65

Not in the Media: Roderick Scott found not guilty of manslaughter

The media exploitation of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a man who was defending himself – George Zimmerman – was a complete and total media circus driven by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in their attempt to divide and crush this country and destroy it from within.

That really is how I feel at this point. They must really hate this country. Why do I say this? Have you heard either Obama or Holder mention the self-defense shooting that happened in Rochester, N.Y. in April of 2009? It was during their administration after all. Why didn’t the main stream media pick up on this story? Why have we not heard from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? The case did after all involve white and black males.

If you found this post interesting, how about sharing it via Facebook, Twitter and email?
That’s the only way this story will get out.

Rodrick Scott, a 42-year-old male, was charged with with manslaughter after shooting a 17-year-old to death. The teen – Chris Cervini – was breaking into a cars in Scott’s neighborhood with two other criminals. Scott confronted them with his gun drawn and two of the teens split, the other – Cervini – rushed at Scott. Although Scott forcefully told the would-be attacker to stop, he did not.

In fear for his life, Scott stopped the threat by shooting Cervini twice, killing him. Rodrick Scott was never touched by Cervini. From Rochester’s Your News Now website, and a story dated Dec. 15, 2009.

Scott said on April 4, he was sleeping on the couch, because he and his girlfriend had a disagreement. In the early morning he awoke and heard voices. He looked out the front door to see what was going on outside.

He testified he saw three individuals who were in his driveway, saw them walk out and cross the street, then walk up to a neighbor’s vehicle, pulling on the latch and handles of the neighbor’s truck. He then went upstairs, told his girlfriend Tracy that someone was breaking into a vehicle, and told her to call 911. He grabbed his pistol, for which he has a permit, “to protect myself” then went outside.

Scott said his intent was “to stop or detain the criminals,” not to shoot anyone. He walked down the driveway and over to 39 Baneberry Way. He saw one person standing on a sidewalk, and some rummaging going on inside a vehicle, which had the dome light on.

At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. “I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,” Scott said.

He walked toward the individual, who started to walk away toward Manitou Road. He did not tell that individual to stop. It’s believed that individual was Brian Hopkins.

At this point, Scott was a foot or so off the sidewalk, and he saw someone rustling around inside the vehicle at 39 Baneberry. He testified he clearly saw two individuals. He drew his pistol and assumed the a shooter’s stance. “I didn’t know what I was up against, or if they were armed,” Scott said.

He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him.

He assumed the boy may have been armed.

“I felt if he got to me he would try to kill me or hurt me,” Scott testified.

After the shooting, Scott said Cervini, who was running at him, kept running, passed by him, and fell face-first onto the ground.

Scott was charged with manslaughter and went to trial. As noted above, he testified and told his story to the jury. In December of 2009, a jury – after 19 hours of deliberations over two days during which they asked for testimony to be read back – found Scott not guilty.

Now, where may I ask, is Holder’s Department of Justice? Are they investigating this case as they are investigating Zimmerman? Are they demanding the evidence – including Zimmerman’s gun – be held by police when it should be returned? Is Jesse Jackson referring to New York as an apartheid state? Where were the protests and small-scale riots back in 2009 after the verdict?

The Rodrick Scott case was both a self-defense situation and a stand your ground case. But there is no stand your ground law in New York. Did Scott have any injuries? Broken nose? Was his head pounded into the ground? Nope. Nothing. Not one injury at all. Scott was even well-versed in martial arts. But he shot Chris Cervini as he rushed him. Scott was in fear for his life.

So, where is the media? Where is Holder? Where is Obama? Where is Jackson? Where is Sharpton?

Might it have to do with the fact Rodrick Scott is a black male and Chris Cervini is a white 17-year-old kid?

Filed in: Featured, Gun Control, News Tags: , , ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

Trackbacks

65 Responses to "Not in the Media: Roderick Scott found not guilty of manslaughter"

  1. bien-pensant says:

    An armed black man defending himself and stopping a crime does not fit into the narratives the democrats want and can use.
    This president and his minions will only cherry pick situations that advance their agenda and help prove the need for curtailment of gun rights, what they euphemistically call “common sense gun control.” That is the democrat agenda, total gun confiscation.

