[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/19/2009 5:27:25 PM EDT
|
I apologize if this is a dupe, I didn't see a thread on it in this HTF going back a few days.
http://rochester.ynn.com/rochester-news-2004-content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April. "I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” Scott said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it's still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over." As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, Scott admits he didn't know how it would all turn out. "I was nervous of course,” he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today." Cervini's family members say justice wasn't served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he'd never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner. "The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered." Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police. Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott. "How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him." Scott says the last seven months have been difficult for him and his family. If he could go back to the events in the early morning hours of April 4, there are things he says he would do differently. "If it meant a person not losing their life, absolutely,” he said. “Would I still have tried to stop what was going on? That I would have done. But if I knew ahead of time that I could do something to help somebody from losing their life, I don't want anyone to lose their life." Scott says the first thing he was going to do was go home and get a good night sleep. When asked if he'll continue living in his current home, which is just one street away from the Cervini's, he said “for the time being.” 
|
|
thats good news! ive been watching/listening to this story since it broke, 96.5 covers it pretty well except they like to put there liberal DB spin on it just a touch. atleast i cant pick up on it good shoot. ETA: just because the kid wasnt arrested for anything doesnt mean he didnt commit 1000 crimes/felony's. he was just a talented criminal. never got caught. |
|
from what the friend says it sounds like they attempted to say that this guy basically executed their friend...I'm surprised that he wasn't found guilty, regardless of the truth...
also good to know because I've been having a similiar issue with people looking into cars at night. I'm always reluctant to carry cause the car is not worth shooting someone, but who knows what they will do when confronted.... 
|
|
Glad to see that there is some hope for the NY legal system in general. I know I've had my ups and downs with family/support court in Monroe county.
I was also following this since it broke on 98.9 the BUZZ...Some liberal comments of course. I was hoping this would have made a little more than local news, but then again if it got any bigger the outcome would have gone the other way I think. It was a good case to see where the gray line lays for the area...that's for sure. |
|
I haved mixed feeling on this. On one hand I believe it was most likely self defence and a justified shoot. All that was needed was for him to believe this "person" had a weapon of some sort and was coming towrds him/fearing for his safety/life.
On the other hand he should have never put himself in that situation. He should have never left his house period! Go ahead, get your gun, call 911, watch out the window and make sure they are not going to break into your house. In my opinion, he went looking for the confrontation/fight. If he had just yelled from his driveway those kids would have run like the little scrared kids they are. He chose to leave his own property and confront them. I know he was just being the good neighbor/samaritan, but he could have done that by just calling 911 and waiting it out. Breaking into cars isn't a reason to draw a weapon unless you are a LEO. I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. That all being said, this case will hopefully solidify/clear up any gray areas in NYS self defense laws. I just hope the libs don't try to take that right away. Edited: for spelling= NO COFFEE YET |
|
Quoted: I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. That all being said, this case will hopefully solidify/clear up any gray areas in NYS self defense laws. I just hope the libs don't try to take that right away. You didn't hear the evidence introduced at trial so why are you disagreeing with the juries decision? Once you raise the justification of defense as outlined in Article 35 "the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury decided the prosecutor did not meet the burden of proof after having heard ALL the evidence presented at trial. ARTICLE 25 |
|
While I'm truly saddened by the death of any kid young adult, the shooter was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. We do not have the details, toxicology reports, witnesses, et al. there must have been enough compelling evidence that after 19 hours of deliberation the gave the verdict....Winners always say "justice was done" and the losers claim just the opposite.
Use this as a lesson: If you go around breaking the law and someone halts you with a gun, don't go running at him screaming that you're going to kill him.....I don't care how tough you are, you're NOT bulletproof. 
