Monday, July 22, 2013

Black George Zimmermans, white Trayvon Martins and the Civil Rights hypocrites


From Brother Ivo:

As protesters took to the streets of America in their millions thousands hundreds to protest the 'racism' of the legal process that enables an unarmed youth to be shot by an adult claiming self defence, please permit Brother Ivo to introduce you to Roderick Scott.

At his trial in New York, Mr Scott admitted that he shot Christopher Cervini aged 17 last April when he challenged the young man and two friends whom he suspected of breaking into cars. Mr Scott says that young Cervini ran towards him shouting threats, so he drew his pistol and fatally shot the would-be assailant - twice.

Unlike George Zimmerman, who sustained head injury at the hands of Trayvon Martin, Mr Scott received no injury.

This too is a tragedy,

The Cervini family is understandably deeply shocked and defensive of young Christopher's memory.

"How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid', and he just kept on shooting him."

The jury heard the evidence: they spent 19 hours deliberating before acquitting Mr Scott of murder because the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

So far, the Rev'ds Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have failed to call for protests against this jury verdict, and the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme will no doubt avoid offering this as a counter-balancing story to the way they uncritically spun for the 'racist America' team in its last edition. Nor will they suggest that Mr Scott was obliged to sustain injury, also known as an 'ass whoop' within Trayvon Martin's youth culture.

Roderick Scott did not turn and run when Christopher Cervini ran towards him uttering threats: he stood his ground before discharging not one but two shots. Unlike Florida, New York does not have a 'Stand your ground' law, but in any event it was as irrelevant in New York as it was in Florida. Either the two men, Zimmerman and Scott, were in fear of their lives and entitled to discharge their lawfully-carried weapons in self defence, or they were guilty of murder.

In both cases, the jury heard the evidence and applied the law.

Brother Ivo hopes this case receives the publicity it deserves on both sides of the Atlantic.

If these two stories are read one after the other, one cannot fail to be struck by their similarity.

They yielded similar results, which is what one should expect of an impartial system of justice; the embodiment of which is a statue of a young women holding scales and blindfolded to ensure impartiality.

As those with a vested interest in inter-race tension and their media sympathisers home in on the one case while ignoring the other, Brother Ivo's mind goes back to the most famous speech of Dr Martin Luther King when he set the benchmark for race-blind institutions. He looked forward to a time when a man would not be judged by the colour of his skin but by the content of his character.

Sadly many of his so-called followers choose to forget this. They should be a ashamed of themselves.

36 Comments:

Blogger John Hall said...

So? Two wrongs don't make a right.

22 July 2013 at 08:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I can fathom why Zimmerman is considered to be racially white when his Hispanic roots would normally be used describe his appearance. Maybe if his surname was Gomez or Cortez that would have settled his racial profile.

22 July 2013 at 08:17  
Blogger Tom M said...

Brother Ivo,
To leave out of this article that Christopher Cervini was with two other people actually breaking into mr scott's neighbour's car at 3am while drunk, in order to make a racist point by making the two cases seem more similar than they are as if only the race of the assailant makes a difference is pretty dishonest.
There is precious little crossover between the cases in fact.

22 July 2013 at 08:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

19 hours to confirm he acted in self defence ? Bit of racism there, what !

Would have been far less for a white man in the same...

22 July 2013 at 08:51  
Blogger Jennifer Payne said...

None of which means a thing. You also forget that cha rafter witnesses described Travon as 'agressive' 'violent' 'racist' and numerous other such foulness. You forget that Travon was caught with numerous illegal items on school property. You forget that he was caught with numerous stolen jewellery.

The cases are simmular, the fact that you refuse to see this proclaims your ignorance and your racism. We will not cater to this injustice any longer. I will no longer cower to your oppression. Allow my right to live freely without unjust perscuition.

22 July 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What the hell was 08:58 all about ?

Ivo says the cases ARE similar...

22 July 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger Nick said...

These are two examples of countless gun crimes which happen on a daily basis in the U.S. I think the point of the post (forgive me Brother Ivo if I am putting words in your mouth) is the attitude of the media and its brainwashing effect on its audience.

The BBC, along with Channel 4, is notorious for its political leanings. I have no doubt that it shapes the attitudes of many British people. I don't know about the American media, but I guess they have the same problem. Either way, whatever we read or watch in the media, we should always assume it is only part of a bigger picture.

22 July 2013 at 09:30  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 08:58

Absolutely!

Glad it isn't just me!

22 July 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OIG & Explorer.

8.58 ? Do have a look again, there's nice chaps and you will see that J Payne is answering in the affirmative to Brother Ivo's post in response to the Tom M post. It is just you two!

Too much sun mixed with alcoholic drinks, boys, makes for myopic comprehension? ;-O

Blowers

We routed the Baggie Greens..Isn't life glorious!!

22 July 2013 at 09:48  
Blogger Tom M said...

Jennifer, the ONLY similarity between the two cases is that in both a young man was killed in self defence.

