Roderick Scott aquitted

[PushthePile]

I've gone back and forth about this case. Has anyone been following it?

 

 

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Rod...LhEttfoklg.cspx

 

In the end I think it was unjustified and murder.

[KD in CA]

Correct verdict IMO. Sounds like one guy was a criminal and the other was trying to protect his neighborhood and the bad guy died.

[PushthePile]

Correct verdict IMO. Sounds like one guy was a criminal and the other was trying to protect his neighborhood and the bad guy died.

I agree to a certain degree. I just have trouble getting past a few points:

 

1. The shooting took place across the street from Scott's house.

2. The criminal was an unarmed teenager who was breaking into cars.

3. The shooter shot the said teenager in the back.

 

It just doesn't sound like self defense.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I would want more details on the "shot in the back" part before passing judgment.

[Beerball]

Feel bad for the Cervini family's loss, but they need to look inward rather than point fingers.

[rockpile]

I agree to a certain degree. I just have trouble getting past a few points:

 

1. The shooting took place across the street from Scott's house.

2. The criminal was an unarmed teenager who was breaking into cars.

3. The shooter shot the said teenager in the back.

 

It just doesn't sound like self defense.

 

The shooter called 911 and then went outside.

 

After he shot the teen he called 911 again and told them what happened.

 

The acquitted said the person he shot's last words were "I'm just a kid".

 

I do not have enough information to make a judgment. Remember, 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

 

Sad all around.

 

more of the story

[rockpile]

It just doesn't sound like self defense.

 

"To convict Scott of first-degree manslaughter, jurors would have had to find that he killed Cervini while intending to inflict serious physical injury, and was not acting in self-defense. The jury considered no lesser charge."

 

Smart lawyer.

[PushthePile]

The shooter called 911 and then went outside.

 

After he shot the teen he called 911 again and told them what happened.

 

The acquitted said the person he shot's last words were "I'm just a kid".

 

I do not have enough information to make a judgment. Remember, 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

 

Sad all around.

 

more of the story

Very good point. IMO the whole thing shouldn't have happened and that means all the way back to the Cervini family.

It is sad all around.

[kegtapr]

Bad choices all around and the kid didn't deserve to die, but in the end, Scott wasn't the one intending to commit a crime that night. I say let it be a lesson that good citizens don't have to put up with this **** any longer.

[KD in CA]

in the end, Scott wasn't the one intending to commit a crime that night. I say let it be a lesson that good citizens don't have to put up with this **** any longer.

 

Exactly.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

The question for Scott would be "was it worth it."

 

It cost him a lot of money.

[DC Tom]

Can't disagree with the verdict based on what I read; it seems like it was a weak case.

 

Bottom line: nothing good happens when someone's drawing a gun at 3:30 in the morning.

[Steely Dan]

From the first article;

 

The prosecution had said that whether Cervini may have been running at Scott still was not just cause for use of deadly force and that medical testimony had shown Cervini was shot in the back.

 

You've gotta be kidding me. The guys holding a gun and the kid runs at him. Should he have let the kid grapple with him for the gun!? He definitely did the right thing. JMO

 

I agree to a certain degree. I just have trouble getting past a few points:

 

1. The shooting took place across the street from Scott's house.

2. The criminal was an unarmed teenager who was breaking into cars.

3. The shooter shot the said teenager in the back.

 

It just doesn't sound like self defense.

 

Since it was storming I can easily believe he couldn't tell if the kids were armed or not. The shot in the back, IMO, wasn't the first shot.

 

From Rockpile's article;

 

Cervini was shot twice: once on the extreme right side of his back, next to his armpit, and once by a gunshot that went through his left hand, chest and arm. A forensic pathologist said he could not definitively say which shot was fired first, but testified that the wound to the back was the fatal one.

 

IMO, if the shot in the back was the fatal one I doubt the kid could've turned around and run at him at that point. The back shot had to be the second, JMO.

 

Feel bad for the Cervini family's loss, but they need to look inward rather than point fingers.

 

Exactly, if the kid would have been at home he never would have been shot. 'Nuff said.

 

From Rockpile's article;

 

He also argued that Cervini ran at Scott in an attempt to help his cousin escape. James Cervini had been on probation twice for assisting a burglary and holding a knife to the head of a 10-year-old and feared he would face a charge of violating probation for drinking, breaking curfew and attempted theft, Parrinello said.

 

I know that Christopher can't be responsible for his cousin's actions but the mere fact that his parents let him hang out with that POS is a testament to the families character. I'd have a different view of the family if they hadn't invited his cousin to spend the night. JMO

 

My parents would never have let me invite that kid for a sleepover and they would have done everything humanly possible to keep me away from him outside the house.

 

I know parents are always going to defend their child but if he had been home this never would have happened.

 

 

The shooter called 911 and then went outside.

 

After he shot the teen he called 911 again and told them what happened.

 

The acquitted said the person he shot's last words were "I'm just a kid".

 

I do not have enough information to make a judgment. Remember, 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

 

Sad all around.

 

more of the story

 

It wasn't like Scott tried to hide after the shooting. He called 911 afterwards which is exactly what he needed to do.

 

If the kid had hit the ground and waited for the cops he'd be alive today. 'Nuff said.

 

 

Bad choices all around and the kid didn't deserve to die, but in the end, Scott wasn't the one intending to commit a crime that night. I say let it be a lesson that good citizens don't have to put up with this **** any longer.

 

If the kid ran at him then he did deserved to die. JMO

[PushthePile]

Everybody has made good points. I go back and forth on the case quite a bit. In the end every person involved had a chance to change the outcome.

[outsidethebox]

Everybody has made good points. I go back and forth on the case quite a bit. In the end every person involved had a chance to change the outcome.

I kind of agree with you PTP. You don't pull out your gun unless your willing to use it. He did the right thing by calling 911. Where he made the mistake was when he decided to go wild west. They were breaking into cars, not houses. He should have kept himself inside of his house and let the cops do there job. Has anyone ever called 911 on a crime being committed outside? What the 911 officer will tell you is to stay inside.Don't confront the perpetrators.

I don't condone the actions of these teenagers. What they did was wrong. No doubt it. But the punishment does not fit the crime. We can't have people running around with guns, taking shots at suspected criminals. Did you know one of the bullets ended up in the garage of a neighbor? What if that bullet hit someone and killed them? He was reckless in his actions.Very sloppy. My heart goes out to both families. They all are victims.

[PushthePile]

I kind of agree with you PTP. You don't pull out your gun unless your willing to use it. He did the right thing by calling 911. Where he made the mistake was when he decided to go wild west. They were breaking into cars, not houses. He should have kept himself inside of his house and let the cops do there job. Has anyone ever called 911 on a crime being committed outside? What the 911 officer will tell you is to stay inside.Don't confront the perpetrators.

I don't condone the actions of these teenagers. What they did was wrong. No doubt it. But the punishment does not fit the crime. We can't have people running around with guns, taking shots at suspected criminals. Did you know one of the bullets ended up in the garage of a neighbor? What if that bullet hit someone and killed them? He was reckless in his actions.Very sloppy. My heart goes out to both families. They all are victims.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Why did Scott leave his house? Why did he go into a neighbors yard with a pistol drawn? I tend to believe that most of us would have found a way to handle the situation, without a kid getting shot.

 

Like you said the kids were breaking into cars not homes. Scott could have easily sat tight and waited for the cops.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I would not draw a weapon in defense of property. Life, mine or others of course. Not property.

Having said that, When Cervini ran at Scott the situation changed dramatically. He just as easily could have run away, but choose to put Scott in a life threating situation. The shooting was justified at that point.

 

To steal a line from Outlaw Josey Wales -Gene Hackman"you just shot a unarmed man"-Eastwood"Well he should have armed himself"

[Zona]

I would not draw a weapon in defense of property. Life, mine or others of course. Not property.

Having said that, When Cervini ran at Scott the situation changed dramatically. He just as easily could have run away, but choose to put Scott in a life threating situation. The shooting was justified at that point.

 

To steal a line from Outlaw Josey Wales -Gene Hackman"you just shot a unarmed man"-Eastwood"Well he should have armed himself"

 

This is pretty much what I think about it as well.

 

Although, i think that line was in a different clint movie. The one with Freeman and the Hookers, Unforgiven.

[Steely Dan]

This is pretty much what I think about it as well.

 

Although, i think that line was in a different clint movie. The one with Freeman and the Hookers, Unforgiven.

 

You're right "Unforgiven".

 

Will Munny: Who's the fellow owns this shithole?

[pause]

Will Munny: You, fat man. Speak up.

Skinny Dubois: Uh, I... I own this establishment. I bought the place from Greeley for a thousand dollars.

[Will levels the shotgun, and speaks to someone standing behind Skinny]

Will Munny: You better clear outta there.

Man: Yes, sir.

[scampers out of the way]

Little Bill Daggett: Just hold it right there. Hold it...!

[Will shoots Skinny. Screaming, the women scatter upstairs]

Little Bill Daggett: Well, sir, you are a cowardly son of a B word! You just shot an unarmed man!

Will Munny: Well, he should have armed himself if he's going to decorate his saloon with my friend.

[KD in CA]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Why did Scott leave his house? Why did he go into a neighbors yard with a pistol drawn? I tend to believe that most of us would have found a way to handle the situation, without a kid getting shot.

 

Like you said the kids were breaking into cars not homes. Scott could have easily sat tight and waited for the cops.

 

I can easily understand why. Scott was probably sick and tired of people committing crimes in his neighborhood. It's easy to say he should have done nothing but call 911 and watch the cops show up 20 minutes later when the guys are long gone, but a lot of people (thankfully) aren't willing to settle for that outcome.

 

Instead he decided to make sure they got caught. And if you are confronting guys late at night with the intent of seeing them arrested, it's probably a good idea to show your weapon to take control of the situation as firmly as possible.

 

I agree that once you get yourself into that situation, bad things can and often do happen. The punishment may not have fit the crime, but that's the fault of the criminal and the risk he took by choosing to spend his evening committing crimes.