Store owner found not guilty of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen in South Carolina

[LeftofLeft]

Try and stay on topic.

The threat must be imminent. That means going to happen right now. No gun in his possession when shot and running away. In store video shows the gin never presented.

Stand your ground there must be no means of escape. You dont escape when one is running away from you.
Proportionality.

If the gun was presented inside the store castle doctrine would allow use of deadly force.

1. Key Legal Principles

• Reasonable Fear: The threat must be imminent, and your belief that you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury must be both subjectively honest and objectively reasonable (i.e., an ordinary person in the same situation would react the same way). [1, 2]
• Stand Your Ground: You have no legal duty to retreat from an attacker, provided you are in a place where you have a legal right to be. [1, 2]
• Proportionality: You generally cannot use deadly force to protect mere property unless there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another person. [1]

2. The "Castle Doctrine"
Under South Carolina law, your "castle" extends beyond your home to include your vehicle and your place of business. If someone is in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering (or has entered) your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent danger. This entitles you to use deadly force against the intruder. [1, 2, 3]

A lot of Gray in your post. You site “key legal principles.” Where do those principles fall in South Carolina?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Face it, these assholes are shooting people to escape getting caught for shoplifting.

And storeowners are chasing people 100 yards over bottles of water and then claiming self defense, when they shoot the perp in the back.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So carrying a weapon justifys you being ran down and murdered.

When you threaten someone with your illegal gun

 

[Hafar1014]

A lot of Gray in your post. You site “key legal principles.” Where do those principles fall in South Carolina?

Stand your ground law was in effect

2025 South Carolina Code of Laws​

Key Legal Elements
To claim self-defense in South Carolina, the following conditions must be met:

• No Fault: You must not have been the one who provoked or brought on the difficulty.
• Imminent Danger: You must have a reasonable, actual belief that you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury.
• Proportionality: A person must be confronted with what reasonably appears to be deadly force before they can respond with deadly force. [1, 2]

Stand Your Ground vs. Castle Doctrine

• Stand Your Ground: Under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440, you have no duty to retreat if you are attacked in any place where you have a legal right to be (including public spaces). [1, 2]
• Castle Doctrine: This expands the "Stand Your Ground" principle by including a presumption of reasonable fear. If someone unlawfully and by force enters (or attempts to enter) your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, the law presumes they have the intent to commit a violent crime. [1, 2, 3]

Running away negates an imminent threat
Also brings in proportionality.
There is no imminent threat when the target is running away from you. Therefore deadly force cannot be used.

Thats not as grey area thats as specific as it gets.

 

[Hafar1014]

When you threaten someone with your illegal gun

The videos never showed him pointing a gun at anyone. He was shot in the back while running away.

 

[Fang]

Unanimous verdict in 8 hours.

Good Lord. Todd Rutherford, the family attorney of the kid that was shot, is going to get more kids shot. This guy was the wrong pick for that family. He literally tried to justify a 14 year old carrying a loaded semiautomatic due to the fact that's he black and needs extra protection. smh. Words cannot describe this man's incompetence as an attorney.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Is there any video or forensic evidence that he actually had a gun?

Because other than the Chows not one witness saw him with a gun.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

LOL yea right.

He pulled the gun on them so at that point they had the right to shoot.

And yes you can shoot in the back, as someone can still aim a gun in your direction while turned away from you.

How do we know he pulled a gun on them?

SC law says just the opposite.

 

[Fang]

Eyewitnesses said they didn't see him pull a gun? Why didn't he shoot them? These young boys in today's society when they pull a gun they use it.

You just don't get it as people on your side don't either.

Cyrus Carmack-Belton is dead because he chose to illegally carry a loaded semiautomatic weapon into a store the owner believed he intended to rob. That action alone sends major life-threatening signals to anyone in public he encounters - WHETHER HE INTENDS TO USE THE GUN OR NOT. That is a completely ill-advised action for anyone regardless of race. You can't guarantee how anyone will react. There's no doubt Cyrus was living the thug life and paid for it dearly when he encountered someone that pushed back. Was Chikei Rick Chow justified? The jury at the very least wasn't convinced he was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt which leads me to my main point - Cyrus should never have taken actions in his life to be in that position with Chow and ultimately to have 12 jurors be convinced Chow unjustly shot him.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

You just don't get it as people on your side don't either.

