Reverse the Races, and the Verdict Would Be Reversed

How many really think that a big black man with a gun killing a skinny white kid with Skittles would not have received a guilty verdict?

Supporters of the George Zimmerman verdict say that with the evidence the jury had, it’s the verdict they had to come to.

hoodie, verdictWell, it’s true that the facts and evidence in this case lead to an easy verdict, but it’s not the one this biased jury decided.

Obviously, someone is at fault here. But you’re telling me it’s the scrawny kid coming back from getting some Skittles, and not the paranoid dude with an authority complex and a heart full of suspicion and hatred? The one who was told by the police dispatcher to stay put?

Oh yeah, and by the way, he’s the one with a GUN.

The young teenager is unarmed. But – wait! Not so fast, says Mr. defense attorney! After all, he’s got that sidewalk he conveniently keeps with him wherever he goes! (Yes, the defense actually held that the sidewalk was Trayvon’s weapon.)

So the big guy with a gun follows the high school boy (who is brandishing a loaded sidewalk) on a dark rainy night. This skinny kid was returning from buying some Skittles and tea during halftime of an all-star game. While talking on his phone, he says he’s being followed.

Now, consider this: What if it was you being stalked by a mysterious big dude at night? Might you be a wee bit worried?

In fact, to really make my point, let’s do a little experiment. Before we go any further, let’s just change up the races in this case. What would happen then?

Say the big stalker dude is black. He’s a frustrated wanna-be cop who has said many things that indicate he is racist, frustrated and wants to make some hoodlums pay. Now he gets to play neighborhood watchman. He reports the hoodie-wearing youngster, but was told to stay in his car.

The kid is white. He is known in the community as a good kid, if just an average student. He smoked some pot. (Oooh! Like nearly half of the student and overall population in the country.)

Now, on a dark rainy night, this big black man follows the skinny white kid. (“Big black man” – sounds menacing to the jury!) That the kid would be scared, no one could doubt.

No, we don’t know exactly what happened when they met that night. But do we really need to?

The facts are clear: a frustrated man with a gun, harboring resentment (as recordings show us) toward just the type of “criminal” he thinks he’s following, stalks the high schooler.

The kid hasn’t done anything, and he isn’t about to do anything, except watch the rest of the all-star game. He is absolutely innocent.

And he is scared. He obviously feels he’s got to get ready to defend himself from a possible attacker. And why the hell would he not??? I mean, talk about standing your ground! One would think that the “stand your ground law” would apply to the person being stalked on his way home, not the stalker!

Again, what if it was a little white kid innocently walking home, and a big black dude with a gun who followed and shot him?

Do you really think for a minute that the verdict would be the same? If you say yes, you’re either lying or your prejudices are so deep they allow you to fool yourself. (Or you’re the defense attorney, who said if Zimmerman was black, he never even would’ve been arrested. He said a lot of ridiculous things.)

Oh, but the Supreme Court of this country thinks racism is over. Uh huh. Right.

As New York hip hop radio host Jay Smooth said in a widely shared tweet, “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.”

And as wrote at, “Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn’t like the look of him.”

James Israel
Social media