Until then, we are simply waiting for the next Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Amadou Diallo, and an unfortunately long list of unarmed black men who are considered criminals first and people a very distant second.
Considering whites are the overwhelming majority of interracial crime victims, and blacks are the majority perpetrators of all violence against blacks, and how many black leaders promote a mindset of racial solidarity in opposition to facts or the law, it's rather amazing that white people have not imposed that alleged de facto status as de jure.
o
For every Diallo, there is an OJ Simpson, with a history of domestic violence, who cut the throats of two white people and was freed by a predominantly black jury, and a Reginald Denny, who was absolutely known to have been attacked by blacks based solely on the color of his skin (and his life saved by blacks who are better men than you or Trayvon Martin), only his attackers were defended on grounds of racial solidarity. When you have the media editing Zimmerman's 911 call and doctoring his photographs to protect Martin's image, when you have the president of the United States and a member of Congress blindly defending Martin solely because of his color, and when every major racist story of the last few years has been a hoax or an insane, Orwellian distortion of facts to invent a racial motivation... you have a long way to go to convince anyone that blacks are some sort of disenfranchised class.
OJ was freed on the same reasonable doubt Zimmerman received. It does not make him any less guilty of killing his wife and her friend. Denny's attackers got reduced sentences. The only part of Denny's case which is similar to Zimmerman is that Denny was not breaking any laws when he was beaten. Otherwise, his attackers were not in the neighbourhood watch program, and they were all convicted of participating in the attack.
Meanwhile, there is the case which just wrapped up yesterday of John Henry Spooner, who shot his 13-year old black neighbour at point blank range after accusing him of stealing guns from his house. The difference in the two cases is that Spooner not only admitted to killing the 13-year old, but said he did so out of revenge for his stolen guns -- none of which were ever traced to the neighbour, who seems to have had no involvement in the crime. Even if the kid was involved, he did not deserve to be shot in cold blood.
Even now, there is the trial of Michael Dunn, who shot and killed a black teenager in Florida after claiming to be standing his ground during a verbal argument. We shall see what happens to this trial, but it also differs from the Zimmerman trial in that Dunn did not make up a story about the fight, he simply went home and ordered a pizza and never reported the shooting to police. What made the Zimmerman trial a lightning rod for racial injustice is that Zimmerman made the assumption that a 17-year old black male walking home from the store was in the process of committing a criminal act, or was about to commit a criminal act, or was a criminal in general. Then he decided to take his gun and doing something about it rather than speaking to Martin directly and finding out what he was doing in the neighbourhood. See my post above for how their conversation should have gone, if Zimmerman weren't trying to use his gun first and his brain second.
