Good: Roderick Scott

This is a discussion on Good: Roderick Scott within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Found NOT GUILTY of first degree manslaughter. The verdict JUST CAME DOWN Rochester | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | DA: Self-Defense Claim ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Good: Roderick Scott

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894

    Good: Roderick Scott

    Found NOT GUILTY of first degree manslaughter. The verdict JUST CAME DOWN

    Rochester | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | DA: Self-Defense Claim Won't Fly
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    43,807
    ...Monroe County District Attorney Michael Green says claims of self-defense don't hold up when there's no imminent threat to the shooter's life..

    I guess the DA lost this one, he should be going after real criminals and 'defending' the citizens.
    Glad this guy was found 'not guilty'.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    The ADA tried to convince everyone in town that Mr Scott shot the kid in the back first (actually under the arm pit), THEN the kid spun around and Mr Scott shot him in the chest SECOND.

    Which of course makes absolutely NO SENSE. apparently the jury didn't buy it either

    Thank Goodness common sense is still around
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  5. #4
    Member Array blar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rochester, ny
    Posts
    25
    I was glad to hear this verdict. Unfortunate the kid lost his life, but don't go around breaking into cars, and definitely don't run at someone holding you at gunpoint when they catch you. I heard the 911 call today (for some reason the jury was not allowed to hear it) and you could tell he was shaken about having to pull the trigger.

  6. #5
    Member Array lopadrino79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    182

    really?

    I am from Greece (28 years) and now I am in FL. Guys you know that you can not leave the safety of your home and shoot over property in NT. Its been preached on these boards for years to not go looking for trouble if you hear some thing outside. Stay inside and protect your loved ones and yourself. Some how this was over looked and it turned into a self defense issue. If he doesn't leave his home then its never even a question whether or not he was threatened. Sorry but I just disagree with his actions. .......flame away

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,096
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  8. #7
    Member Array blar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    rochester, ny
    Posts
    25
    Hi, Im from Greece also. I have to disagree. I keep hearing "if he didn't leave the house it wouldn't have happened". I can just as easily say "if the kid wasn't breaking into the cars at 3am it wouldn't have happened". Regardless of whether he should have went out or not, he did. And if his story is true, that the kid ran at him while he had him at gunpoint, then I say he did a good job. If he didn't shoot and the kid managed to get the gun away from him who knows what would have happened. That is a chance that I wouldn't take either. So if you believe his story, he acted in self defense even if it was a 'bad decision' for him to go outside. Don't get me wrong if the kid was running away, and he shot him I would for sure say Scott was wrong and should surely be jailed. Obviously the jury did not see evidence that this was the case.

  9. #8
    Member Array UnklFungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    441
    A man charged in

    the shooting death of

    a Hilton teenager

    allegedly used an

    automatic handgun
    to

    kill the 17-year-old.
    Don't ya just love sensationalism?
    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

    Patrick Henry
    Quote Originally Posted by UnklFungus
    If it is ok to disarm legal citizens to reduce crime, then doesn't it stand to disband the military to prevent war?

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by lopadrino79 View Post
    I am from Greece (28 years) and now I am in FL. Guys you know that you can not leave the safety of your home and shoot over property in NT. Its been preached on these boards for years to not go looking for trouble if you hear some thing outside. Stay inside and protect your loved ones and yourself. Some how this was over looked and it turned into a self defense issue. If he doesn't leave his home then its never even a question whether or not he was threatened. Sorry but I just disagree with his actions. .......flame away

    I would tend to agree with you, but I think you missed the point.

    It's important (I think) to note that the citizens of Rochester are tired of crime. I think this sends a very loud message to these punks that New Yokers are tired of being victims.

    These guys have a history of vandalism and B&E. I'm going to bet the 'other' guys that were with the deceased are not going to be running around breaking into, and vandalizing other peoples property anymore.
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  11. #10
    Member Array lopadrino79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    182
    No I see the point loud and clear. I am as big of an advocate of personal protection as they come. I have taken instructional and tactical classes on top of owning handguns and aks and Ar's. I just feel that this guy made the wrong decision leaving his home. NOONES life was in danger until he did. Who is he to point a gun at some one to "hold them" out side of his home on his neighbors property. I just can not accept that. Yes you can say they kids shouldn't have been there and causing trouble and this would not have happened. But that kid did not have the responsibility of a firearm and we all know what a great responsibility it is.

    I also understand the community is sick of the trouble in the neighborhoods and city. Like I said I am in FL now but have only been gone a year and I know the trouble that goes on. My family still lives there. I am sorry I just can not wrap my head around leaving your home to confront kids with a gun. NOT THAT KIDS AREN"T CAPABLE of violence. I think he was wrong but who am i?

