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

[Marener]

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.

According to who?

 

[westwall]

WTF said there was no gun, who said that?

The VERDICT.

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

LOL at the OPs NBC article. It barely covers the story in the title, but focuses on a bunch of extremely biased irrelevance.

I looked at the 23 minute vid from WLTX—CBS TV. You can find it on youtube under “Trial in the death of Cyrus Carmack Belton.” You can see Belton clearly sticking bottles of water in his hooded sweatshirt front pocket at the 16 minute mark.

Belton is confronted about the water by store owner Chow and Chow’s son. Belton then walks out of the store and runs toward the woods.

Belton’s gun was found next to his dead body. If you go into detail, then you find that Belton fell and turned around while running and aimed his gun at Chow’s , Andy. Belton quickly turns forward again to run, which is when he took a bullet in the back. It was a split second decision by the father and complete self-defense.

It was difficult to determine how many water bottles Belton initially took. He apparently put some back; however, it was all but impossible for the Chow’s to determine how many he left with. And, he did take off running after leaving the store, so, apparently, he had something.

And the “no eyewitnesses” OP line is bunk. Chow’s son is an eyewitness. The person confronting Belton about the water is an eyewitness. Who is supposed to be another witness, OP? The squirrel and bird in the woods where the deceased took off?

 

[Hafar1014]

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

He didnt have a gun when he was shot and was running away. His family is suing and Chow will lose. Laws do have meaning you cant just ignore them

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

The law was ignored. Thats called jury nullification. The final solution will be law suit against him that he will lose.
OJ was acquitted too

 

[Hafar1014]

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

To claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must satisfy all of the following conditions: [1]

1. No Fault: You must not have been at fault in bringing on or escalating the difficulty. [1]
2. Imminent Danger: You must have actually believed you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury. [1]
3. Reasonable Fear: A reasonable and prudent person of ordinary firmness would have also believed they were in imminent danger under the same circumstances. [1]
4. No Other Probable Means: You must not have had any other probable means of avoiding the danger (applicable only if you are not in your home, workplace, or vehicle). [1, 2]

The law is the same. Items 2 and 4 define Chow as guilty

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

He didnt have a gun when he was shot and was running away.

Belton did have a gun when running away. It was found next to his dead body.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

To claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must satisfy all of the following conditions: [1]

1. No Fault: You must not have been at fault in bringing on or escalating the difficulty. [1]
2. Imminent Danger: You must have actually believed you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury. [1]
3. Reasonable Fear: A reasonable and prudent person of ordinary firmness would have also believed they were in imminent danger under the same circumstances. [1]
4. No Other Probable Means: You must not have had any other probable means of avoiding the danger (applicable only if you are not in your home, workplace, or vehicle). [1, 2]
5. Items 2 and 4 define Chow as guilty

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

The law was ignored. Thats called jury nullification. The final solution will be law suit against him that he will lose.
OJ was acquitted too

The statutes were not ignored. The case is fairly cut and dried in my book.

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

To claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must satisfy all of the following conditions: [1]

1. No Fault: You must not have been at fault in bringing on or escalating the difficulty. [1]
2. Imminent Danger: You must have actually believed you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury. [1]
3. Reasonable Fear: A reasonable and prudent person of ordinary firmness would have also believed they were in imminent danger under the same circumstances. [1]
4. No Other Probable Means: You must not have had any other probable means of avoiding the danger (applicable only if you are not in your home, workplace, or vehicle). [1, 2]
5. Items 2 and 4 define Chow as guilty

Chow met all of those conditions. Not guilty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to who?

it would be in the reporting if he had it out the whole chase and it would have been a matter of record in the trial.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

To claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must satisfy all of the following conditions: [1]

1. No Fault: You must not have been at fault in bringing on or escalating the difficulty. [1]
2. Imminent Danger: You must have actually believed you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury. [1]
3. Reasonable Fear: A reasonable and prudent person of ordinary firmness would have also believed they were in imminent danger under the same circumstances. [1]
4. No Other Probable Means: You must not have had any other probable means of avoiding the danger (applicable only if you are not in your home, workplace, or vehicle). [1, 2]

Items 2 and 4 define the owner as guilty
No threat was imminent
They were outside of the store and the kid was running away.
This was a case of jury nullification like OJs acquittal.
Chow will be sued and he will lose. His life is essentially over financially

 

[Marener]

it would be in the reporting if he had it out the whole chase and it would have been a matter of record in the trial.

Have you examined the entirety of the trial record?

 

[Hafar1014]

Chow met all of those conditions. Not guilty.

Items 2 and 4 define the owner as guilty
No threat was imminent
They were outside of the store and the kid was running away.
This was a case of jury nullification like OJs acquittal.
Chow will be sued and he will lose. His life is essentially over financially

 

[Hafar1014]

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

Items 2 and 4 define the owner as guilty
No threat was imminent
They were outside of the store and the kid was running away.
This was a case of jury nullification like OJs acquittal.
Chow will be sued and he will lose. His life is essentially over financially

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To claim self-defense in South Carolina, you must satisfy all of the following conditions: [1]

1. No Fault: You must not have been at fault in bringing on or escalating the difficulty. [1]
2. Imminent Danger: You must have actually believed you were in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering serious bodily injury. [1]
3. Reasonable Fear: A reasonable and prudent person of ordinary firmness would have also believed they were in imminent danger under the same circumstances. [1]
4. No Other Probable Means: You must not have had any other probable means of avoiding the danger (applicable only if you are not in your home, workplace, or vehicle). [1, 2]

Items 2 and 4 define the owner as guilty
No threat was imminent
They were outside of the store and the kid was running away.
This was a case of jury nullification like OJs acquittal.
Chow will be sued and he will lose. His life is essentially over financially

the kid pointed a gun at his son thar meets number 2 and the recourse at the time was to shoot him there was no other option. therefore number 4 is met.

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

Items 2 and 4 define the owner as guilty
No threat was imminent
They were outside of the store and the kid was running away.
This was a case of jury nullification like OJs acquittal.
Chow will be sued and he will lose. His life is essentially over financially

Belton pointed a gun at Chow’s son. Belton immediately turned forward again when he was shot. I’d call that a threat. I would call split second timing quite imminent.

 

[Hafar1014]

the kid pointed a gun at his son thar meets number 2 and the recourse at the time was to shoot him there was no other option. therefore number 4 is met.

I have a permit for concealed carry. According to the law.
If he was shot at that time(pointing the gun at him) in the store then Castle Doctrine applies and its justified.
He dropped the gun and ran away out of the store. Now stand your ground is the law. The threat must be imminent and there must be no means of escape. The kid was unarmed and running away. There was no imminent threat and Chow had means of escape just stand still.
The jury nullified the crime. He can still be sued and he will lose. He will be broke for the rest of his life.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a permit for concealed carry. According to the law.
If he was shot at that time(pointing the gun at him) in the store then Castle Doctrine applies and its justified.
He dropped the gun and ran away out of the store. Now stand your ground is the law. The threat must be imminent and there must be no means of escape. The kid was unarmed and running away. There was no imminent threat and Chow had means of escape just stand still.
The jury nullified the crime. He can still be sued and he will lose. He will be broke for the rest of his life.

he did not drop the firearm in the store dumbass it was found near his body and that is in the report.

 

[Hafar1014]

he did not drop the firearm in the store dumbass it was found near his body and that is in the report.

He didnt have possession of it. Much like the Pretti case. There was no imminent threat