Rodderick Scott trial: what is wrong with NY?

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:11pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Yes, IIRC correctly the kid was "entitled."

That just sux.
Sorry for your friend.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:22pm

Originally Posted by Squerlli

The guy looks like he could seriously lay the hurt on somebody and it makes me wonder what would have happened if he beat up the kids until the authorities got there or maybe just just shot one of them in the leg.

Spoken like a gun noob. Shoot to "wound" can get you worse charges than simple assault in many states.

**Squerlli** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:27pm

Oooh, well then scratch that idea.

Well looking up gun laws was getting annoying anyway, off I go to assault laws. About how big was this guy, over 6'0 and 200+ right?

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:31pm

Originally Posted by Squerlli

Oooh, well then scratch that idea.

Well looking up gun laws was getting annoying anyway, off I go to assault laws. About how big was this guy, over 6'0 and 200+ right?

The crux of this was probably, while they were a "threat" to his personal property, they weren't being an invasive threat into his home and onto his person or family.

He approached them outside instead of calling the police. All the stuff about the kids explains their actions, and is relevant after the fact, but Rodderick didn't have foreknowledge of this.

Simply put, he should have dragged the kid into the house after he shot him

**Lampa** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:43pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Spoken like a gun noob. Shoot to "wound" can get you worse charges than simple assault in many states.

At the risk of heading off on a tangent, this case and what you brought up above is a good example of why I'm not keen on the idea of carrying around a gun for self defense even though I'm not a stranger to them or even a bad shot.*

*I mean for me, personally. Hold your horses Coach Tripp.

While the gun may make you safer in a situation where you are outnumbered and you don't know if potential aggressors may be armed, it also lowers the amount of control you have in your own response to a situation.

We now know in retrospect that the teenagers were unarmed. The defendant didn't know at the time. He just knew there were a bunch of guys and one rushed him. Because he had the gun, he had to shoot. He couldn't leave it tucked in his pants or otherwise hesitate to use it because as soon as the gun is in play and the gun holder is not willing to use it someone else could easily be willing to use it against him.

Now take a panzy, long haired, atheist, ******, liberal like myself who would not carry a gun into that situation. Sure, if the kids were armed or even sober enough to be organized I would be in deeper water than an armed man if it came to a confrontation. However, if it was just one drunk teenager tackling me (as it turned out to be) I could also fairly easily wrestle him to the ground without having to worry about the presence of my non-existent firearm upping the stakes.

Of course the other two could have just tried to stomp me and then it's do or die for ol' Lampa, I'd just have to do whatever I had to to survive the encounter. But, nothing that I willingly brought into the equation would force my hand as to the situation being life or death.

Given that the majority of violent conflict in my life has been "hold this asshole down before someone gets hurt" I'm much more concerned about being able to control that part of the outcome.

**Squerlli** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 2:46pm

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article165.htm

Article 169.09-169.11 on the crime of Auto Stripping

I'm assuming one of those is what the kids would have have been charged with had the situation not ended with Rodderick using his gun.

As far as assault goes I didn't see any assault laws specifically including minors (only those 11 years and younger up to 6 and then different law for kids 5 years and younger) so if he beat one of them up in protection of his property this might have worked out better for him. I'm not saying he should have risked it since he didn't know if any of them was armed (we obviously know they're capable of doing some stupid **** since they press 10 year old's -_-*)

BJJ wins again? :\

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 3:22pm

Here, this site will make you feel better.

**Alucard619** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 3:47pm

Originally Posted by Lysol

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.

Cartman: "Butters! What did I say about shooting guys in the dick!"

More serious I am surprised this didn't turn out into "Angry black man kills white teens because black people don't like white people."

**ignatzami** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 4:01pm

I live in Rochester NY.

Greece is a solid middle-class suburb. As for the gun laws in Monroe County, and within the city of Rochester itself, they can be summed up simply by saying the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is alive and well in Rochester NY, nearly word for word.

Though Rochester is hardly a glowing example of peace and tranquility, having lived in Syracuse NY, Rochester is a fair site better.

I say good for Mr. Scott.

**ignatzami** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 4:08pm

Here's a slightly better worded article on the subject:

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s1322461.shtml?cat=565

The local paper doesn't have much on the case, at least not online.