Rodderick Scott trial: what is wrong with NY?

[judoist]

His name is Roderick Scott. He’s a 42-year-old black man with the build of a football player. He also holds a New York State Pistol Permit, or he did until recently. In fact, until April of this year, he kept a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol readily to hand. Whether that pistol has been returned to him by now, and whether he still holds his permit (or will again) is anybody’s guess. I don’t know Mr. Scott and have never spoken to him.
Roderick Scott is, to his misfortunate, a resident of Greece, New York — a suburb of the crime-ridden, crumbling city of Rochester, NY. I say this is to Roderick Scott’s misfortune because, were he a resident of a state that leans less perilously to the left, he might not just have endured several months of legal torture, followed by the longest 19 and a half hours of his life.
Back in April, after an argument with his common-law wife, Scott was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what in hell was going on.

He caught one Christopher Cervini, then 17, in the driveway across the street. With Cervini were his cousin, James, and their friend Brian Hopkins. They were busily rifling through the neighbor’s car when Roderick Scott confronted them. These teenagers, you see, are (in Cervini’s case, he was) petty criminals. They were working their way through all the cars in the neighborhood in order to find things to steal.
The teens had also been drinking earlier in the evening. A toxicologist’s report confirmed that Christopher Cervini was legally drunk at the time of his death. (All three teenagers had, as at least one of them admitted, been drinking stolen gin before the incident.) This fine, upstanding young man, who (we were repeatedly informed during the trial) had no criminal record, also had marijuana and amphetamines in his system. The marijuana traces were consistent with a history of such use, while Cervini had been perscribed no drugs that would have accounted for the positive amphetamine results.
Under oath, James Cervini claimed that he and Christopher were standing still with their hands up when Christopher was shot — an assertion James never made prior to the trial. If it seems strange to you that he never brought this up before to taking the stand, you aren’t alone in your incredulity. This seems to me an obvious lie — last-minute perjury intended to damn Roderick Scott by false witness.
Now, here’s something relevant, something you need to know about Christopher Cervini’s cousin James. James, at 15, has been on probation not once, but twice, for assisting in a burglary and for holding a knife to the throat of a ten-year-old boy (reportedly over a dispute involving marijuana). Roderick Scott’s defense attorney, a brilliant lawyer named John Parrinello (to whom Scott owes his freedom), argued during the trial that it was very likely Christopher rushed Roderick Scott in an attempt to help his cousin James escape. Both “kids” knew that James would be in trouble were he caught committing more petty theft.
Roderick Scott took the stand in his own defense, explaining that he “looked outside the front door to see what was going on,” identifying “three individuals walking out of [his] driveway.” He “intended to go out and stop the criminal act or detain them.” He then chambered a round in his weapon. “I had no idea what was going on,” he said, ”so I had to protect myself.” He was, he testified, aware that he was outnumbered, and that is key to this issue as a self-defense scenario. When outnumbered, even if those facing you are unarmed, you are generally justified to use a force multiplier — a weapon — to defend yourself.
“I wanted to stop them before they could get away,” he admitted. “We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.” When Scott told the three teenagers that he had called the police, Christopher Cervini broke from the group and ran at him, shouting either, “I’ll get you” to Scott or “I’ll get him” to his fellow thieves. Scott fired two shots in response.
John Parrinello shrewdly released Scott’s 911 call following the shooting. On it, Roderick Scott and his girlfriend can be heard; Scott’s statements to the operator come without hesitation. His account of the incident is consistent with his testimony, and his tone and demeanor are anything but that of a trigger-happy vigilante.
Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Julie Finnochio, by contrast, ruthlessly and relentlessly prosecuted Scottt. She got the last word during closing arguments, too, and tried to tell the jury that, regardless of the circumstances, the shooting was not justified. After the jury came back with their verdict of not guilty, she couldn’t resist the chance to twist the knife in Scott’s guts — or to further the propaganda that has been spewing from her office from the outset. “I just hope it’s not a message to this community,” she sniffed, “that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.”
This is, of course, intellectually dishonest. She’s strill trying to paint Scott, now a free and vindicated man, as a cold-blooded murderer. These “kids” — these teenaged, drunken, drug-addled, sometimes knife-toting petty criminals — were not shot at for breaking into a car, but for trying to assault Roderick Scott when he caught them committing a robbery.
Cervini’s family, for their part, had the gall to shriek that Christopher was “brutally murdered” — that poor, innocent Christopher Cervini was essentially on trial alongside Roderick Scott. In the Cervinis’ eyes, Scott “was the judge, jury, and executioner.” Never you mind that Scott himself just sat before a jury and a judge whose job it was to pass sentence over him. In the twisted, unreal world of those who make excuses for drug-abusing, potentially violent thieves, it is a law-abiding citizen defending himself with a legal weapon who must prove his innocence after the fact.
Even the dead boy shared his family’s sense of entitlement — their indignant cries of “murder” after their boy died a victim of his own criminal stupidity. By Roderick Scott’s own testimony, we know that, as Christopher Cervini bled out into a gutter on that suburban street, he uttered the words, “I’m just a kid.” Those words will probably haunt Roderick Scott. They should bother all of us, for Cervini clearly thought that, to the end, he should not be held responsiblity for either theft or attempted assault.
Worse still is the fact that there are plenty of people in Roderick Scott’s neighborhood, and in the greater Western New York area, who wrongly think he’s a murderer. The local AM talk shows featured many Mondy morning quarterbacks, newly minted firearms experts pontificating from ignroance on why the shooting could not be justified. Why, after the fact, we learned that those teenagers weren’t armed this time, so clearly Roderick Scott could not have feared for his life. After all, the man dared to leave his home and confront those committing a crime. Has he learned nothing from living in modern society in New York State? You’re supposed to cower in your home, hiding under the couch, praying dearly that those terrible, mean people outside won’t choose to come inside. You’ll have plenty of time to pray while you’re on hold with the 911 operator, waiting for police who can’t possibly get there in time.
This is what’s wrong with the culture of New York State. Our state values victims over victors. It enshrines passivity over direct action to preempt or thwart criminal activity. It excuses the acts of teenaged thugs, revising history to absolve them of blame for their petty crimes, while pillorying good citizens who dare to defend themselves with legally permitted arms.
In a state with the strictest gun control in the union, to own a legal handgun is no small thing. Roderick Scott is a decent person who did everything legally and correctly… yet in the minds of many, he is the villain simply because he dared not to do nothing. Had this shooting occurred in another state with less liberal hand-wringing underlying its legal code, it’s possible Roderick Scott would never have stood trial. It is, quite frankly, a miracle that a jury deadlocked only a few hours before it came to the “not guilty” verdict eventually granted him his life back.
Fortunately, Roderick Scott is not bitter. “I feel that justice was served today,” he sad after his legal ordeal. His lawyer was diplomatic but more pointed: “I just want to say that I hope this case sends a message to families out there to watch their kids, to know where they are and what they are doing.”
That lawyer’s message is clear: If your kids live like garbage, trade in garbage, and contribute nothing to thier community but garbage, they very well may die like garbage. If that happens they have no one to blame but themselves… though their parents ought to think good and hard about whether they share responsibility.

From "The Martialist", June 5th, 2010.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To everyone who reads this, I encourage you to post your opinions on not only Rodderick Scott and his actions, but also the actions of the District Attorney (ADA Julie Finnochio of Monroe County), and Mr. Scott's lawyer, John Parrinello.
Also, to anyone in the Western New York area, especially Monroe County, this is something to cosider before branding Rodderick Scott as a 'murdering vigilante'.

[Mtripp]

Phui.

First, lets get the actual legal point out of the way. Even if unarmed, you do NOT have the right to approach someone who is legally detaining you with a firearm. A reasonable man can attest that said approach is an attempt to disarm, and use the weapon against, the person holding them. If the youths simply walked away, going AWAY from the man with the gun, THEN shooting them would have been a major no-no. Of course this did not happen, and it was a justifiable shooting.

Now to the bigger picture. Again we get the flummery that "A TV set (or whatever property involved) is not worth a human life." Really? Is the Constitution worth a human life? Lots of people have died for it, and the rights they protect.

Yes, a TV set is not worth a human life. That however is not the issue. The PRINCIPLE that what I earn with the sweat of my brow belongs to me, and NO ONE has the right to take it from me without due process of law, THAT most surely is worth a human life. I am willing to die to protect that right, and I am more than willing to kill in defense of it.

Sadly in this Country we have had 80 years of progressive and activist Judges setting case law based on leftist clap trap that has brought us here. That is going to piss of the resident leftists here, especially those who live in other Countries. So be it, and screw them.

One can hope that we have clearly seen why such Judges need to be removed, and we need to return to the Country our Founders gave us.

It is good to see that the Jury got it right.

[tgace]

Nothing I can disagree with in either post.

[judoist]

I'm glad to see these types of logical and rational assertions. Also, Tgace, a LEO, confirmed my opinion, and more importantly, the author's arguments. Thanks for the for the feedback guys.

[Lampa]

Can't say I understand the reaction. The shooting was legally justified and the jury found as such. Is the indignation over the trial? Because if a duly appointed representative of the state of New York thinks they have a case that the shooting wasn't justified they have the right to make it. They didn't have that case and the man went free.

I don't understand the indignation of the article if everything was done by the book and in the end the innocent man went free. Is the problem that he even stood trial?

Also, I don't get the problem with the family reaction. Yes, teenagers do stupid crap and one of three things happen. Either they get away with it and go onto worse. Get away with it and grow up. Or the above happens.

I'm not going to say that the teenage petty crook deserved or didn't deserve what he got. You engage in a dangerous and illegal activity, you takes your chances. He got one probable outcome that he was old enough to know was probable.

On the other hand, there is no family, even one that is angry with their offspring for being up to no good, that will feel like their son had his death coming to him. Not for making a stupid decision while drunk at 17. The kid could have wrapped his car around a tree and died. That's just as illegal and just as potentially harmful to law abiding citizens around him and you and I might say he deserved that, too. His family never would.

So, of course they are going to consider the shooting death an overreaction. This is a case of everyone acting the way you'd expect reasonable people to in a given situation and there was a long legal fallout over someone's death (also an expected outcome). I agree down the line with the facts. I'm confused at the tone.

[It is Fake]

You engage in a dangerous and illegal activity, you takes your chances. .

QFT.

That's really all that needs to be said.
Oh and I think you are reading it as an article writer yourself. It is poorly written.

The tone switches from agreement that the kids were idiots to sounding like the Man should have been punished. It reads like a new writer trying to hard to be neutral and going to extremes instead.

[Lysol]

The tone switches from agreement that the kids were idiots to sounding like the Man should have been punished. It reads like a new writer trying to hard to be neutral and going to extremes instead.

Exactly my thoughts on the article. It sounds like the writer is an intern who strongly believes that the kids were idiots (they were), but was told by a supervisor that the article is too biased.

That being said, if I was Scott, I would have shot him in his dick.

[Lampa]

QFT.

That's really all that needs to be said.
Oh and I think you are reading it as an article writer yourself. It is poorly written.

The tone switches from agreement that the kids were idiots to sounding like the Man should have been punished. It reads like a new writer trying to hard to be neutral and going to extremes instead.

Maybe. I got the distinct feeling that there was some kind of editorial commentary the author wanted to make but the story only tangentially fed in to it. So, in order to focus on just this story he left the editorial commentary out and instead just comes off as angry about something that is left mysterious and unsaid.

It seems like a long way to go but I used to tutor kids in college and saw the symptoms of that all the time. I mean, he even put "What is wrong with New York?" in the title when the innocent man was acquitted. So, as a reader I'm still left with the question. What is wrong with New York?

[jsteel]

I would hardly call Rochester a crime-ridden, crumbling city, also Greece is a middle to upper middle class suburb. Hardly the kind of place where shootings take place on a daily basis. Glad to see justice served in WNY.

[Vorpal]

Rodderick Scott for Badass of the Month!