In one, he was walking home having purchased some items and was being followed by a paranoid vigilante with a hero fantasy despite being told not to by the police

In the other the young man was in the middle of a drunk and drugged up crime spree when he was challenged by a real hero, who, as he was facing odds of three to one, any one of whom may have been armed, felt a need to arm himself. When one of the three ran at him yelling "I'll get him", the hero had little choice but to fire.

22 July 2013 at 10:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Blowers:

Sorry - and 'll be the first to admit i'm often obtuse - but I beg to differ.

I get the affirmative bit, but Tom M appeared to be objecting to racism. Who are 'we'? What is the 'unjust persecution'? Don't know about 'baggy, but there seems to be a lot of bagGAGE offstage that we have not been part to.

A lot of confusion is avoided when - as you did- bloggers are addressed directly.

Do give Tiddles (if that's the one in the chair) a stroke for me, won't you?

22 July 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Blowers

For 'part' read 'party'.

22 July 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Rightly or wrongly, those of afro-carribean descent seem to have a reputation for carrying knives, which at close quarters can be as deadly as a gun. I would be very concerned if someone like that approached me in a threatening manner and would take every step possible to keep them at more than arms length. In the US this would probably involve the use of a gun, her in the UK, I'd have no defence.

22 July 2013 at 10:24  
Blogger Tom M said...

Explorer,
Brother Ivo seems to be attempting to equate two cases to make a point alleging that the liberal media and pressure groups of castigating Zimmerman while celebrating Scott is rooted in reverse racism. It is not. The primary differences are in the facts of the cases, not the races of the victims or perpetrators.
In twisting the presentation of the cases to make this point brother Ivo has accused some who protest against Zikmerman of racism based upon the sole fact that they (Al Sharpton et al) are black. That accusation is itself therefore somewhat racist.

22 July 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Tom:

It wasn't your post I had the problem with.

22 July 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger Tom M said...

OK sorry Explorer. I just wanted to clarify a point you seemed to question.

22 July 2013 at 10:59  
Blogger CSPB said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 July 2013 at 11:12  
Blogger CSPB said...

Tom M said...
...he was walking home having purchased some items and was being followed by a paranoid vigilante with a hero fantasy despite being told not to by the police

Not true. The timeline shows that he had plenty of time to walk home. Instead he tracked back and attacked Mr. Zimmerman.

"paranoid vigilante"?

Wrong terminology. Vigilantes act alone. They do not call the police.

22 July 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"I don't know about the American media ..." (Nick) - I thought it was accepted that the Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday are the only non-left-wing media outlets in the Western world. Remember, it's ok to kill people (perhaps LOTS of people) as long as you're left wing (disbelieve me? Look at history).

22 July 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Tom M

You seem to be saying that the difference in the two cases is that Zimmerman was the proximate cause of his own assault. Whatever lack of wisdom he showed (and I grant his lack of wisdom) he still did nothing to warrant assault. The only question to answer in determining a parallel is 'Was there a reasonable expectation of injury or death when the shot was fired?'

carl

22 July 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tom M:

Equally, one has to incorporate the fact that Mr Martin was demonstrated to have high levels of chemicals associated with marijuana. A key part of Mr Zimmerman's 911 call was his suspicion that "he's high or something" - that is, Mr Zimmerman's suspicion of Mr Martin derived from what appeared to be his abnormal behaviour.

Now, you are correct that Mr Cervini was caught in the act of committing a crime, and Mr Martin was not. For as far as the evidence permits, all either you or I know is that Mr Martin was just picking up skittles and iced tea, dandering home in a care-free drugged-up haze. There shouldn't be an imputation of crime, even though Mr Martin demonstrated himself quite willing and capable of achieving such, without evidence.

But what Mr Martin's drug-hazed state ought to be factored into, is whether Mr Zimmerman's suspicion was reasonable - even if it was ultimately incorrect at the time. In such instances, how many of us, seeing a young man in a hoody, meandering as if on drugs, in the middle of a community which had been experiencing burglarly, might not also call the police?

What Mr Zimmerman is responsible for is his disobedience to the 911 operator - disobedience that led to tragedy. But it was a tragedy, rather than a crime, because the shot was fired from beneath Mr Martin (as all the forensic evidence corroborated) in a fight where Mr Zimmerman had good cause to feel that his life was being threatened. Even if Mr Martin acted on a similar impulse (though we should not discount the effect that drugs have on decision making to weigh up the likelihood), and so could also legitimately claim self-defence, Mr Zimmerman's claim of self-defence seems perfectly consistent and strong to lead to the verdict he received.

22 July 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger IanCad said...

I'm not trying to pick a fight AIB, but the word "Disobedience" just dosen't sound right.

Mr Zimmerman is an adult and as such should not be bound as to what to do in a particular situation by someone who is not on the scene.

Now, it is true that in the USA an overweening submissiveness by the public is afforded the uniformed services,but somehow I don't think that even they would use such a strong term when a citizen chooses to exercise their own judgement.

