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 ...
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)