  2. SeeingRed says:

    The answer to ‘where is’ can be found somewhere in the definition of hypocrisy. 

    • hardworkinmom says:

      where yes that is a question to be answered, is it not? well when I clicked on the links above, I found out that this story is from GREECE , not nyc! well now that would be for their government to decide, not ours. But side note agree on the hypocrisy! 
       

  3. TomL says:

    nothing to see here, move along

    • bien-pensant says:

      ..so, why does Obama keep running his mouth about Martin/Zimmerman?
       
      BTW, I am totally Zimmed out. What ever happened to Benghazi or the IRS scandals or something isn’t prime time on CNN? Why are we letting them create the topic and define the interest?

      • To be fair, Obama has said nothing since the verdict. It was Holder and the race baiters. As for your second question … think low information voters who think it’s the government’s job to take care of them and protect them.

        (Update: I hear Obama mentioned the Martin/Zimmerman case this afternoon in a press conference.)

  4. Dimsdale says:

    I felt that punch line coming.  Of course the cases are different: when a black shoots a white, the race baiters don’t feel the need to come out from under their rocks.
     
    I wonder: were pictures of a 12 year old Cervini plastered all over the NY papers?  Do you see white kids rioting all over the place over it? 
     
    I think not.

  5. UrbanSuburban says:

    The white boy was actually in the middle of a committing a crime with two other criminals.  Trayvon was just walking home.
    White Boy = Robbing Cars
    Black Boy = Walking Home
    That’s the difference.
     
     

    • I really find it unbelievable you and many others continue to ignore Zimmerman’s injuries. At some point it went from walking home to beating the crap out of someone. Martin’s death was not the result of “just walking home,” it was the direct result of him beating on Zimmerman, with the injuries in evidence and indisputable.

      • UrbanSuburban says:

        Trayvon was defending himself. Before a child or anyone is kidnapped, they are first followed. Before any robbery occurs, the victim has been followed.  Zimmerman followed, pursued and confronted Trayvon.  Zimmerman getting beaten was the direct result of Trayvon defending himself against a stalker.

      • Ahh yes… referring to facts not at all in evidence … there is no evidence AT ALL Zimmerman “confronted” Martin. The evidence shows Zimmerman was following him and lost track of him while he was on the phone with the dispatcher. Zimmerman said he stopped and turned back to the car when the dispatcher told him “you don’t have to do that.” Zimmerman says he was confronted and attacked. The evidence – and the testimony of John Good who was outside watching the fight before he went inside to call 911 – pretty much matches the story. There is no testimony that refutes Zimmerman’s recall of events. There is no way to prove Zimmerman did not confront Martin, but Zimmerman’s story from day one matched up with the evidence at trial.

      • Dimsdale says:

        if Martin had simply continued walking home, he would still be eating Skittles today.  If Zimmerman was returning to his car as the evidence indicates, he wasn’t “stalking” anyone.  If anything, by ambushing Zimmerman, Martin would be the stalker.  You have to get psst those dishonest photos of a twelve year old Martin…

      • 313ace says:

        medical experts testified those injuries were minor and non threatening. and he fought with zimmerman just like you would if you were being follwed in the dark. after zimmerman got out and walked up on trayvon. Martins death is a direct result of a nosy wanna be cop that forced him to defend himself as he was being stalked for several minutes

      • fullsailkid says:

        Trayvon got up off of Zimmerman and when Zimmerman had the opportunity he shot him. Zimmerman was screaming like a little bitch and Trayvon got up off of him. That’s why Trayvon was found in the grass and not on the concrete where he was supposedly still slamming Zimmermans head into the concrete when he fired. It’s obvious he wouldn’t have been able to grab his gun if Trayvon was straddling him like he stated.  Trayvon stopped, and when he got up Zimmerman reached behind himself grabbed his gun and shot in cold blood. If it was simple self defense their would be no need for lies. And Zimmerman told to many of them. Roderick Scott did not lie.

      • Yeah, your facts are so “obvious” there must have been jury tampering or six extreme racists on the jury. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means nothing to you at all does it?

    • Keith1226 says:

      I assume you know nothing of the case! Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, that is the true DIFFERENCE! And I suppose Trayvon racial remarks are ok too. Jackasses like you screw this country up. And now Obama stating Trayvon could have been him, NO SUCH LUCK!
       

