While outrage peddlers try to inflame racial tension over George Zimmerman’s acquittal (a nice favor to the administration who’d like to forget its numerous scandals) these same peddlers are silent this case. The case of Roderick Scott and 16-year-old Chris Cervini is almost identical to Zimmerman-Martin.

Scott claims he shot Cervini in self defense. He was eventually acquitted, a verdict with which I also agree. More on the case:

It was verified during Scott’s murder trial that he called 911 before the bloody confrontation took place. It was also determined that he opened fire with his legally owned firearm only as a last resort when he reasonably believed his life was in danger.

Still another similarity between the two cases was Scott’s testimony that there had been  a rash of break-ins in the area. Scott testified that on the morning of the fatal encounter he observed Cervini and two other youths breaking into a neighbor’s vehicle. Scott says he ordered the suspects to freeze and wait for the arrival of the police.

He insists that he opened fire on Cervini only when the teen “charged” him and was screaming that he was going to get Scott.

After Scott was acquitted, family members of the deceased child claimed that justice had not been served by the verdict. They shared their belief that their son’s killer had taken it upon himself to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

But this is where the similarities between the two cases end. There were no marches, no vigils, no mobs crying “No justice, no peace.” There were no riots or revenge beatings of lone black men by gangs of white teens. There was also no statement by the president — whose named coincidentally was Barack Obama — or other efforts to inject his personal biases into the outcome of the trial.

Outrage peddlers are silent because this story doesn’t fit the narrative of racial strife. Al Sharpton can’t Tweet about his photo ops with Jay Z and Beyonce over instances of justice like this.

So do Sharpton, NAACP, Piers Morgan, Stevie Wonder, etc, etc, all believe that Roderick Scott is a murderer? That he should have been denied his ability to defend himself? Are they really wanting to reintroduce Reconstruction-era suppression on the ability and right to self defense?

More on this topic here, via my monologue for The Blaze.