Skip to comments.Jury finds Roderick Scott not guilty (indicted for self-defense shooting)
Posted on 12/20/2009 7:30:08 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Rochester, N.Y. After nearly 20 hours of deliberating, a jury has found Roderick Scott not guilty of manslaughter.
Scott says he never meant to shoot and kill 16-year-old Christopher Cervini in April, when he caught the teenager and two others breaking into cars in his neighborhood.
Scott faced a charge of first-degree manslaughter. His trial in state Supreme Court began Nov. 30.
Scott says Cervini threatened him and he fired his gun in self-defense....
Assistant District Attorney Julie Finnochio said she respects the verdict and recognizes that it was a difficult case.
"I just hope it's not a message to the community that you have the right to shoot a 17-year-old unarmed kid for trying to break into a car," she said.
But Scott's attorney John Parrinello hopes it does send a message.
"That people that are out there take responsibility like Rod did that night," Parrinello said. "As I said, he was being a good neighbor and in an instant your life can change."
(Excerpt) Read more at mpnnow.com ...
All he had to do was stay in the house and wait for the cops.
These kids weren't the usual city gun toting gang types.L
I really think there was reverse "racism" here.
I hope it does send a few messages. Time for Castle Doctrine laws, Don’t Tread on Me and Criminals will be shot on sight.
“I just hope it’s not a message to the community that you have the right to shoot a 17-year-old unarmed kid for trying to break into a car,” she said.
I dunno it might stop a number of break-ins from happening.
I just hope it's a message to the community that trying to break into a car is NOT a good idea.
As for whether he should have been acquitted, I have not read all the details and cannot be certain (although I lean toward trusting the jury on this one). I do think that even if he encroached on their "comfort zone" and even if his actions triggered an aggressive response from the criminals, it was okay for him to defend himself against that aggressive response. I have seen far too many career criminals who go through the revolving door of our "justice" system; these were criminals and I don't mind seeing a few of them go through the one-way door of the county morgue.
...so they could show up and make out a report after the kids left with the loot?
Just the usual outstanding citizen of the month auto burglary types.
Kids do stupid things...but these kids weren't physically threatening anyone....
You are a complete idiot. The police never arrive on time. After 11 grade I was working at a gas station. I had another customer call the police. My town was 4 square miles. Customer reported they had guns. It took our cop 30 minutes to arrive. That was 20 minutes after I tricked them and they left. You risk your life waiting on the police stupid.
That apparently isn't what the jury believed:
Scott said when he told the three people he had called the police, two of them stopped, but the third Mr. Cervini ran toward him.
Scott testified he heard Mr. Cervini say: Ill get you or Ill get him, and thats when Scott said he had a gun. Thats when he fired his gun, Scott said.
Scott said he went back to his house and told girlfriend to call 911 again, and checked on Mr. Cervini twice and didnt see him moving. Then a police officer showed up, drew his gun and told Scott to put his hands in the air.
Just a matter of time until they meet up with a pitbull or something.
Hey, they might even stupidly try to break into the home of one of the embassy guards ~ they're all third-worlders with diplomatic immunity too.
I can hardly wait.
“”I just hope it’s not a message to the community that you have the right to shoot a 17-year-old unarmed kid for trying to break into a car,” she said.”
Why not. There’d be a lot less thieving going on.
“All he had to do was stay in the house and wait for the cops.”
Yeah. Good plan. I totally disagree. You want to be a thief, you get what’s coming to you.
There is truth in the quote, “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
“I just hope it’s not a message to the community that you have the right to shoot a 17-year-old unarmed kid for trying to break into a car,”
Why Not? First off what’s the punk doing breaking into my can and how am I suposed to know if he is armed or not.Especially with others helping him. If you and your friends are breaking into my car or home or anyother thing I own then you will have to take the final outcome.BANG problem solved.
Some yutes picked this time to drive around taking out windows with wrist rocket slingshots.
They shot out a window at one house. The home owner, a Senior Chief in the US Navy, grabbed his handgun and went outside.
Spotting a car down the block, (The yutes had pulled over), he approached, gun in hand.
The homeowner said he saw one of the yutes, "Make a move" , or something to that effect.
The homeowner shot one of the yutes killing him.
The homeowner was acquitted.
Next time something like this happens to you call the cops and call for pizza delivery. See which gets there first. Police do not prevent crimes, they come after the fact and take reports to turn over to insurance companies. Nice if you have insurance and no deductible. The best crime prevention is an armed and vigilant populace.
I’m curious, what do you think the police should have done if they did respond, did catch the kids in the act, and the kids resisted? What if it was a single policeman and the kids moved on him in a threatening way? Every person should have the same rights and perview as the police when it comes to protecting their own property.
There should be no law that requires people to standby while their possessions are taken from them and their property destroyed. It isn’t civilized.
Could I in good conscience live with that trade off?
Is the car worth defending yourself in some civil suit to claim damages?
Should it be the death penalty for the crime of stealing a car?
I don’t know the facts of this case, but I would hate to suffer the reality of the aftermath of shooting someone not placing me or another in fear of death or great bodily harm.
Having said that, is that was is going on here? If the shooter is to be believed, he in fact was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm, and probably did shoot to protect himself, not to stop the theft.
Therefore, the prosecutor is wrong in drawing the inference - it was not about defending the car, it was about defending himself.
