So I get on my Facebook this morning and get on the best political group page ever created (‘All Politics’ if you must know) and somebody had submitted a post about some other page entitled “Kill Zimmerman” with a membership of 95 people who agree that Zimmerman should be killed. Clearly, this is a violation of Facebook rules, right? Wrong. After reporting the page twice, this is what I received from the admin at Facebook (click image to enlarge):
Apparently, Facebook doesn’t consider anyone promoting the killing Zimmerman a credible threat; but I wonder if Facebook would have the same reaction if the name “Zimmerman” had been changed to the name of another well-known public figure?
On May 1st of this year, 18 year old Methune, Massachusetts high school student Cameron D’Ambrosio was arrested and charged with communicating a terrorist threat on Facebook for posting “Fuck Politics, Fuck Obama and Fuck the Government,” and rap lyrics (and no offense but I use the word lightly) he wrote where he stated that:
“F— a boston bomb wait till u see the s— I do, I’m be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”
He faced 20 years in prison under MGL. Ch. 269, Section 14. His bail was set at $1 million, even though he had MADE NO SPECIFIC THREAT OF ANY ACTION AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. Judge for yourself if this kid seems like a ‘credible threat’: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbJTHkdBMc&list=UUHvNZOou9CK-SsTZ_B3BjMg&feature=player_embedded
D’Ambrosio was set free on June 7th when a grand jury refused to indict him. He spent one month in prison for his ‘rap.’ And yet, when Mitt Romney was running for president in 2012 absolutely no one reported, arrested, or charged any of the countless Obama supporters who tweeted and posted specific threats to “assassinate” Romney if he won (http://http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter), including these little ditties (click image to enlarge):
In April of 2009, 42 year old Roderick Scott was awakened at 3 a.m. by a noise outside his Rochester, NY home. He noticed three teenagers breaking into a neighbor’s car across the street. Did he call the police? No. As a concerned citizen, he grabbed his .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol, went outside, and confronted the teenagers – 17 year old Christopher Cervini, his cousin James, and their friend Brian Hopkins, with the intent to “to go out and stop the criminal act or detain them,” because according to Scott, “I wanted to stop them before they could get away. We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.”
When Scott warned the teens that he had called the police, Cervini ran at Scott shouting “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him,” to which Scott responded by shooting Cervini twice and killing him. Scott then called 911 to report the incident. Scott was arrested and charged with manslaughter, to which he pled “not guilty” on the basis of self-defense (because Scott was outnumbered, the law permits the use of a ‘force multiplier’, in this case a .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol, in his own defense).
On December 18th, 2009, Scott was acquitted of all charges, and walked out of the courthouse a free man. There were no protests, no riots, no looting, no burning of flags, and no concerned Attorney General on television vowing to pursue a federal investigation into the shooting death of 17 year old Christopher Cervini.
Well, because unlike George Zimmerman, a Hispanic male who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old Black male after he was physically assaulted and pinned to the ground, Roderick Scott is a Black man who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old White male who stood across the street.
The cases are almost identical, except for two factors: 1) Cervini was committing a crime (breaking and entering a vehicle, theft); 2) Cervini had not physically assaulted Roderick Scott, nor did he have him pinned down to the ground. Moot points both, as both the Zimmerman case and the Scott case are self-defense cases, and it only matters that each of the defendants acted out of fear for their own lives.
There were no public outcries damning Roderick Scott for taking matters into his own hands. No one ever pointed out that he could have easily called the police instead of taking action himself. No one called him a “wannabe cop, ” or questioned why he hadn’t even give the police an opportunity to respond before he had decided to take action. It was assumed and accepted that Scott had acted in the best interest of his neighborhood.
Why weren’t these exemptions from blame extended to George Zimmerman? Do we now live in a society where a Black man has the right to self-defense, but a Hispanic man does not? Where a cry to “Kill Zimmerman” or “Murder Romney” is not perceived as a “credible threat”, but “Fuck Politics, Fuck Obama and Fuck the Government,” can get you arrested, facing 20 years imprisonment?
What’s going on here, America?
The Zimmerman case has served only to further reveal the growing hypocrisy of the current administration’s policies, and the mind-boggling contradictory outcries from those who claim to seek “equality” before the law, while simultaneously refusing to extend that same equality to anyone who they do not perceive to be worthy of it. How, exactly, will this lunacy be reconciled?
Imagine, if you can, a society where the right to self-defense will be determined upon race, social status, economic class, and gender – in that order.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that exactly what the Civil Rights Movement fought to eradicate?
Make up your mind, people. You can’t have it both ways.