Friday, December 18, 2009


After 19 1/2 hrs. of deliberations, they find :
He acted in self defense


Scats ~~ Finally, justice prevails for this innocent man!

Note to ADA Julie Finocchio: Now that your scapegoat has been found innocent, it's time to ensure the actual criminals in this case be brought to justice ~~ Brian Hopkins & James Cervini

Note to anyone interested : Please consider a donation to help Mr. Scott with the huge costs associated with defending himself. Thank you!



Anonymous said...

I think that this was the correct verdict. Too bad that the kid made a bad choice & paid for it with his life.

Anonymous said...

If an individual takes two steps toward you and if you feel threaten, by your own definition, just shoot them and then claim self-defense. You will now be acquited in Rochester, N.Y.

Doug Skeet

SCATS said...

To 10:06PM ~~ I agree with you 100%.

To Doug Skeet ~~ If someone tells me to stop and says they have a weapon, I would stop. Would you?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should all send ADA Sweetums a sympathy card for Christmas.

I think it would be most touching to send the cards directly to her home in Irondequoit so the staff at the Green Machine office doesn't humiliate the little darling by decorating the office with her cast off cards.

Way to go Sweetie, how many thousands of taxpayer dollars did you flush down the crapper on this case? You couldn't even sell it to a jury with an air drummer on it.

Anonymous said...

Well done jury! Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to all the thugs roaming our neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

Cervini was a young thug whose parents were AWOL, probably for a number of years, when raising him. They raised a thug and got a thug. Scott should not have left his house. But the jury got it right.
The behavior of the entire Cervini family spoke volumes about why the kid was out robbing cars while drunk and on drugs at 3am.
Cervini made a bad decision. S___ happens. But it isn't too hard to find the genesis of why it happened.

Anonymous said...


What you would do or what I would do is not the point or even important in this discussion.

For example if I saw someone in my neighbor's car at 2:00 am I would call the police, observe and get as many details as I could. The police are trained in stress, dangerous situations. Civiliams are not trained and have a much shorter definition to "feeling threaten"

If the individual or individuals got a way SO WHAT it is only property. Property can be replaced. Human life when killed is gone forever on this earth. The human life can not be replaced. I would not want you or any of my neighbors to decide if I live or die.

I own guns. I use guns. I would never go out on patrol in my neighborhood at 2:00 am stopping individuals. They could feel threaten and be faster on the draw with a bigger gun and I could be killed. On the other hand if someone entered my home at 2:00 am we have a different story. That is threatening. I would do everything in my power to defend my family and self, including killing the individual.

Doug Skeet

Graehaven said...

To Doug:

That's NYS law. Look it up. Has nothing to do with Rochester. They actually interpreted the law properly this time. This is a win for free citizens everywhere, and a warning to all wanna-be dirtbags.

Anonymous said...

The D and C story comments keep talking about a civil wrongful death suit. In a civil suit there is always the percent of responsibility the decedent had in the situation which led to the death. Any civil jury would have to consider the responsibility of the boy and his cohorts as well as the responsibility of the parents of all three involved. Yes Mr Scott pulled the trigger but a court found that he was justified for his self defense. If the parents brought a civil suit it would be ill advised and the lawyer would not get paid if they lost. So it won't happen.
And to 11:09 this situation is so far from your comparison because the shooter was not walking down the street with one person taking 2 steps toward him. Your simplification hurts both families.

Anonymous said...

There are no winners in this case. All parties involved will be impacted for the rest of their lives.
The jury declared Mr. Scott not guilty according to the evidence presented.

It also affirmed the right to defend oneself if you feel that your life is at risk. That is not someone's "own definition". It is the law.

Anonymous said...

This is bad decision.

IF we fear our own children as criminals and assassins, we have already lost. You will never win the hearts and minds of kids by threats and fearful actions. That fight was lost decades ago and can't be turned back
Kids who commit petty crimes need to be corrected but not feared as assassins and killers.

I am very sad for Greece and it's another reason to leave here.

SCATS said...

To 2:29AM ~~ I feel like taxpayers were ripped off by this case EVER going to trial. From the gitgo, I've said Scott was "used" by other people, beginning with this case being a wonderful diversion from GPD's other troubles at that point in time. I'm sure the DA's office aided in that, too.

To 8:07AM ~~ I agree about the behavior of the other family members. If you caught the father or his aunt on the news last night, you will know what we're talking about. I fear for Roderick Scott AND members of the jury given the mindset of them both.

SCATS said...

To Doug Skeet ~~ What you or I would do IS the point ... that is ALL the jury had to decide. Scott didn't break any law up to the point he pulled the trigger. It was at that point that was in question. And the jury decided he wasn't guilty of First Degree Manslaughter, based upon the premise that a "reasonable person" ... meaning you, or me or many others ... would have felt threatened, etc. at that moment. Thus my question to you about Would you stop if someone told you to do so & you knew they had a gun.

SCATS said...