22 July 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

What evidence is there that Zimmerman did NOT follow the advice of the dispatcher?

22 July 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

IanCad, I can understand why you might find issue with the word disobedience. My use of it in the context of responsibility could have been clearer. The 911 operator told Mr Zimmerman not to pursue, and he chose to do otherwise (he didn't contest this point himself). That in itself is not a crime, but it was a choice for which he is responsible. You are quite correct that he exercised his judgment but in so doing he chose to disobey the advice of the authorities who he wished to summon to the scene. He has responsibility. Not criminal responsibility, but responsibility nonetheless.

22 July 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thank You, AIB.

Understood.

22 July 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Bigland said...

You can't disobey advice. You can ignore it, but not disobey it. And every transcript I've read of the 911 call doesn't have the dispatcher giving advice: they tell Zimmerman he doesn't need to follow Martin. Zimmerman wasn't being told what he should do or what he must do, just what he didn't need to do.

22 July 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blowers, old fellow. 8:58 is, at its most generous interpretation, ambiguity at its most ambiguous…

If a statement is only to be read subjectively, bit of a damn waste of time then, don’t you think ?

{SNORT}



22 July 2013 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

So young Trayvon had cannabis in him as well as being in the habit of wearing a hood. All points to him possibly being shot dead in his twenties anyway, over some drugs argument, territory or ripping off usually. And by his own race too. Unless of course by then, it would have been HIM doing the shooting. That’s the African-American journey for lawless youth, who don’t leave it behind them, usually after prison. Now you can’t get away from that…

By the way, anyone know how much his mother is likely to make from trade-marking her son’s image and sayings ? Could well be a case of ‘out of grief comes joy’ as they say, what !



22 July 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, et alia, perhaps the confusion re 8:88 stems from the fact that it's appended as a reply to the post above. Only saw it on my smartphone now. Older browsers and pcs show such as regular comments.

22 July 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, et alia, perhaps the confusion re 8:88 stems from the fact that it's appended as a reply to the post above. Only saw it on my smartphone now. Older browsers and pcs show such as regular comments.

22 July 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Well there you go Avi. A bit beyond this man’s Edwardian steam laptop, even though it burns the finest Welsh anthracite, the same as used on main line expresses he’ll have you know !

Anyway, past caring now. This man is not the worlds weeping conscience. Two lads are dead because ‘they were young and stupid’. Happens all the time.

Next thread please !



22 July 2013 at 20:01  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Tom M

You help to make the point of the piece by your easy recourse to the " racist " taunt.

You do not know Brother Ivo's ethnicity and he is not the only person raising those concerns . Bill Cosby, Charles Barclay and Thomas Sowell are but three major black Americans receiving similar abuse for daring to challenge the unthinking zeitgeist.

In fact those of us with impeccable anti-racist credentials have an especial duty to speak because many are cowed into silence lest they fall foul of your easily thrown accusation.

You should read my earlier piece on the case which did not insult Travon Martin or lack sympathy for his parents.

The thrust of this piece is that in a proper legal system comparable cases should have consistent predictable outcomes. No two cases are the same but in these two the defendant feared for his life. That needed to be accepted by the jury and both succeeded. Neither should occasion outrage whatever the families may inevitably feel.

Mr Scott was not celebrated, neither should he be. He should however to live peacefully as should George Zimmerman, without being put in double jeopardy by politically motivated rabble rousers for their own purposes. The are plenty of white people acting similarly foolishly. So far, the BBC qualifies not least because of its resolute refusal to carry any contrary voice against the Sharpton/ Jackson narrative.

Incidentally, Mr Scott's acquittal was a more complex one because he fired twice: the prosecutor might have argued the first shot could be self defence but the second? Be that as it may, it was what lawyers call a " jury issue", and Brother Ivo is content to leave it there.

The main point is that Mr Scott received the same benefit of the doubt -and so he should .

Racist? Easy, juvenile and unworthy.

22 July 2013 at 20:46  
Blogger Nick said...

Avi Barzel said

"Inspector, et alia, perhaps the confusion re 8:88"

Avi, I've no idea what kind of clock you are using, Is this some new EU metric time system?

22 July 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I could use steam right now inspector, my power cable died.

Nick, I'm in Canada. We have no need to tell time here, so we're all pretty bad at it. Clocks? Ha! We're real men here.

22 July 2013 at 22:42  
Blogger Ian G said...

If you want equivalence, try this:http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/outraged-murdered-baby-snubbed-by-media/

Black journalist reports on killing of white baby by black muggers. Apparently, they are trying to prove the parents guilty! Read it all. It beggars belief.

22 July 2013 at 23:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Brother Ivo is right: we don't know his ethnicity, He has made a very important point about the modern method of 'ad hominem' attack.

If there is no objective truth, you cannot hold your opinion because it is true. You must hold it because of your race, nationality, sex, age, class or whatever.


Where these things are not known, there are two options. One is to surmise them. The other is to ignore them, and focus on the quality of the actual argument.

24 July 2013 at 08:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older