      • 313ace says:

        how do you know who attacked who? zimmerman would not have been gettin his ass whooped if he stayed in the car. without that gun he would never have gotten out. he forced trayvon to stand his ground resulting in the fight zimmerman was losing.

    • MoonRidr says:

      Walking Home?  So Zimmerman beat his OWN head into the sidewalk?  He broke his OWN nose?  WTF?!!

      • 313ace says:

        Trayvon did that in self defense. or is that only reserved for zimmerman, if you were being followed what would you do, run away, hide, and after you did all that this person is still following you, what do you do? stand your = ground!
        Edited by Admin: If you’re going to drop into this site and post, you best read the TOU or all your efforts will be deleted.

      • It’s interesting the “Martin was defending himself from a stalker who he thought was going to kidnap or rape him” story has materialized out of thin air after the verdict was announced. Nobody claimed that before and the prosecution did not use that as an argument as far as I know.

        If he was afraid, he could have ran to the house he was staying at in less than 30 seconds, but he did not do that. He certainly had the right to “stand his ground” if he felt threatened and would have been justified in defending himself, but if this was the case he should have stopped when the threat was stopped. At a point – per Zimmerman’s statement – he felt his life was in imminent danger and shot to stop the threat. Does this situation suck? It certainly does suck.

      • tara m says:

        They did use it as an argument. It was one of their main arguments. The star witness, the girl martin was talking to said that  martin was running  away. This is backed up by Zimmerman. He told the 911 operator martin was running. Zimmerman started the fight and as soon as he was losing (he had minor injuries according to the medical experts) he pulled out a gun. 

    • dianna540 says:

      Wow!  So if you had someone around your home and you went out to check and make sure that your area was safe the person of suspicion has ever right to beat the stuff out of you because you were just being cautious and trying to prevent a possible incident.  You people are amazing.  
      Black Boy = Walking Home, sees someone monitoring him so attacks him and beats him almost to death.

      • 313ace says:

        you are completely out of touch. he wasnt near zimmermans home. if he wanted to avoid an incident he would not have left his car, that resulted in the only incident that night, the shooting.
        and answer me this: if zimmerman was getting beat to death like you say, why did he tell the nurse the next day he didnt need any medical treatment. didnt even wanna go to a nose specialist, all he wanted was a sick note. if im getting beat to death i want medical attention.

    • Flossie Mae says:

      Black Boy = assaulting someone.
      that’s the difference.

    • RobX says:

      Yes there were differences in the case.
      1) Scott picked up his gun and left his house specifically to confront and “stop or detain” the teens. Zimmerman just happened to have his gun on him when a confrontation happened.
      2) Scott drew his weapon and “assumed the shooter’s stance” before confronting the teens. Zimmerman waited 1.5 minutes during a struggle to draw his weapon.
      3) Scott lied about the facts of the actual shooting. Scott said the teen was running at him facing him the whole time. Only problem is one of the shots hit him in the back from the side and left his chest. The other shot hit him in the chest. At some point the kid was running away from him. Zimmerman’s story about the actual shooting matched the forensic evidence.
      4) Scott was never touched by the teen and in fact he never came within 10 feet of him. Zimmerman was at the very least punched and by witness testimony and physical evidence he was being beaten by Martin.
      Yes there are differences and they are far more problematic for Scott. 
      As far as self-defense it matters not what either teen was doing before the confrontation it only matters what happened during the confrontation. Did they reasonably…

  6. @UrbanSuburban – So, was Cervini’s death the result of committing a crime (breaking into cars) or the result of rushing at Scott? Your first post implies it was OK to shoot Cervini because he was committing a crime.

    • petermatmellcom says:

      Both deaths are tragic.  But at least 1) Roderick Scott did witness Cervini  IN THE ACT of committing a crime, and the confrontation he initiated was not only plausible but proven to be justifiable.  Zimmerman only witnessed Trayvon walking and suspected him of either about to commit a crime, or possibly being someone who committed a crime days or weeks earlier. The evidence proves that the confrontation that Zimmerman then initiated, therefore, was ultimately NOT justified.  Trayvon had not committed a crime previously, nor was he threatening anyone’s  life or property – let alone Zimmerman’s – prior to the confrontation that Zimmerman initiated, not was he found to have in his possession any weapons or spray cans or anything like that.   Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with nothing to justify it but his own suspicions based on Trayvon Martin’s appearance.  

      And 2) Roderick Scott was immediately arrested, charged and tried in a court of law to determine if he did act in self defense.  George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin on February 26, was immediately released without conditions, and not charged until April 11th, and only AFTER public outrage pressured them into doing so.
       

  7. gp100man says:

    Great shot, good shooting Mr. Rodrick Scott.  I think you did the right thing.  Once again, good job.  That’s one more thief off the streets, who is willing to harm others to keep from going to jail.

  8. sage says:

    Two different situations here. It’s unfortunate that someone is dead, but one was committing a crime. Trayvon was going home. I wish everyone would stop saying he should have went home. I truly believe george showed Trayvon his gun, when he so called reached for his phone that he just put in his pocket a minute before. This is why Trayvon punched him. george is paying and will continue to pay for this. 

    • What you “truly believe” matters not one bit. To say Martin wasn’t committing a crime is laughable, since their is physical evidence and witnesses showing he was beating on Zimmerman. You’re one who thinks if you’re being followed, you don’t just keep walking or ask the person “what’s up?” … you hide and jump the guy.

      • 313ace says:

        i keep hearing you speak of evidence as if there were a video of that nights events. your goin off what Zimmerman said happened you dont have any actual facts. and when zimmerman followed martin for an extended period of time in his car, got out on foot and followed martin in the dark, in a so called “crime ridden” community i guess Trayvon didnt have a right to fear for his life or stand his ground. trayvon was minding his own business, zimmerman was not. zimmermen followed trayvon, and now all of a sudden your losing a fight that you instigated and you have the right to kill me. thats laughable

    • Orv Williams says:

      Do you really think that Cervini committing a crime is what gave Scott the right to shoot him?
      Maybe you should take a little time and familiarize yourself with CCW and self defense laws… because you have a major misunderstanding of the mechanics of BOTH self defense shootings.
      Whether either youth was engaged in the commission of a crime or not has ZERO to do with the legal right to use leathal force in self defense.

      That is not a debatable point… it is FACT OF LAW.

      The law that allowed shooting these young men was simply the right to self defense.
      It is the reason that BOTH men were aquitted of any wrongdoing.

      And what you believe about Zimmerman and the issue of “showing” his gun to Martin has no meaning to the case. No evidence was ever provided to indicate such.

      You cannot convict someone on “I believe” and “I feel”.

      • Orv Williams says:

        Sorry about misspelling “LETHAL”.
        =P

      • tara m says:

        The discussion isn’t about whether or not the shooting was justified its about why the media didn’t cover it. In this case, the fact that he put himself into the situation by breaking  into cars is relevant. this article implies that it must be because of race. But maybe it is because people just don’t have sympathy for someone who could havE avoided the whole situation by getting a job and not stealing from people who work for what they have. I don’t believe zimmerman’s story but even if you do, martin did nothing to put himself in the situation in th first walking. he was brought into the situation for walking home 
        Besides all of this what brought the Martin case it to the media was the fact that z wasn’t arrested. The ny man was arrested and brought to trial Without the media and craziness of this trial. 
        Two wrongs don’t make a right. You are unfairly bringing race into an old case because you are mad that race was unfairly brought into this new case.  this man was found not guilty just like gz. I’m sure if many of you we’re on the jury you would have agreed. but now you’re putting this man all over the Internet and calling him a murderer purely  out of spite

  9. bien-pensant says:

    It is the leftist, main stream media that has presented conflicting facts, substituted opinions for truth, nurtured prejudices and encouraged preconceived notions, and advanced innuendo that race was a factor in this tragedy. The media has morphed Martin into a minor saint and Zimmerman into the Devil incarnate.
     
    Were the Skittles and “iced tea” (actually, Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail) ingredients for lean?
    Or just junk food for the munchies?
    We may never know. I’d bet there are some journalists know, but are actively avoiding telling.
     
     
     

    • Orv Williams says:

      It’s interesting that lefty media keeps beating the drum on “Iced-Tea and Skittles” like it somehow proves that Martin was a victim.
      That simple action alone is strong proof that some in the media are intentionally trying to paint an image of Trayvon Martin as an innocent victim… there is absolutely no other reason to keep repeating it over and over ad nauseum.
       

  10. 313ace says:

    let me ask a serious question to all the females on here. If your walking at night minding your own business, and a man in a car follows you for several minutes, what is going thru your head?
    A. oh, he’s just patroling the neighborhood so him following my every move is no crime, Ill just walk and ignore him and hope this turns out ok.
    or
    B. holy shit, i dont know why this creep is following me, maybe he wants to rob or rape me. He’s not a cop, i dont see a neighborhood watch light or sign on his car maybe Ill just speed up and see if he keeps following me. Oh shit, he got out let me run. Now he’s chasing behind me, let me hide.
    Now zimmerman said he walked straight back to his car and im sure you all believe him but since Steve is so big on evidence(even tho he only brings up what zimmerman said and ignores real evidence) the prosecutions timeline based on george zimmermans story combined with the 911 call as well as witness statements of timing what they heard. George Zimmerman has 2 minutes unaccounted for between the time he got off the phone til the time witnesses heard the argument start. what was he doing? Looking for Trayvon Martin, and when he found him Trayvon didnt take a chance on…

    • The evidence I’m referring to is the WITNESSES who saw Martin on top of and “ground and pounding” him. Plus the physical injury evidence on Zimmerman (broken nose, lacerations to the head…), plus the evidence on Martin (cuts and bruises to knuckles) and the trajectory of the shot fired, and the timeline. I’m not making up my evidence. THERE IS NO WAY I would ever say Zimmerman did not confront Martin, as you can not prove a negative.

    • scheidel21 says:

      I’m not a woman, but I imagine most women, and even though I’m not a woman I too, would call the police and tell them some guy has been following me and it concerns me. I might also confront that individual and ask them why they are following me, but I wouldn’t construe that they are following me as an invite to start a physical fight with them. I would also imagine in addition to or instead of a call to 911, I would head straight to a safe location. If I lived nearby that might be my house, or if not someplace with people if possible. Heading for someplace safe would actually be the highest priority on my list if I really felt threatened.

      • Irishviper says:

        If I was being followed by another woman I wouldnt feel so threatened but I still would not stop to ask what she was doing I would continue to a safe place. If I was being followed by a male I wouldnt stop & ask him what he was doing either, again I would get to a safe place or pick up my phone & dial 911. Following someone does not give the other person a right to attack them. Martin had a phone & like Zimmerman & should have picked it up & called the police if felt threatened. Stalking is excessively following the same person with intent to harm them & even then you still cant start a physical altercation with them. My belief  is Martin was a punk kid & was agitated by Zimmerman following him “the creepy cracker” & instead of calling 911 he physically attacked Zimmerman. It makes me wonder that if Martin was not up to no good in that neighborhood that if he felt threatened by Zimmerman why didnt he just go home & call the police? Or call from where he was? Evidence shows he had a phone. 
         

  11. RandyJ says:

    The Justice for Trayvon crowd do not see TM for what he was.  They will make excuses and avoid the real issue.  Those racist see only color.  Their excuse will simply be that “at least he got arrested and was tried”… oh well, the police and court did not see evidence of any law being broken so GZ was not arrested.  The court found the same thing.   Roderick Scott had even less reason to kill.  Nothing from the dead boy’s family or parents, nothing from activists to protect his rights or to hold him up as a martyr or hero.  He was a THUG and got what thugs take a chance of getting.

  12. Flossie Mae says:

    It all starts in the beginning. If our children are taught hate and racism, they will grow up to hate and be racists. Unfortunately that hate can get you into situations you can’t escape from. TM deemed GZ a “Creepy Ass Cracker”  dismissed in the media as slang. Truth: it is a racist term and very indicative of his views toward other races. That view controlled his actions. 

  13. fullsailkid says:

    I keep missing the part were Trayvon was breaking the law……….

    • Asked and answered multiple times. So, did Cervini deserve to get shot because he was breaking into a car or because he rushed at Scott?

