What would it have taken for the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman to find him guilty? Well, try this on for size: imagine that instead of emerging from his encounter with Trayvon Martin bloodied with a broken nose, he didn't have a scratch on him. Imagine he had also admitted he confronted Martin with gun drawn and hadn't actually been attacked - but had shot Martin simply because the teen was running at him. Lastly, imagine Zimmerman was built like a brick outhouse, had trained in a few martial arts and even competed in martial-arts tournaments. Is it conceivable there could have been an acquittal?
Luckily for Zimmerman, the above was not his scenario. But those were the facts in the case of another man who shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old.
And there was an acquittal.
The case was however, different in two apparently significant ways: the teenager was white and the shooter was black.
The man's name is Roderick Scott, and he shot teen Christopher Cervini in 2009 in Greece, New York. As with Zimmerman, Scott was aware there had been crimes in his neighborhood; unlike Zimmerman, Scott wasn't a neighborhood-watch volunteer. But after observing some individuals preparing to break in to a neighbor's vehicle on an April 4 night, Scott grabbed his handgun and walked outside "to stop or detain the criminals," as he put it. He then saw someone rummaging around inside the vehicle and saw two suspects altogether, at which point he drew his weapon, chambered a round, took a shooting stance and ordered the teens to freeze, prompting one them to run off. But the other, Chris Cervini, charged toward him yelling that he was going to get him, claims Scott. Having already warned the criminals he was armed, Scott testified that he then shot the teen so he would not "kill me or hurt me."

American Thinker

I am so tired of the "if the roles were reversed" excuse for racism displayed in this case