That is why there was so many different heights given . I will concede that 6'3 seems incorrect . Regardless he was still about 4" taller than zimmermen . Lets move on from that and let me ask , do you think Scott at 6'1 240 pounds needed to plant 8 bullets into an unarmed 5'9 160 pound 16 year old ?
Just like in the Zimmerman case, I'll go with what the jury finds after a fair trial. I'm just glad there was an arrest made and we didn't have to wait. I will say that shooting more than once seems more typical of panic and scared for your life reaction, than simply firing one single shot.
Roderick Scott weighed 240lbs, height 6’1, target shoots, gun holder for 25yrs, hunts, enters gun competitions ,has training in three marshal arts. Uh yea I bet he was really scared of that 16 year old white boy .
Okay compare that to Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman, a grown man outweighs Martin, knows he's armed, has been to gun training, trains MMA 3 times a week for 3 hours each day. Then there's Martin who just barely turned seventeen about a week before the night of his death, was unarmed, and had no MMA training. That's pretty similar circumstances. In both cases I'll accept the verdict of the jury who sat on the trial? Do you only accept the verdict in one of the cases?
I do since one trial I watched and the other I didn't . I do however think one was more a case of self defense and one appears not so much . I do find it interesting that one involving a black youth has blown into a huge media event ,while the other never even beyond the local level . Oh well at least the news isn't bothering us with those boring stories about the IRS or Benghazi .
Quit trying to act like this story is any different. Geezuz, you lose all credibility. Just come right out and say it is a freakishly similar story and you do not understand why there has not been an uproar over this one as well. When you try to find whatever little minuscule difference between the cases, you are showing your intellectual dishonesty and your willingness to lie to make a point. They are nearly a carbon copy of each other, and if you get riled up over one of them you should be riled up over both. If neither get you riles up, that is fine too. But no way you can, as an intelligent adult, tell me that you find enough difference in the two cases to make you react a different way.
No two trials are similar. And this one had significant differences, including multiple teens in the act of a crime. So it is unrealistic to compare this case with the Zimmerman trial. What Ican question is why this defendant was out with a gun and didn't simply allow the police to be responsible for crime prevention. So I can agree with that similarity in the two cases and point to too many guns in too many hands resulting in too many young people's deaths.