|
|
Quoted:
I haved mixed feeling on this. On one hand I believe it was most likely self defence and a justified shoot. All that was needed was for him to believe this "person" had a weapon of some sort and was coming towrds him/fearing for his safety/life. On the other hand he should have never put himself in that situation. He should have never left his house period! Go ahead, get your gun, call 911, watch out the window and make sure they are not going to break into your house. In my opinion, he went looking for the confrontation/fight. If he had just yelled from his driveway those kids would have run like the little scrared kids they are. He chose to leave his own property and confront them. I know he was just being the good neighbor/samaritan, but he could have done that by just calling 911 and waiting it out. Breaking into cars isn't a reason to draw a weapon unless you are a LEO. I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. That all being said, this case will hopefully solidify/clear up any gray areas in NYS self defense laws. I just hope the libs don't try to take that right away. Edited: for spelling= NO COFFEE YET Sorry, but no, thats like saying any shoot is not justified because you put yourself into the situation by leaving the house that day. He has a right to not have to cower in a locked closet while the Police, who may be anywhere from 1 to 45 minutes away, respond to pick up the pieces. The deadly force encounter began when the subject rushed at the defendant, the law comes into play at that moment, not while the defendant is engaged in the legal activity of being a concerned citizen and neighbor. Can you effectively retreat from someone running at you? Should you turn your back and run? Find cover? Does he have a weapon? Sorry, the subject brought this on himself, charged a MWAG and got shot, big surprise. The defendant's duty to retreat doesn't come into play until he perceives a potential threat. |
|
dark and ems nailed it.
Just because you have the means to defend yourself doesn't mean that you're legally prohibited from enjoying the other rights and privileges of law abiding citizens, such as the right to tell kids to get off your lawn, or that you called the cops on them, or to get away from your neighbor's car, or to get away from his daughter's window. That's a common misunderstanding by gun owners, and an occasional misunderstanding by DA's and juries. (Also, not that I want to defend the douchebag, but the criminal record belonged to his cousin, not him. The articles are all poorly worded, but ultimately in agreement on that. I had to read the relevant sections numerous times in order to figure it out for myself.) |
|
I do see all of your points, but there are too many people out there that will see this as some sort of vigilanteeism. This can hurt all of us that exercise our 2A rights, as I do every day. You have the right to protct yourself and Roderick Scott did that in my mind, but I still don't think he had the right to leave his property with his gun in hand to stop someone from breaking into cars. I know, I don't know all of the details, witnesses, testimony and such, so maybe saying that I would vote guilty was hasty of me. It was my initial verdict and I know that's not how it's supposed to work. Innocent til proven guilty, I know. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm glad it worked out the way it did. If this kid was home sleeping that night, like he should have been, he'd be alive today. Nobody to blame but himself. My only point is, anyone who thinks they can play police officer and stop any crime they feel is their "duty" as a gun owner, someday is going to wind up behind bars or 6 feet under. If Roderick Scott was not a gun owner, he probably wouldn't have left his house plain and simple.
Unless we are in a SHTF scenario and property means survival, then in my mind property is not worth killing over or being killed over. That's just my opinion. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. False. See below. This is the Monroe County Sherrif injecting their own OPINION into the matter. And how was Scott the aggressor when THEY committed a felony FIRST. Quoted:
I do see all of your points, but there are too many people out there that will see this as some sort of vigilanteeism. This can hurt all of us that exercise our 2A rights, as I do every day. You have the right to protct yourself and Roderick Scott did that in my mind, but I still don't think he had the right to leave his property with his gun in hand to stop someone from breaking into cars. I know, I don't know all of the details, witnesses, testimony and such, so maybe saying that I would vote guilty was hasty of me. It was my initial verdict and I know that's not how it's supposed to work. Innocent til proven guilty, I know. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm glad it worked out the way it did. If this kid was home sleeping that night, like he should have been, he'd be alive today. Nobody to blame but himself. My only point is, anyone who thinks they can play police officer and stop any crime they feel is their "duty" as a gun owner, someday is going to wind up behind bars or 6 feet under. If Roderick Scott was not a gun owner, he probably wouldn't have left his house plain and simple. Unless we are in a SHTF scenario and property means survival, then in my mind property is not worth killing over or being killed over. That's just my opinion. I am afraid the NYS justifiable use of physical and deadly force laws disagree with you. S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises. So he had a right to leave his house to use force to stop the commission of the crime. He did NOT, however, have the right to use deadly physical force....and he DIDN'T... UNTIL ofcourse the criminal ran at him and threatened him. Pretty clear cut. And unfotunately your OPINION should not condemn a man GUILTY like you said you would have...you must base your jury decision on the LAWS at hand. If you inject your own opinion (or brand of stupid) into the decision, then it is a MISTRIAL. You are allowed to your opinion, and you are allowed to decide when YOU want to use deadly force or not, but you can't decide when another person has that right when he was well within the law. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. False. See below. This is the Monroe County Sherrif injecting their own OPINION into the matter. And how was Scott the aggressor when THEY committed a felony FIRST. Quoted:
I do see all of your points, but there are too many people out there that will see this as some sort of vigilanteeism. This can hurt all of us that exercise our 2A rights, as I do every day. You have the right to protct yourself and Roderick Scott did that in my mind, but I still don't think he had the right to leave his property with his gun in hand to stop someone from breaking into cars. I know, I don't know all of the details, witnesses, testimony and such, so maybe saying that I would vote guilty was hasty of me. It was my initial verdict and I know that's not how it's supposed to work. Innocent til proven guilty, I know. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm glad it worked out the way it did. If this kid was home sleeping that night, like he should have been, he'd be alive today. Nobody to blame but himself. My only point is, anyone who thinks they can play police officer and stop any crime they feel is their "duty" as a gun owner, someday is going to wind up behind bars or 6 feet under. If Roderick Scott was not a gun owner, he probably wouldn't have left his house plain and simple. Unless we are in a SHTF scenario and property means survival, then in my mind property is not worth killing over or being killed over. That's just my opinion. I am afraid the NYS justifiable use of physical and deadly force laws disagree with you. S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises. So he had a right to leave his house to use force to stop the commission of the crime. He did NOT, however, have the right to use deadly physical force....and he DIDN'T... UNTIL ofcourse the criminal ran at him and threatened him. Pretty clear cut. And unfotunately your OPINION should not condemn a man GUILTY like you said you would have...you must base your jury decision on the LAWS at hand. If you inject your own opinion (or brand of stupid ) into the decision, then it is a MISTRIAL. You are allowed to your opinion, and you are allowed to decide when YOU want to use deadly force or not, but you can't decide when another person has that right when he was well within the law. Ok forget about my "guilty verdict", I already said I was wrong. I'm sure this was the very type of conversation going on between jurors. They just didn't sit around for 19 hours and tell knock knock jokes. I'm sure there were some that had a problem with him playing police officer, as I do. This doesn't make them stupid or me for that matter. So maybe if you are done insulting people, we can discuss this like adults. I already admit to being wrong on the gulity verdict, and not because you think I'm stupid either. Let's change the scenario up a little bit. You are having people over for the holidays. As goes with holidays there is usually alcohol involved. One of your house guests is intoxicated, and has to spend the night at your home. After you go to bed and turn out the lights your guest goes outside to smoke/get some air/clear his head, whatever. Anyways he's intoxicated. Your neighbor who always wanted to be an LEO, just happens to look out his window and see this guy stumbling around your yard because he just realized he's locked out and it's 20 degrees outside. He's got no keys, no cell phone, just your puffy jacket he put on before he went outside. Your neighbor instead of saying gee, maybe I should call 911, this guy looks suspicious, grabs his guns and confronts said intoxicated friend. Said intoxicated friend [slurred speach] "man just mind your own business man"[/slurred speach] as he stumbles forward towards the concerned neighbor. Concerned neighbor fires 2 rounds at and kills said intoxicated friend because he's afraid for his life. In the eyes of the law, it's the same scenario, but now an innocent man has been killed, not some misguided youth breaking into cars. My point is if you want to be a police officer, go to the academy. I don't own guns to defend the world. I own guns number one because, I like them and it's my right, and number two, is to defend myself and my family. I don't own them to defend my neighbors cars/homes. If that's selfish, oh well.. I have a right to protect myself/family, don't feal obligated to defend anyone else. If I wanted to protect others, I would have gone to the academy. Those who want to play LEO, are just playing Russian Roulette. Either incarceration or a bullet in the head is how it will eventually end. I hope to god Mr. Scott never has to make this choice again, and I hope he can live with the fact he took a life, justifed or not. It's not something I would like to think about. If it's in defense of my family, I would be OK with it eventually, but if I had to play the what if game, it would be harder. |
|
Quoted: My point is if you want to be a police officer, go to the academy. I don't own guns to defend the world. I own guns number one because, I like them and it's my right, and number two, is to defend myself and my family. I don't own them to defend my neighbors cars/homes. If that's selfish, oh well.. I have a right to protect myself/family, don't feal obligated to defend anyone else. If I wanted to protect others, I would have gone to the academy. They drum it into your head in the police academy to not get directly involved when you're off duty unless it's to protect your life, a family member or a possibly a 3rd party depending on the circumstances. I don't think you're selfish for not getting directly involved in protecting a neighbors property. The proper procedure would be to call 911, stay on the phone and observe the subjects. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Scott will probably be living in a cardboard box,after civil court! yeah that's gonna be ugly...just his attorney's fees alone could ruin his lifestyle. let along Pain and Anguish... You should have at least a $1,000,000 blanket liability insurance policy in addition to any home owner's liability insurance you have. |
|
Quoted:
Just because you kill a "scum bag" 16 y/o, doesn't make it a "good shot."  No, the facts of the case made it a good shoot, a proper use of the second amendment. Calling the kid a scum bag is an unrelated use of the first amendment. The one doesn't preclude the other. |
|
Lets be honest with ourselves:
If right now you looked outside your window and your car or maybe you neighbors car was being broken into, what will you do? While you're outside witnessing the event, the perp(s) rush you with verbal threats and/or a weapon; what next? We put a lot of bravado into what we would do if someone broke into our house, or accosted a family member in a parking lot, or if we saw an event happening.....well this guy did, and he wisely went armed. We don't know if his intent was to identify, inquire, or merely to chase them off. Where I live, yes I would go outside and yes I would be armed, and if someone seriously threatened me with bodily harm there's a damn good chance you're going to be reading about it in the paper. I have a 16 y/o and personally know most of his friends and their parents, and while there would be great restraint, sometimes a man got to do what a man's got to do.
|
 Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you kill a "scum bag" 16 y/o, doesn't make it a "good shot." No, the facts of the case made it a good shoot, a proper use of the second amendment. Calling the kid a scum bag is an unrelated use of the first amendment. The one doesn't preclude the other. I'm not quite sure how shooting a kid while off your property makes it a "good shoot." Scott has a a really good attorney. Probably the best in the greater Rochester area...probably the biggest scumbag in the Rochester area...but probably one of the best. Shooting some snot nose kid off your property is not a "good shoot" just because he is breaking into cars. |
|
Quoted: Shooting some snot nose kid off your property is not a "good shoot" just because he is breaking into cars. A jury of 12 impartial people heard all the evidence presented by the prosecution/defense, followed the jury instructions of the court, reviewed the evidence presented, deliberated and came to a unanimous decision that the defendant acted appropriately under the circumstances and within the confines of the law and found the defendant NOT GUILTY as charged. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you kill a "scum bag" 16 y/o, doesn't make it a "good shot." No, the facts of the case made it a good shoot, a proper use of the second amendment. Calling the kid a scum bag is an unrelated use of the first amendment. The one doesn't preclude the other. I'm not quite sure how shooting a kid while off your property makes it a "good shoot." Scott has a a really good attorney. Probably the best in the greater Rochester area...probably the biggest scumbag in the Rochester area...but probably one of the best. Shooting some snot nose kid off your property is not a "good shoot" just because he is breaking into cars. He wasn't shot for breaking into cars. He was told to stop for breaking into cars. |
|
Quoted:
That is (was) my brother in law's cousin.. sounds like he was a loser. And if he's hanging around with other "kids" who hold knives to people's throats so they can rob them, it doesn't sound like he was too harmless. Fact is, Scott warned them that he had a gun, and told them to stop...and the kid threatened him and ran at him. What would you do? I understand those of you who don't agree with going outside and confronting them...but come on...if I saw someone breaking into my car, I would definitely go out and confront them and try to scare them off...like Scott did. And I definitely wouldn't be armed with just harsh words. Would I shoot first and ask questions last? No. But if they ran at me and threatened me after committing a felony, you better believe I am going to defend myself. What if this was a police officer that shot this kid? He would be let off in a matter of days. Guaranteed. And why? Are police really that much more responsible and trustworthy to make life or death situations than a citizen...especially one that went through all the hoops to get a CCW permit. I am NO vigilante...but why are police the only ones responsible enough to be proactive in fighting crime? ETA: Roland...I was not insulting you in my previous post whatsoever. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know the exact paragraph in the NYS penal law regarding self defence, but I do remember from taking the Monroe County Home Firearm Safety Course offered by the Sherrif's Dept, that if you go looking for the confrontation/fight or are the aggressor, self defence gets tossed right out the window. Botton line is, if I were sitting on that jury, I would have voted guilty. It would have been hard to swallow, because I am a big believer in the 2A and the right to self defense, but again this isn't the "Wild West" and we don't shoot horse theives any more. False. See below. This is the Monroe County Sherrif injecting their own OPINION into the matter. And how was Scott the aggressor when THEY committed a felony FIRST. Quoted:
I do see all of your points, but there are too many people out there that will see this as some sort of vigilanteeism. This can hurt all of us that exercise our 2A rights, as I do every day. You have the right to protct yourself and Roderick Scott did that in my mind, but I still don't think he had the right to leave his property with his gun in hand to stop someone from breaking into cars. I know, I don't know all of the details, witnesses, testimony and such, so maybe saying that I would vote guilty was hasty of me. It was my initial verdict and I know that's not how it's supposed to work. Innocent til proven guilty, I know. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm glad it worked out the way it did. If this kid was home sleeping that night, like he should have been, he'd be alive today. Nobody to blame but himself. My only point is, anyone who thinks they can play police officer and stop any crime they feel is their "duty" as a gun owner, someday is going to wind up behind bars or 6 feet under. If Roderick Scott was not a gun owner, he probably wouldn't have left his house plain and simple. Unless we are in a SHTF scenario and property means survival, then in my mind property is not worth killing over or being killed over. That's just my opinion. I am afraid the NYS justifiable use of physical and deadly force laws disagree with you. S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises. So he had a right to leave his house to use force to stop the commission of the crime. He did NOT, however, have the right to use deadly physical force....and he DIDN'T... UNTIL ofcourse the criminal ran at him and threatened him. Pretty clear cut. And unfotunately your OPINION should not condemn a man GUILTY like you said you would have...you must base your jury decision on the LAWS at hand. If you inject your own opinion (or brand of stupid ) into the decision, then it is a MISTRIAL. You are allowed to your opinion, and you are allowed to decide when YOU want to use deadly force or not, but you can't decide when another person has that right when he was well within the law. Ok forget about my "guilty verdict", I already said I was wrong. I'm sure this was the very type of conversation going on between jurors. They just didn't sit around for 19 hours and tell knock knock jokes. I'm sure there were some that had a problem with him playing police officer, as I do. This doesn't make them stupid or me for that matter. So maybe if you are done insulting people, we can discuss this like adults. I already admit to being wrong on the gulity verdict, and not because you think I'm stupid either. Let's change the scenario up a little bit. You are having people over for the holidays. As goes with holidays there is usually alcohol involved. One of your house guests is intoxicated, and has to spend the night at your home. After you go to bed and turn out the lights your guest goes outside to smoke/get some air/clear his head, whatever. Anyways he's intoxicated. Your neighbor who always wanted to be an LEO, just happens to look out his window and see this guy stumbling around your yard because he just realized he's locked out and it's 20 degrees outside. He's got no keys, no cell phone, just your puffy jacket he put on before he went outside. Your neighbor instead of saying gee, maybe I should call 911, this guy looks suspicious, grabs his guns and confronts said intoxicated friend. Said intoxicated friend [slurred speach] "man just mind your own business man"[/slurred speach] as he stumbles forward towards the concerned neighbor. Concerned neighbor fires 2 rounds at and kills said intoxicated friend because he's afraid for his life. In the eyes of the law, it's the same scenario, but now an innocent man has been killed, not some misguided youth breaking into cars. My point is if you want to be a police officer, go to the academy. I don't own guns to defend the world. I own guns number one because, I like them and it's my right, and number two, is to defend myself and my family. I don't own them to defend my neighbors cars/homes. If that's selfish, oh well.. I have a right to protect myself/family, don't feal obligated to defend anyone else. If I wanted to protect others, I would have gone to the academy. Those who want to play LEO, are just playing Russian Roulette. Either incarceration or a bullet in the head is how it will eventually end. I hope to god Mr. Scott never has to make this choice again, and I hope he can live with the fact he took a life, justifed or not. It's not something I would like to think about. If it's in defense of my family, I would be OK with it eventually, but if I had to play the what if game, it would be harder. OMFG, you just don't get it. Did someone slip you the Koolaid while you weren't looking? "play LEO" who the fuck are you to judge the lawful actions of a concerned citizen? You really are a liberal, you really truely believe that the right thing to do, when someone is in the process of actively fucking you or your friend, family or neighbor is to cower in fear and wait for someone to come save you, if they come at all. If these people were out in the street with visible weapons, and he knew that by going out there he was entering into a deadly force scenario...AND no one else was in danger, then fine, he should have stayed inside. The fact is, he saw a crime in progress, a non-violent crime, he went outside and happened to be carrying (like many of us do all the time, or at home if you live downstate) and the perp escalated the situation into a deadly force encounter that the defendant couldn't have forseen more than if he had to shoot his neighbor for attacking him while going to collect the morning paper. "playing LEO" huh? Sounds like you are projecting a little...I mean clearly, if the State hadn't allowed this violence prone citizen to have a gun, none of this would have ever happened right? |
|
