attack claim does not add up. My personal theory is that GZ attempted to detain TM at which point TM fought back. I think that it would be reasonable to assume that the type of person who would obsessively police their neighborhood with only self granted credentials and would ignore 911 operator advice not to pursue the suspect would also attempt a detainment. That’s just my take of the situation. With the current laws on the books in Florida aquitting Mr Zimmerman was the only legally consistent conclusion. But it doesn’t feel like justice was served and that is why so many people are suggesting that we take a closer look at the Stand your ground laws.

    Personally, I’m white.

    1. When do you think Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon? Trayvon had run away all the way back to Brandi’s home, then backtracked to Zimmerman. The thing is even if Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon which thats only a guess on your part. Once Trayvon put GZ on the ground he was legally obligated to stop his assault. He didnt stop and kept it up for at least 45 seconds.

  33. No wonder lawyers make a killing. There is a ton of crap hitting the fan here based on feelings, not real life.

    Probable Cause in Scott’s case would have dictated an arrest. Dead kid, no wounds on gunman, two eyewitnesses saying he shot victim in cold blood.

    Probable Cause in Zimmerman’s case dictated what’s called a “long form” where you gather evidence from the scene and via interviews and submit to the prosecutor’s office, who then decides whether or not to issue a warrant. Dead kid, injuries to gunman consistent with initial questioning, grass stains on victim’s knees, grass stains on gunman’s back. eye witness statements claim “the guy in the sweater” was on the ground getting pummeled.

    You cannot arrest based on your feelings. You must arrest based on probable cause, which is generated by EVIDENCE.

    If you make a bad arrest, it can screw up the whole case. Maybe not sink it, but it looks really bad in court. So in some cases where Probable Cause is iffy, you send it to the prosecutor and let them make the decision.

    It is clear to me that there are a few people that would want to make these decisions based on what they feel. That, however, is subjective and not an option. You should be glad that it takes the various levels of evidence to search, make an arrest, and get a conviction that it does. Because one day ( I hope not) you may have to use those protections, and you will want “beyond a reasonable doubt” to be required if you’re in the defendant’s chair.

  34. Instead of arguing online why don’t y’all educate your kids, families, neighbors about what is right. WE “raced” our kids (no typo), so who is responsible? WE elected those career politicians – so stop whining and do something about it. Why is there a 2nd amendment? What purpose does it serve if nobody is fending for the most basic rights in this country? Back than in the 30’s it started with a “Heil Hitler” and the folks in my home country didn’t do anything about it, but allowing an Austrian to ruin Germany. France, the UK and the US looked the other way in hopes Hitler takes out Russia and once they decided to do something about it, it was almost too late. Talk the talk but also walk the walk…

  35. I found this per a Youtube discussion. I’m not totally familiar with all the facts of this case but how about calling the police and waiting for them to arrive. What if one or all of the men were armed with guns? What if a shoot out started? What if Mr. Scott was wrong about what was going on or if it was his car. Stay in your homes. Stop trying to be Bruce Willis. Guns should be used when you are being attacked.

    Understandable if Scott was going to his car and found these young men. Not so much when it meant trying to stop them. He is NOT a police officer. As for Zimmerman. He didn’t observe any actual crime. A teenager walking in the rain shouldn’t mean follow him.

    1. Trayvon wasnt just “Walking” in the rain. Zimmerman was a legit Neighborhood Watch. So you dont think we should have Neighborhood Watch?

  36. Good God, SOMEONE finally hit the nail squarely on the head and states something 1) true AND 2) valuable! Thank you, Wasteland_Soul! * His comments made July 30, 2013.

    Regarding Zimmerman, that case is so full of crap conjecture, guessing and utter nonsense, it just isn’t funny. The actual evidence shows Zimmerman calmly and reasonably made a call to a non-emergency police number. He made a dumb decision to get out of his car, but that was not a crime. When the police operator said “we don’t need you to do that”, referring to following Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman said “OK” and STOPPED following. What you hear (and what you don’t hear) on the phone is evidence of this. At that point, Zimmerman continues speaking with the police operator for 90 seconds (75 of which are with no heavy breathing and no wind noise in the phone). At this point, Zimmerman has done not one thing criminal.

    We don’t KNOW many real facts after this, including not one thing criminal by Zimmerman. So the narrative that says Zimmerman was a nut job who stalked Trayvon Martin, based on the events during Zimmerman’s police operator call (along with the eventual shooting), is preposterous. Zimmerman had plenty of reason to be suspicious, and that suspicion only grew based on Martin’s actions when he approached Zimmerman’s car and then ran away from it (unprovoked by Zimmerman who was still in the car). Listen to the call. Listen to the entire call.

    The best indication of who was the actual aggressor in the eventual physical altercation is who was screaming for help – or rather who was not. The best evidence shows Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. You can’t listen to the 911 call where you hear screams for 40 seconds and not believe that person was in dire need of help 5 seconds before the gun shot is heard. And given there is no actual evidence Trayvon Martin was the one screaming for help, THAT is reasonable doubt. No, THAT is SERIOUS doubt.

    We don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t make it less true. Maybe Zimmerman was so damn clever he duped everyone and figured out how to make the evidence side with him, even if he is as guilty as the greatest sinners whoever lived. You think he is that clever?

    All the questioning about what if this or that or what does and does not make sense is fun to talk about, but nearly none of it is proof of anything. Gaining a conviction on unanswered questions isn’t going to happen. Not when the prosecutor’s burden is to prove their case BEYOND any and all REASONABLE DOUBT.

    The jury came to the only verdict they could AND do the job they swore they would.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *