Sandusky, Trayvon, and what planet do some people live on?

Yesterday morning before the Sandusky verdict came down, my hub was tuned into the Mike & Mike show on ESPN. They were discussing the Sandusky case, and they had a caller on the line. I didn't catch who it was, but it was a colleague and not just a listener. We all know the facts of the case, right? Ten victims, now adult, came forward with painful and humiliating stories of sexual abuse, with many collaborating details. An eyewitness to the rape of a child who reported it at the time. A previous allegation swept under the rug.

So Mike (or Mike) asked this caller what he thought the verdict would be. His answer was "I know what I'd vote, but I don't know what the jury will decide." ok. But then he went into the character witnesses they had brought in, the neighbors and Sandusky's wife to describe him in glowing terms...what a good guy he is. I thought...is he playing devil's advocate? Then he described how the police had coerced testimony from the "kids" by telling them what other victims had described, and suggested that the memories of abuse were planted. He went on at length, defending Sandusky, leaving out the impact of the evidence against him, talking only in glowing positive terms.

I found this disturbingly reminiscent of Zimmerman defenders, including the officials who decided to stop the investigation before interviewing all the witnesses, including the one teenager who was walking his dog just a few yards away. Did they decide that if a black teenager is involved in an altercation, he must be the aggressor, regardless of fact? That Sanford is better off with one less black teenager? Or simply that challenging the stand your ground law is not good politics? Maybe it's not such a good idea to have officious wannabe cops traipsing wild-west style around with guns, stalking every black kid that dares walk to 7-11?

Online, a disturbing number of posters are posting graphics featuring white people who were killed by black people and asking why this isn't important to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the media in general. I always point out that these cases were investigated, as evidenced by pictures of the perpetrators included in the very graphic they posted. It's pretty clear that they have no clue why activism was necessary to get justice for Trayvon. I poked a few of them until they exposed the seething racism under their convictions, earning comments like "You wouldn't allow your kids to walk in a black neighborhood, so you're a hypocrite." (Which is hysterical, since my children walk in not just any black neighborhood, but this very black neighborhood, Sanford, almost every day).

But I digress. Was the point that black people are scary, so Trayvon deserved to be killed for craving skittles? That seems to be a theme in certain circles. That it's justifiable to kill people as long as they are vaguely threatening and black. In no universe is a broken nose delivered by a scared kid you stalked and confronted a life-threatening condition. Sorry.

I haven't made up my mind that Zimmerman is guilty. I want to see all the evidence first, and I realize that the press releases only the most salacious point of view, and it's all biased. I lean towards guilt, not because of the spin, but because of the 911 calls and witness testimony. But I recognize that it's possible Trayvon attacked a man he perceived as a threat. I probably would. Follow me and demand answers from me, and I will punch your ass in the nose. I promise. But I am secure in the knowledge that if you shoot me dead for punching you out, you will be prosecuted. I'm not a young black man. And unless you're a celebrity, you won't get much sympathy from the public and the press.