    Again, as far as him leaving his house it has been talked about SO MANY times on this forum. So many questions have been asked about whether or not someone should leave the house to investigate. The general consensus as far as I can remember has always been no. Hind sight is 20/20 and I was not there but I sure home I would have made a bad decision.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,174
    Quote Originally Posted by lopadrino79 View Post
    Guys you know that you can not leave the safety of your home and shoot over property ...
    There is shooting "over" property.

    And then there's what this guy did.

    Defending your person against attack is very different than attacking someone over property. A gang of young adults, three young males acting in concert at 3am, decide to resist his attentions during their apparent felony crime (GTA). Via their motions, immediacy and explosiveness of those motions, and what he heard at least one of them yell, he believed a violent attempt to disarm him was being launched. He believed it was an attack on him, escalation to a violent felony after the felony he'd just personally stopped. He knew for a fact these felons were who they were, as they were caught in the act. And he had to decided in an instant whether they were directing their aggressions at him. In his opinion, given their words and actions, and the speed/energy of those actions, they had decided to escalate. He refused.

    Of course, it does come down to specifics. 3am, gang of three, under the influence of substances, apparently yelling "I'll get him," apparently coming at him, all while he had them under gunpoint and told them not to move and await the police. The two who fled, he let go. The other who came at him, he stopped. Some cried foul, in court. He's a licensed, card-carrying good guy who stopped crime at 3am at his home, and stopped what he reasonably believed was violence being launched against him by at least one of three criminals being held at gunpoint. None of those crying foul could know more than he and the criminals did, as they weren't there.

    Sixteen high school seniors attending the court case for education took a straw poll: they agreed in 30mins ... not guilty. Teens of much the same age as the gang of people involved with Mr. Scott.

    The jury in the case also agreed: not guilty.


    Its been preached on these boards for years to not go looking for trouble if you hear some thing outside. Stay inside and protect your loved ones and yourself. Some how this was over looked and it turned into a self defense issue. If he doesn't leave his home then its never even a question whether or not he was threatened.
    A person has every right to protect himself, his family, his hard-earned possessions. A person has every right to protect against impending threat of violence.

    The "preaching" you speak of is regarding the modern criminal that very often shoots first and then skedaddles. But the fact is, not everyone has a family inside at that moment that will need one's protection if one fails in stopping a burglar. That can change the calculus. Each situation is different. Nothing is absolute.

    Like you, I think before leaping. But I, too, have stopped people from kicking down my mailbox; asked if I could help someone who was peeking into my convertible car a bit too earnestly; asked a small group of pre-teens to take their swearing circus elsewhere if dealing with the police was something they preferred to avoid. Whether it's worth doing depends on the circumstances.

    Now, if a person does come to a burglar and ask WTH is going on, keep in mind one thing: it's the burglar's choice whether to escalate burgling into aggravated assault on a person. The mere fact a citizen comes to ask a person to cease a crime does NOT itself invite another, much more heinous and violent crime. A citizen is NOT asking for anything of the sort.

    And, as we all know, nobody has to take aggressive, violent assault lying down. Nobody. Criminals get what they get, in this life. Nobody's asking for them to escalate their actions to threatening the lives of others. That's something they do all on their own.


    flame away
    Disagreements and dialog. Not "flames."


    You've got to keep your head, in a rough situation. In a state that distinguishes between property crime and person crime, between simple attack and violent, potentially lethal attack, you've got to make a snap decision when confronted with three criminals at 3am who decide to "explode" right in front of you while you've got them at gun point. Mr. Scott believed the one criminal was coming at him.

    In a situation with three quickly-moving young males where one is coming at you in spite of your having them at gun point, it's pretty darned bold to suggest he had no right whatsoever to protect himself against attack. And protect himself is what he did. He wasn't "shooting to defend property." He only shot when his person was being threatened violently by at least one member of a three-person gang of young males at 3am. Big, big difference.

    Don't want to get shot? Then don't be a criminal, and don't attack others.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #12
    Member Array lopadrino79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    182
    CCW I have read many MANY of your posts and respect your obvious knowledge and points of you. I have learned a large amount of info from this site.

    We can go round and round about this but I still just can not understand the legality of leaving your home with a firearm to stop a crime such as breaking into cars. Once he was out there and IF his story is true then yes i agree it was a good shoot.

    He may not pay for this in jail but it certainly will hit him in his pocket. Mr. Parinello is a top if not THE top and most high profile lawyer in Rochester. THis is going to cost him a pretty penny on top of any civil suits to be filed.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    There is shooting "over" property.

    And then there's what this guy did.