Cyrus Carmack-Belton is dead because he chose to illegally carry a loaded semiautomatic weapon into a store the owner believed he intended to rob. That action alone sends major life-threatening signals to anyone in public he encounters - WHETHER HE INTENDS TO USE THE GUN OR NOT. That is a completely ill-advised action for anyone regardless of race. You can't guarantee how anyone will react. There's no doubt Cyrus was living the thug life and paid for it dearly when he encountered someone that pushed back. Was Chikei Rick Chow justified? The jury at the very least wasn't convinced he was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt which leads me to my main point - Cyrus should never have taken actions in his life to be in that position with Chow and ultimately to have 12 jurors be convinced Chow unjustly shot him.

Has it been established that he ACTUALLY has a gun?

 

[Fang]

Has it been established that he ACTUALLY has a gun?

Yes. The kid's own lawyer said he had the gun.

 

[DonGlock26]

We see many white kids die from drug overdose are you saying they were unsupervised.

When a white kid who comes from a 2 parent home goes into a school and kills folks, does it mean they were unsupervised?

Are you trying to say that a 14 year old running the streets with a loaded gun is supervised?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes there is a video in the store

he didn't pull the firearm in the store.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Are you trying to say that a 14 year old running the streets with a loaded gun is supervised?

Did you do everything your parents told you to do?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

he didn't pull the firearm in the store.

So how did he threaten his son with the gun?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I posted the law in both states and they are exactly the same. Your point is irrelevant.
Since you call yourself a journalist how come you dont know the law.
The Core Criteria
To legally claim self-defense with deadly force in Michigan, all of the following conditions must be met:

• Proportionality: You must be responding to a threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault.
• Imminence: The threat must be happening right now or about to happen immediately. You cannot use deadly force in retaliation or for threats of future harm.
• Reasonableness: An ordinary person in the same situation would also believe that deadly force was necessary to survive the encounter.
• Not Engaged in a Crime: You cannot be engaged in the commission of a crime at the time you use deadly force. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

"Stand Your Ground" & "Castle Doctrine"
Michigan is a "Stand Your Ground" state, meaning that if you are not committing a crime and are in a place you have a legal right to be, you generally have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. [1, 2]

• You do not have to back down, even in public spaces.
• The Castle Doctrine provides that you are entirely justified in using deadly force against an unlawful intruder in your own home or vehicle, provided you are legally permitted to be there and the intruder is not legally permitted there. [1, 2, 3, 4]

============================================================================
In South Carolina, deadly force is legally justified only when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. The state recognizes both "Stand Your Ground" protections and the "Castle Doctrine". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Core Requirements for Self-Defense
To successfully claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must meet four conditions: [1]

• No Fault: You must not have provoked or initiated the confrontation.
• Reasonable Fear: You must have a reasonable, actual fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.
• Reasonable Person: An ordinary, reasonable person in those same circumstances would have feared for their life or safety.
• Proportionality: You cannot use force that is highly disproportionate to the threat you are facing (e.g., using deadly force for a simple shove). [1, 2, 3]

Stand Your Ground
Under South Carolina law (the Protection of Persons and Property Act), you have no duty to retreat if you are attacked in a place where you have a legal right to be. You are legally permitted to stand your ground and use force—including deadly force—as long as you meet the four self-defense requirements mentioned above. [1, 2, 3]

The Castle Doctrine
Under the Protection of Persons and Property Act, your dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business is considered your "castle". You are presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury if you use deadly force against someone who is in the process of, or has already, unlawfully and forcefully entered your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to remove someone from it against their will. [1, 2]

the kid pulled a firearm and pointed it at the son. the Father was justified by the criteria of the law.

 

[Meathead]

Did you do everything your parents told you to do?

He was probably listening to his parents. Likely a chip off the old block.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please explain how you know this kid pointed a gun at his son. Why isn't it on the store surveillance?

again STUPID he didn't use the firearm in the store he pulled it while running outside.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Funny how clowns like you just make assumptions about what happened, bring some facts since you claim I haven't.

YOU dont know the facts at all and keep making statements that are not supported by the actual facts.

 

[westwall]

Idiot.

Yes, you truly are.