Quoted: I understand those of you who don't agree with going outside and confronting them...but come on...if I saw someone breaking into my car, I would definitely go out and confront them and try to scare them off...like Scott did. And I definitely wouldn't be armed with just harsh words. That's a good way to get your head blown of by a responding PO. Even if you didn't call 911 one of your neighbors could have. Quite a few off duty LEOs have been killed by responding PO's during similar type incidents. I guarantee you in a situation like that with your adrenalin pumping you may not hear commands being shouted from a responding LEO or even see him/her. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scott will probably be living in a cardboard box,after civil court! yeah that's gonna be ugly...just his attorney's fees alone could ruin his lifestyle. let along Pain and Anguish... You should have at least a $1,000,000 blanket liability insurance policy in addition to any home owner's liability insurance you have. where does one get this? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand those of you who don't agree with going outside and confronting them...but come on...if I saw someone breaking into my car, I would definitely go out and confront them and try to scare them off...like Scott did. And I definitely wouldn't be armed with just harsh words. That's a good way to get your head blown of by a responding PO. Even if you didn't call 911 one of your neighbors could have. Quite a few off duty LEOs have been killed by responding PO's during similar type incidents. I guarantee you in a situation like that with your adrenalin pumping you may not hear commands being shouted from a responding LEO or even see him/her. So...the Police may be responding, so don't do anything but call again to make sure they get there in time to not give a shit about what happened and fill out a crapy report about what happened that goes nowhere, does nothing and that no one will ever read again? You don't have to go outside waving a gun around, but cowering in your house while bandits rape your immediate vicinity of all property not bolted down is a little low.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shooting some snot nose kid off your property is not a "good shoot" just because he is breaking into cars. A jury of 12 impartial people heard all the evidence presented by the prosecution/defense, followed the jury instructions of the court, reviewed the evidence presented, deliberated and came to a unanimous decision that the defendant acted appropriately under the circumstances and within the confines of the law and found the defendant NOT GUILTY as charged. A Friday evening verdict after coming back deadlocked earlier in the evening? You know guilty does not mean innocent. It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him. Sometimes the razzle dazzle of a really good attorney can confuse a jury of 12 impartial people. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you kill a "scum bag" 16 y/o, doesn't make it a "good shot." No, the facts of the case made it a good shoot, a proper use of the second amendment. Calling the kid a scum bag is an unrelated use of the first amendment. The one doesn't preclude the other. I'm not quite sure how shooting a kid while off your property makes it a "good shoot." Scott has a a really good attorney. Probably the best in the greater Rochester area...probably the biggest scumbag in the Rochester area...but probably one of the best. Shooting some snot nose kid off your property is not a "good shoot" just because he is breaking into cars. He wasn't shot for breaking into cars. He was told to stop for breaking into cars. According to the defendant––the only witness to the actual shooting that lived. His story makes perfect sense right? An unarmed kid charging a man with a gun. I'm sure it happened exactly as alleged by the defendant. Did you listen to the 911 call? Not very convincing IMHO. If it happened as he claimed, then fine. I don't believe that the evidence supported his story––common sense certainly does not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? Even a shot in the back doesn't mean he was wrongly "executed." What if the criminal turned around to hide the fact that he was pulling out a gun or a knife, and was then shot in the back...it's a prefectly plausible reason to fear for your life and shoot, especially when the perp was committing a felony to begin with...cops shoot during situations like that ALL THE TIME... ETA: Nobody wishes anyone dead or wishes to take a life, especially the life of a 16 year old kid...but you shoot to STOP the threat...Scott has said that he feels terrible about taking a life, but he did indeed fear for his life after the perp escalated the situation by charging towards him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? The jury said it was a 'good' shot, your understanding of it doesn't really matter does it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? Even a shot in the back doesn't mean he was wrongly "executed." What if the criminal turned around to hide the fact that he was pulling out a gun or a knife, and was then shot in the back...it's a prefectly plausible reason to fear for your life and shoot, especially when the perp was committing a felony to begin with...cops shoot during situations like that ALL THE TIME... But he was unarmed. So what was he pulling out? Nothing. So the question remains unanswered––why was the victim shot in the back despite the fact that Scott claims he was charging him? Call me a cynic, but it smells like BS to me. Again, did you listen to the 911 call? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? The jury said it was a 'good' shot, your understanding of it doesn't really matter does it? The jury found him not guilty. They certainly didn't find him innocent. There is a difference––think O.J. 
