First: This is a tragedy. A young boy died in a stupid, avoidable incident; that is always cause for mourning. That said: Your source is wildly inaccurate (or at least disagrees with every other source).
A neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy and was just found not-guilty by a jury after two days of deliberations.
There are two lies in this opening statement alone. Roderick Scott was not a neighbourhood watch man - this statement appears to have no purpose but to draw false equivalence to the Zimmerman case - and he was not carrying a concealed weapon. In fact, he specifically drew his weapon, assumed a shooter's stance, and gave them a verbal warning that he was armed and had called 911 - and was then attacked, upon which he fired his weapon. Other key differences:
-Roderick Scott had not been obviously and suspiciously following the boys beforehand, in a move that would make them nervous and paranoid.
-He also hadn't been specifically told not to do what he was doing,
let alone escalate the situation, by police.
-Scott was dealing with three people; this clearly makes the use of a force multiplier at least more justifiable.
-The boys Scott was confronting were actually in the process of committing a crime;
he had grounds to suspect them other than their skin colour.
-Roderick Scott immediately called 911 a second time, advised the authorities that he had shot someone, and gave a statement of what had transpired.
-Scott appears to have been taken into custody and charged immediately, not following a two-month delay and massive national outrage.
-Scott testified at his own trial, and this testimony was overall extremely consistent with the statements he gave to 911 and to the police following his arrest.
-On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense were remarkably inconsistent.
-Cervini's family retained two lawyers and filed the initial paperwork to press a civil lawsuit against Mr. Scott in 2010, but did not follow through. Best guess based on this is that their attorneys advised them that they basically didn't have a case. Given the much lower bar of evidence in civil court, this is... pretty damning.
Oh, and this happened in 2009. It's more than a little hypocritical to wait until a case has mostly fallen off the radar - until primary sources are unavailable for key facts - and then ask why nobody's hearing about it. I'm not even going to touch the racist dogwhistles and false equivalences all over your source.