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

[LeftofLeft]

Please point out where he robbed someone or attacked someone, please post where any of that came out in court. A white ass kisser celebrating a 14yr old being murdered by a coward.

Tell US you would not shoot anyone who pointed a gun at you or a member of your family? If there were no gun on the 14 year old, then the man should be put away for life. The 14 year old had a gun. It is not beyond reasonable doubt he he pointed a gun at the man and/or his son.

Also, you really wouldn’t give two shits about this case if the kid shot was non-Black.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Dishonest POS!
POINTING a gun, not having a gun
They charged him with first degree murder. That was never gonna stick. Shouldn't be so damn greedy

So show me shithead where he pointed a damn gun.

 

[Hafar1014]

Absolutely he did have the Right. There are plenty of videos of cops getting shot in exactly the same circumstances.

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

SHOPLIFTING!

That means shoplifting is now a capital offense. They set the rules, they get to die by them.

There has to be an imminent threat under Michigan law. A 14 year old unarmed running away is not an imminent threat.
Key Legal Components
Under the Michigan Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.972), the legal justification for using deadly force hinges on the following specific conditions: [1, 2]

• No Duty to Retreat: You have the right to "stand your ground." If you are not engaged in the commission of a crime and are in a place where you have a legal right to be, you are not required to flee or back down before using deadly force. [1, 2]
• Imminent Threat: You must reasonably and honestly believe that you or another individual are facing an imminent threat of death, severe physical injury, or sexual assault. [1, 2]
• Proportionality: The level of force must match the threat. You generally cannot use deadly force against an unarmed attacker unless you reasonably fear they will cause death or serious bodily harm. [1]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Key Legal Components
Under the Michigan Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.972), the legal justification for using deadly force hinges on the following specific conditions: [1, 2]

• No Duty to Retreat: You have the right to "stand your ground." If you are not engaged in the commission of a crime and are in a place where you have a legal right to be, you are not required to flee or back down before using deadly force. [1, 2]
• Imminent Threat: You must reasonably and honestly believe that you or another individual are facing an imminent threat of death, severe physical injury, or sexual assault. [1, 2]
• Proportionality: The level of force must match the threat. You generally cannot use deadly force against an unarmed attacker unless you reasonably fear they will cause death or serious bodily harm. [1

Chow was guilty of murder

it didn't happen in Michigan, it happened in South Carolina.

 

[Hafar1014]

Tell US you would not shoot anyone who pointed a gun at you or a member of your family? If there were no gun on the 14 year old, then the man should be put away for life. The 14 year old had a gun. It is not beyond reasonable doubt he he pointed a gun at the man and/or his son.

Also, you really wouldn’t give two shits about this case if the kid shot was non-Black.

Under Michigan law the threat must be imminent. A 14 year old with no gun running away is not imminent. He was murdered.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

He had no right to use deadly force even though the kid did have gun at one time and I believe he dropped it as he ran away. By running away there is no imminent threat. The kids family is suing and they have good chance of winning

If they wanted a conviction they shouldn't have gone for FIRST DEGREE MURDER

 

[westwall]

There has to be an imminent threat under Michigan law. A 14 year old unarmed running away is not an imminent threat.
Key Legal Components
Under the Michigan Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.972), the legal justification for using deadly force hinges on the following specific conditions: [1, 2]

• No Duty to Retreat: You have the right to "stand your ground." If you are not engaged in the commission of a crime and are in a place where you have a legal right to be, you are not required to flee or back down before using deadly force. [1, 2]
• Imminent Threat: You must reasonably and honestly believe that you or another individual are facing an imminent threat of death, severe physical injury, or sexual assault. [1, 2]
• Proportionality: The level of force must match the threat. You generally cannot use deadly force against an unarmed attacker unless you reasonably fear they will cause death or serious bodily harm. [1]

Like I said, the man was found not guilty. That means the claims there was no gun is BS. There's ZEEO chance that if there was the slightest bit of evidence against that man that he would be acquitted.

There's too much politics involved now.

Ergo, the jury saw evidence we didn't see. And acquitted him because of it.

 

[Marener]

Tell US you would not shoot anyone who pointed a gun at you or a member of your family? If there were no gun on the 14 year old, then the man should be put away for life. The 14 year old had a gun. It is not beyond reasonable doubt he he pointed a gun at the man and/or his son.

Also, you really wouldn’t give two shits about this case if the kid shot was non-Black.

How would you feel about someone being chased by armed men pulling a gun on them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If two people were chasing you, would you be entitled to defend yourself from them?

Not if I committed a crime that they were responding too. And shooting them was not justified at all. just because someone chases you doesnt mean you could shoot them especially if YOU just committed a crime. The owner was justified.

 

[hadit]

Chikei Rick Chow maintained he shot 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton in the back because he was trying to defend his son.