|
|
Quoted:
But he was unarmed. So what was he pulling out? Nothing. So the question remains unanswered––why was the victim shot in the back despite the fact that Scott claims he was charging him? Call me a cynic, but it smells like BS to me. Again, did you listen to the 911 call? 1. You hold a gun on me at close range. I'm unarmed. I disarm you and kill you. 2. You hold a gun on me at distant range. I'm unarmed. I put my hands up and walk toward you until I'm close enough to disarm you. I disarm you and kill you. 3. You hold a gun on me. I'm armed. I draw my weapon and kill you. If you think any of those situations is unrealistic, DeadHorse, you're absolutely wrong, and you know not of what you speak. And those are scenarios with one assailant, not three. As to the round entering his back, here's what the medical examiner described: Wait. Before I paste it, I want you remember that this isn't made up bullshit spread by half-interested liberals who presume guilt on any law abiding gun owner. This isn't "HE SHOT HIM IN THE BACK" "IN THE BACK" "TUK UR JOBS" bullshit. This is what the medical examiner described. One bullet went through the back side of his left hand, through the palm and then into his chest, missing his heart, out the left side of his body and into his left arm. That's one of the two bullets. Hold your left hand over your chest, palm in. Pretend a bullet passes through the rear of it, then through the palm, then into your chest, through your rib cage, and "near" your heart. It will not travel out the left side of your body unless something goes very, very, weird. Not impossible, but weird. Now move your left hand further to your right, over your right lung or so. Now the trajectory makes a little more sense. But how would his hand be there, and how would the bullet go through the hand first, if he's shot IN THE BACK? TUK UR JOBS? Obviously, that wasn't the case. Much more likely, the kid was approaching the guy aggressively, the guy took aim at him, the kid flinched to his left, and that's when the shot hit him. Continuing his motion to his left (bullets do not, contrary to hollywood, stop all motion of their target), he's now presenting his right shoulder to Scott, whose second round hits him per below: That shot, according to Dr. LaPoint, hit Cervini just behind his right armpit. It went through his body, hitting his right lung, trachea and severing an artery. The bullet came out just below his left collar bone. That's not a shot to the back, that's a shot to the side of a dodging target. So, here's the wrap up. If your little gang of little friends committing little crimes in the wee hours of the morning aggressively approaches me, and you make a motion as if to reach for a weapon, while aggressively approaching me, I'm not going to presume that you're about to offer me a flower. I'm going to shoot you, and the fact that you try to dodge the shot isn't going to persuade me that you're no longer up to no good. Everyone who gets shot at tries to dodge it. You don't get a timeout for not wanting to get shot. I understand that you have zero knowledge of the facts of the case, and that, having now been given those facts, you'll still be incapable of visualizing the problems that Scott faced. Fortunately, your ignorance on the subject is irrelevant, as Scott has been exonerated. Don't commit crimes. Don't aggressively approach law abiding citizens. Don't move in criminal gangs. Don't make aggressive motions. Fuck any one of those things up, you probably won't get shot. Fuck all of them up at once, and you probably will end up dodging gunfire. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's my understand that he was shot in the back––the forensics do not support Scott's assertion that an unarmed kid charged him.