For the prosecutor to conflate what are two separate issues is a good reason why the jury did not find him guilty, and why the prosecutor was maybe overagressive in prosecuting him in the first place.
I hope that the shooter finds peace with his decision, and continues to believe that it is all right for him to defend himself when threatened.
We are not obliged to sit by, during the commission of a crime and hope the cops show up in time.
There is no reason to believe the thieves were not armed and there is no reason to believe that THREE punks challenging you are not a threat.
Rather than pronouncements about “cold blooded murder”, the father should examine why he didn't teach his son that there are consequences for crime, and that it's not just the next step in hide ‘n seek.
If these thug kids had not been out stealing cars, the punk would not have been shot. Period. So Scott should have retreated into his house and allowed his vehicle to be stolen/vandalized? BULL!! And although this article makes no mention of it, the punk kid started TOWARDS Scott. The jury should not have been deadlocked. In fact in this case 12 people should have been able to PHONE in their votes.
Yes, all the best sheep do. Latte?
Rochester, N.Y. Testimony in the Roderick Scott case Friday revealed that Christopher Cervini was drunk when he was shot, according to Assistant District Attorney Julie Finnochio.
Jeanne Beno, the chief toxicologist for the Medical Examiners office, testified Friday that Cervinis blood alcohol content ranged from 0.09 percent to 0.13 percent in different tests.
Cervini also tested positive for a proper dose of amphetamine in his blood, which Beno testified would counteract the alcohol and make Cervini less impaired than if he was just drinking.
Beno also testified there were traces of marijuana in Cervinis blood, but that the concentrations were so small that they indicated only past use.
Cervinis cousin, James Cervini, and friend Brian Hopkins testified earlier this week that they were not drunk and Cervini did not appear drunk.
Scott is on trial in the April 4 shooting death of Christopher Cervini on Baneberry Way in Greece. The teen had been rifling through cars when Scott confronted him.
The trial is expected to continue Monday with testimony from the Medical Examiner's office.
“...but I would never use deadly force to defend a car, regardless of what the law says.”
The gun is to defend YOURSELF against PUNKS, who don’t like having their crime interrupted!
Two shots, one fatal.
The standard of using Deadly Force in all Self Defense situations shall be the same for All People.
this would correct the problem immediately
As I pointed out later in my post.
Mr. Scott has a right to defend himself against violent attack by this miscreant.
He shouldn't be scolded to cower inside his home.
If the cops had managed to catch the gang, they'd have been out of jail in no time.
Meanwhile the victims are stuck with loss of property.
Mr Scott sounds like a stand up guy, (I haven't read anything to indicate otherwise.)
Exactly. Only a minor correction needed.
The state should be required to reimburse his legal expenses, and the blame should be on the grandstanding prosecutor.
1. 17 year olds know when they are breaking the law and they are NOT KIDS. If they are charging at you they mean you harm. It’s not a racist thing, it’s a survival thing
2. This perp had both marijuana, alcohol and speed in his system.
3. We have a right to protect our community, our homes and ourselves. Remember when seconds count the police are minutes away. This should never have gone to trial.
4. The family of the perp is a real winner and should have taken corrective action a long time ago. Maybe then they would not have a dead son.
Or maybe just actual racism on someone else's part...
What’s your point?
Yep, that's worked so well in the past.
A man has the right to defend himself, his family and his property. If someone wants to die over property then so be it.
Sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands and hopefully it turns out in your favor.
shoot and kill 16-year-old Christopher Cervini in April, when he caught the teenager and two others breaking into cars in his neighborhoodWhat? He didn't have two more bullets?
Punks are punks. He shouldn't have been breaking into cars, nor threatening citizens in the neighborhood. Did Roderick Scott, outnumbered 3 to 1, know he was unarmed under the cover of darkness?
Uh-huh. Do you know the average response time from a beat cop for a call: 'kids breaking into cars'?
No? Well for that type of call, they usually go to the bathroom after they finish the donut and before they get in the patrol car.
And please. No 'its only property that can be replaced', stuff. If someone goes after my stuff, they're going after me.
(I HATE thieves - of any age, or color)
I am sure this man did not want to kill him, but stealing is just as risky as defending yourself.
Had this kid been driving 110 miles an hour and hit a tree, sure, I would say he didn’t deserve to die, but I also would have understood why he died. He was reckless, and so it auto theft.
When you try to steal from someone, you must understand that there are inherent dangers. Had his parents raised him properly, this youth would have known that. I leave Mr. Scott blameless in this matter. I too would have went out there with my pistol and it could have ended up the same way.
yes, we should all run and hide from the bad guys stealing from us. Next they’ll be in our homes stealing from us and then its us that wind up dead instead of the thief....
We do in Texas.
Doesn't mean it's the best idea in the world.
But if 17 y/o kids don't want to get shot, they should not be breaking into other people's property.
Where I live, “wait for the cops” means an hour wait during 9am to 5pm and a 3 hour wait from 5pm to 9am.
So here no body messes around with others property. It can get you dead quickly.People tend to ask few questions and call a neighbor for help. And within minutes guns are up.
I'd only prosecute him if he did so out of season.
That would be Obama's new "tax collector corps".
Like to know the physical sizes of Scott and Cervini and how close Cervini was to Scott when the shooting happened.
You understand now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.