    • scheidel21 says:

      What does breaking the law have to do with anything? Do I think Zimmerman put himself in a place that ultimately resulted in the incident, yes. But he did it because of genuine concern, will we ever know everything about that night, no, however, the evidence and testimony, does not contradict Zimmerman’s story. As a matter fact in many ways it support his story. At the point that Martin assaulted Zimmerman it was technically a crime. Even if Martin had assaulted Zimmerman because he was afraid, and Zimmerman could reasonably be afraid for his life then it becomes self defense.

  14. Terasina says:

    So do we really know for sure that Cervini was breaking into a car?  Or was it one of his buddies vehicles?  I mean everyone keeps saying that when Trayvon was walking in between houses, he was just walking in between houses, he wasn’t looking into the houses.  Zimmerman thought he was out of place because he was walking slow in between houses in the rain and not on the side walk.  Why is it that that three were breaking into vehicles because they were rummaging in a vehicle, talking and ran when a man came running toward them with a gun?  All the article said is that he ran toward him yelling, yelling what?  No, stop, it’s my car?  Don’t shoot?  What?  Both Men were found not guilty.  But only one is being rioted against because he is not black.  President Obama needs to stay out of such things and get back to what he was elected to do, which is run this country and not ruin it!!!  If he could have been Trayvon, he is saying that he would have been expelled from school and doing drugs!!   Is that what we want as a President?  Trayvon is not the innocent little boy that everyone is trying to portray.  We need to get back to the basics of life, teach our children respect for one another, for ones property, for our elders and…

  15. Barack OBama, Erik Holder, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson won’t EVER review this case, it is not to their advantage. They are race hustlers and Leftist socialists, every last one of them. 

    While I didn’t follow this case, because only the local and surrounding media reported on it, I have read through several of the key facts and some of the testimony. This certainly appears to be a justifiable shooting with a tragic ending. The life of a young man was lost. His family and friends are grieving and whatever he could have been has been extinguished. However, many lives MAY be saved due to this very unfortunate killing. Countless kids will consider the possible consequences and decide that radios, gadgets and coins are not worth the risk of losing their lives. They will redirect their energies to positive adventures and make a positive difference in their communities and possibly the world.

  16. petermatmellcom says:

    These cases look similar, but they’re different in two critical way. 1) Roderick Scott witnessed Cervini IN THE ACT of committing a crime before confronting him. George Zimmerman witnessed Trayvon Martin doing nothing but walking home, followed him after being told to stand down by the 911 operator, and initiated a confrontation without any provocation or suspicion of criminal or even dangerous activity. <br data-reactid=".r[1pux9]…

  17. petermatmellcom says:

    2) Roderick Scott was arrested and charged with suspected manslaughter IMMEDIATELY after the incident. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin on February 26th, and was not charged until April 11!

  18. petermatmellcom says:

    People forget how why this case became a national sensation in the first place. It wasn’t because a white man shot a black man. It’s because a white man shot a black man and wasn’t even charged! It took a month of public outrage and political pressure to even get charges filed. How long did it take Police to charge Roderick Scott?

    • bien-pensant says:

      For the record and in the interest of getting one myth dispelled, Zimmerman is Latino.
       
      There is no such thing as a “white” Latino.

      • petermatmellcom says:

        You are wrong on so many levels.  First, the US classifies Latinos / Hispanics as Caucasian (aka white.)  I’m Latino and my birth certificate says I’m Caucasian.  

      • petermatmellcom says:

        Second, Zimmerman is half Latino / half White.  Another way of saying it is, he’s a “White Latino.”  Third, Latinos come in all shades.   Mariano Rivera and Yasiel Puig are Black.  George Lopez and Benicio del Toro are more Native American  looking, and Shakira and Andy Garcia are White.  Yet all Latino.  So clearly, there can be White Latinos, at least in comparison to others.  

      • petermatmellcom says:

        And Lastly, self-identifying as a “Latino” in America has become as much about an intellectual decision one makes as it has about traditional pre-determining factors like racial make-up, language, or country of origin.  Many Americans with Spanish surnames have long given up their roots and do not identify anymore for a million different reasons, and they often refer to themselves as “White Latinos”  

  19. MissFaye2U says:

    Wasn’t this incident “swept under the rug” like many of the other murders in that area until somebody spoke up and THEN it got the worldwide attention it did?  Some crimes/murders go unnoticed while others get noticed through the media.

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.