I am happy that this community does not adhere to the way you 'understand' things. Why? If he was shot in the back, then that's a good shot? Was he running backwards? This "shot in the back" myth was propagated by the prosecutor and MSM. The shot was not from behind if the alleged first bullet spun him around. Read the testimony. It was the " extreme right side of his back next to his right armpit ". And some think Parrinello is the manipulator? http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091214/NEWS01/91214017 Roderick Scott trial: Pathologist testifies about Cervini's gunshot wounds Michael Zeigler • Staff writer • December 14, 2009 * Comments (257) * Recommend (3) * Print this page * E-mail this article * Share o Del.icio.us o Facebook o Digg o Reddit o Newsvine o Buzz up! o Twitter * Greece teenager Christopher D. Cervini died from a gunshot that entered the extreme right side of his back next to his right armpit and traveled though his chest until it exited near his left collarbone, a forensic pathologist said today. Testifying in the trial of Roderick A. Scott, who is charged with first-degree manslaughter in Cervini’s death April 4, Dr. Scott LaPoint said the bullet passed through Cervini’s right lung and trachea before severing an artery where it joins the aorta. Another shot that passed through Cervini’s left hand, chest and arm hit no major organs or arteries and was “largely inconsequential,” he said. The bullets caused eight entrance or exit wounds but were the result of two distinct gunshots, he said. LaPoint, deputy medical examiner of Monroe County, described the wounds to jurors as Assistant District Attorney Julie Finocchio showed graphic autopsy photos on courtroom video monitors. LaPoint said he couldn’t determine which of the two shots was fired first. But in the case of the fatal shot, he said the shooter would have been to Cervini’s right, somewhat behind and below Cervini. Scott, 42, claims self-defense and said he shot Cervini, 17, when Cervini charged at him and shouted at him on a sloping driveway on Baneberry Way in Greece. The prosecution, however, said Scott wasn’t justified in the shooting. LaPoint’s opinion is expected to come under sharp cross-examination this afternoon by Scott’s lawyer, John R. Parrinello. He has speculated that Cervini was hit first by the shot to his left chest, which spun him around so the second shot could hit him near the right armpit. Scott, who could testify tomorrow in his defense, left his Baneberry Way home at 3:30 a.m. to confront three teens who were opening unlocked car doors on driveways to look for cigarettes. He shot Cervini twice with his legally permitted .40-caliber pistol. A toxicology test showed that Cervini was legally intoxicated at the time he was killed and also had traces of marijuana and amphetamines in his blood, according to testimony Friday. |
|
Fortunately, your ignorance on the subject is irrelevant, as Scott has been exonerated. Don't commit crimes. Don't aggressively approach law abiding citizens. Don't move in criminal gangs. Don't make aggressive motions. Fuck any one of those things up, you probably won't get shot. Fuck all of them up at once, and you probably will end up dodging gunfire. Razzle dazzle...it's amazing what money can buy. Namely, John Parrinello. |
|
This "shot in the back" myth was propagated by the prosecutor and MSM. The shot was not from behind if the alleged first bullet spun him around. Read the testimony. It was the " extreme right side of his back next to his right armpit ". And some think Parrinello is the manipulator? Wow. The prosecutor is propagating myths?  We will have to see how the state bar handles Ms. Finocchio.
|
|
So, here's the wrap up. If your little gang of little friends committing little crimes in the wee hours of the morning aggressively approaches me, and you make a motion as if to reach for a weapon, while aggressively approaching me, I'm not going to presume that you're about to offer me a flower. I'm going to shoot you, and the fact that you try to dodge the shot isn't going to persuade me that you're no longer up to no good. Everyone who gets shot at tries to dodge it. You don't get a timeout for not wanting to get shot. Dodge the shot? This aint the matrix. What you presume to know is amazing. You want to believe Scott? Fine. Believe. What you and I believe ultimately doesn't matter––it rarely does. I would suggest that you don't confront kids breaking into cars off of your property and shoot them. I doubt you could afford John Parrinello. I know I couldn't. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty (Page 1 of 2)
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.