To 9:20AM ~~ I'm not sure they have much of a case for wrongful death either. I think Parrinello did a REMARKABLE job of defending Scott. Those 911 tapes were his ace in the hole if this ever had to go for an appeal. I'm pretty sure they will be VERY helpful in any wrongful death suit too. Hopefully, the Cervini family will come to their senses and stop blaming the entire world for something they had more control over than anyone else.

To 9:38AM ~~ I agree that both sides lost a lot in this case. Mr. Scott conducted himself with nothing but dignity and remorse throughout this long ordeal. Sadly, the Cervini family seems unfamiliar with such character traits.

To 9:39AM ~~ If you know anyone who avoids driving into the city these days, then you know that people already do fear "our own children as criminals and assassins." In fact, I know people who no longer go to certain areas in Greece after dark!

SCATS said...

By the way 9:39AM ~~ Did you happen to catch the fact that the fellow in Gates whose enormous Christmas display was RUN OVER BY A CAR was the victim of another young person from Greece? Today's D&C says: "According to police reports, Nicholas M. Herman, 22, of Greece drove his vehicle through numerous yards along Lyell Road — and made two passes through Reagan's yard — before being apprehended in the parking lot. He was charged with driving while intoxicated, and additional charges of criminal mischief may be pending."

Thank God he didn't kill anyone during this "petty crime!"

Anonymous said...

I think it should have been a hung jury so they could have retried him for reckless endangerment.

SCATS said...

To 11:11AM ~~ Had there been a hung jury, the judge could have decided to drop the entire case too. Since Parrinello had repeatedly requested that anyway, it would have been given some considerable weight in any such situation/decision.

Anonymous said...

Some of you folks construe our area as if it is a "state of Nature" a war of all against all with no lawful of effective control over each other. Every man (sic) must enforce the law be the judge and the jailer (or worse).

In that situation every one is a potential murderer, but is is also a state of perpetual fear.

IF that's what we have why live here?
We could do better.

Do those of you who defend taking the law into your own hands in such situations really live in that much fear in suburbs like Greece.

Anonymous said...

SCATS 10:57 - according to your line of thinking, the homeowner should have run out of his house with a gun, step in front of the car and say stop, and then fire into the windshield killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

Sorry but Doug Skeet is right on this one. I rarely agree with him on other matters, but he makes a very valid point.

Should we punish dirtbag punks like this - you betcha. Spend some time in the County jail with your closest new friends. Should we take it upon ourselves to kill them. Uh, obviously no.

SCATS, I'm surprised you appear to have such disregard for human life. Maybe you need to put your emotions aside when you're deciding innocence/guilt in a legal matter.

SCATS said...

To 12:59PM ~~ According to "my line of thinking" I have never proposed that anyone use a gun, ever. My "line of thinking" revolves around a situation where someone else did use one. Given the laws, given the charge to the jury, given the circumstances, given the evidence and lack of it, "my line of thinking" clearly sees that Mr. Scott was not guilty of manslaughter.

I have put aside emotions to draw this conclusion that a reasonable person would act the way Roderick Scott acted given the specific circumstances he faced. I am pretty sure that was the key to the jury reaching a decision last night too. The last one or two people finally put the emotions aside (which clearly you have not) and CONCLUDED he was not guilty of First Degree Manslaughter. By the way, don't forget that this charge against him was already REDUCED from what the Grand Jury was originally requested to charge him with AND Finocchio wanted to keep the door open for yet another reduction to Second Degree Manslaughter. Thankfully, the judge appropriately declined to do so. Ms. Finocchio needs to remember "you can't just pick and choose" whichever charge you want to employ. It's got to follow the law ;)

Anonymous said...

Re 11:11
The charges are based on the crime committed. They don't get to change charges to make them fit the outcome after getting a hung jury. Did you sleep through PIG class?

Anonymous said...

To Doug Skeet @0805

You say:

"If the individual or individuals got a way SO WHAT it is only property. Property can be replaced."

Why should society have to live with this being okay? Why is it okay for people to have their stuff stolen?

When did it become okay to do what you want to other peoples property?

Why is the law abiding, job holding, tax paying homeowner the bad guy and the drunk, stealing punks the innocent victims?

It' a shame that Mr. Scott had to take a life. A shame, not a crime.

He will have to live with his actions the rest of his life.

Doesn't excuse Cervini and company for doing what they did; and it certainly doesn't excuse Mr. Cervini charging at a person who announced they had an gun and not to move because the Police were on the way there.

The jury made the correct decision.

Anonymous said...

I am in agreement with the previous post. I'm also shocked that a former school administrator would have such an attitude about a teen who is on the wrong path in life, one that ended early by way of self-destruction. Even kids must learn there are consequences. Stupid decisions can't always be made right or taken back. Chris Cervini's life should be used as a reminder of that so that others won't make the same lousy choices. By doing that, his life will have meant something.

SCATS said...

BLOG Administration rejected publishing comments on two threads (very similar & likely by the same author) due to personal attacks regarding the appearance of two named individuals.