The jury returned the verdict for Chikei Rick Chow. Chow, 61, who is Asian, shot Cyrus Carmack-Belton in the back after chasing him from his convenience store in Columbia. He maintained he acted to defend his son.

Defense lawyer Jack Swerling said they’re very pleased with the verdict but also feel for Carmack-Belton’s family.
“My heart goes out to them, but 14-year-old kid should not be roaming the streets of Columbia or South Carolina with semiautomatic pistol loaded and ready to fire,” he said.

Prosecutors and a defense lawyer in closing arguments painted different pictures of the 2023 shooting. Prosecutors said Chow acted in anger because he wrongly thought the teen had stolen four bottles of water from the store. A defense lawyer said Chow fired to defend his son only after the teen pointed a gun at him.

Prosecutors acknowledged Carmack-Belton had a semiautomatic pistol, but they say it fell on the ground during the chase and he never threatened anyone with it. Prosecutors said Chow chased the teen more than 130 yards from the store.

Gipson told jurors that Chow “chased a kid down, shot him in the back.”

During closing arguments, Gipson placed a bottle of water before jurors. Gipson said that Chow “at the end of the day, believed that a human is not more than that.”

Gipson said multiple witnesses testified that they didn’t see anything in Carmack-Belton’s hands and didn’t see him point a gun as he ran from the store.

“Nobody testified that happened that doesn’t have the last name Chow,” Gipson said.

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

Chikei Rick Chow maintained he shot 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton in the back because he was trying to defend his son.

www.nbcnews.com

Here we go again, a grown man runs a child down and shoots him in the back over 4 bottles of water they claimed he stole and yet he didn't have any water on him, then he claims the kid pointed a gun at him and threatened his son, but the he never fired a gun and no one saw him threaten to shoot anyone.

I would love to know the makeup of this jury.

Unless there was something more brought out in the trial, I would have voted for murder. Once the kid is out of the store and running away, your gun has served its purpose and you don't shoot at him.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So show me shithead where he pointed a damn gun.houlf m

We're talking about your LIE.
You said we should support him HAVING a gun

We know he HAD a gun. He was killed because he pointed a 9 mm.

Hes a 14 yo carrying an I llegal gun in a private business. Hes a THUG. You're supporting a black THUG

 

[LeftofLeft]

Under Michigan law the threat must be imminent. A 14 year old with no gun running away is not imminent. He was murdered.

Good for Michigan. I’m sure teenagers carrying illegal guns into convenience stores will sleep better at night.

 

[LeftofLeft]

How would you feel about someone being chased by armed men pulling a gun on them?

If they had a previous altercation, alleged threat with a deadly weapon, and the weapon falls from the person being chased, then I feel while tragic, the person made a bad choice.
Why won’t you tell the complete story? Is redacted news and facts to fit an agenda that ingrained in you people?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Tell US you would not shoot anyone who pointed a gun at you or a member of your family? If there were no gun on the 14 year old, then the man should be put away for life. The 14 year old had a gun. It is not beyond reasonable doubt he he pointed a gun at the man and/or his son.

Also, you really wouldn’t give two shits about this case if the kid shot was non-Black.

Yea I would shoot them on the spot, not chase them in the back running away. No evidence, no eyewitnesses saw him point a gun at anyone. So you can murder someone because you think he may have pointed a gun. You don't give 2 shots because it is a black 14yr old kid that was murdered, id this kid were white Chow's ass would be under the prison.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

We're talking about your LIE.
You said we should support him HAVING a gun

We know he HAD a gun. He was killed because he pointed a 9 mm.

Hes a 14 yo carrying an I llegal gun in a private business. Hes a THUG. You're supporting a black THUG

You racist POS show where it was proven in court that he pointed a gun, eyewitnesses said he didn't. The only underage kids who can carry a gun are white kids. Not surprising that racist love anyone who can getaway with murdering someone black.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Like I said, the man was found not guilty. That means the claims there was no gun is BS. There's ZEEO chance that if there was the slightest bit of evidence against that man that he would be acquitted.

There's too much politics involved now.

Ergo, the jury saw evidence we didn't see. And acquitted him because of it.

WTF said there was no gun, who said that?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

If you dont go into a store to commit a crime, then you can walk out of that store with your life. Shame some people think that they are due reparations just because of the color of their skin.

Racist babble.

 

[Meathead]

Racist babble.

Those Asians are attacking blacks at will. Racist bastards!

 

[Marener]

Not if I committed a crime that they were responding too. And shooting them was not justified at all. just because someone chases you doesnt mean you could shoot them especially if YOU just committed a crime. The owner was justified.

And if you didn’t commit a crime but were being chased by armed men?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And if you didn’t commit a crime but were being chased by armed men?

there is no evidence that the store owner showed his weapon before the kid pointed the firearm at his son. So that is a red harring.