    Defending your person against attack is very different than attacking someone over property. A gang of young adults, three young males acting in concert at 3am, decide to resist his attentions during their apparent felony crime (GTA). Via their motions, immediacy and explosiveness of those motions, and what he heard at least one of them yell, he believed a violent attempt to disarm him was being launched. He believed it was an attack on him, escalation to a violent felony after the felony he'd just personally stopped. He knew for a fact these felons were who they were, as they were caught in the act. And he had to decided in an instant whether they were directing their aggressions at him. In his opinion, given their words and actions, and the speed/energy of those actions, they had decided to escalate. He refused.

    Of course, it does come down to specifics. 3am, gang of three, under the influence of substances, apparently yelling "I'll get him," apparently coming at him, all while he had them under gunpoint and told them not to move and await the police. The two who fled, he let go. The other who came at him, he stopped. Some cried foul, in court. He's a licensed, card-carrying good guy who stopped crime at 3am at his home, and stopped what he reasonably believed was violence being launched against him by at least one of three criminals being held at gunpoint. None of those crying foul could know more than he and the criminals did, as they weren't there.

    Sixteen high school seniors attending the court case for education took a straw poll: they agreed in 30mins ... not guilty. Teens of much the same age as the gang of people involved with Mr. Scott.

    The jury in the case also agreed: not guilty.



    A person has every right to protect himself, his family, his hard-earned possessions. A person has every right to protect against impending threat of violence.

    The "preaching" you speak of is regarding the modern criminal that very often shoots first and then skedaddles. But the fact is, not everyone has a family inside at that moment that will need one's protection if one fails in stopping a burglar. That can change the calculus. Each situation is different. Nothing is absolute.

    Like you, I think before leaping. But I, too, have stopped people from kicking down my mailbox; asked if I could help someone who was peeking into my convertible car a bit too earnestly; asked a small group of pre-teens to take their swearing circus elsewhere if dealing with the police was something they preferred to avoid. Whether it's worth doing depends on the circumstances.

    Now, if a person does come to a burglar and ask WTH is going on, keep in mind one thing: it's the burglar's choice whether to escalate burgling into aggravated assault on a person. The mere fact a citizen comes to ask a person to cease a crime does NOT itself invite another, much more heinous and violent crime. A citizen is NOT asking for anything of the sort.

    And, as we all know, nobody has to take aggressive, violent assault lying down. Nobody. Criminals get what they get, in this life. Nobody's asking for them to escalate their actions to threatening the lives of others. That's something they do all on their own.



    Disagreements and dialog. Not "flames."


    You've got to keep your head, in a rough situation. In a state that distinguishes between property crime and person crime, between simple attack and violent, potentially lethal attack, you've got to make a snap decision when confronted with three criminals at 3am who decide to "explode" right in front of you while you've got them at gun point. Mr. Scott believed the one criminal was coming at him.

    In a situation with three quickly-moving young males where one is coming at you in spite of your having them at gun point, it's pretty darned bold to suggest he had no right whatsoever to protect himself against attack. And protect himself is what he did. He wasn't "shooting to defend property." He only shot when his person was being threatened violently by at least one member of a three-person gang of young males at 3am. Big, big difference.

    Don't want to get shot? Then don't be a criminal, and don't attack others.
    well said
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by lopadrino79 View Post
    CCW I have read many MANY of your posts and respect your obvious knowledge and points of you. I have learned a large amount of info from this site.

    We can go round and round about this but I still just can not understand the legality of leaving your home with a firearm to stop a crime such as breaking into cars. Once he was out there and IF his story is true then yes i agree it was a good shoot.

    He may not pay for this in jail but it certainly will hit him in his pocket. Mr. Parinello is a top if not THE top and most high profile lawyer in Rochester. THis is going to cost him a pretty penny on top of any civil suits to be filed.
    well, I would not go outside unless it was my truck they were breaking into. However, the fact remains Mr Scott did go outside and the jury agreed that Chris Cervini did in fact attack Mr Scott.

    I guess we are just going to disagree on whether Mr Scott was justified going outside.

    You are quite correct in that Mr Parinello is THE top criminal defense attorney in Monroe county. It will be interesting to see if The Cervini family brings a Wrongful Death suite against Mr Scott.
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array Rigrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South
    Posts
    816
    CCW, very well said.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Scott Brown is Pro 2A
    By mreymann in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 20th, 2010, 07:56 PM

Search tags for this page

armpit roderick scott

,
cervini family filed civil suit against roderick scott
,
christopher cervini roderick scott facts
,

evidence left out in the roderick scott case rochester ny

,

pending civil case against roderick scott rochester ny

,

roderick scott case

,

roderick scott cervini

,
roderick scott civil case
,
roderick scott decision
,

roderick scott rochester

,
roderick scott rochester new york
,

roderick scott rochester ny

,
roderick scott self defense
,
roderick scott shooting rochester new york verdict
,

roderick scott verdict

Click on a term to search for related topics.