Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Roderick Scott: Guilty? Or Not?

 
Closing arguments began this morning in this trial where Roderick Scott is facing prison time if convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree.

The prosecution MUST PROVE that Scott intended to cause serious physical injury or death. But they also must prove, by credible evidence, that at the time he shot, in doing that, that Scott was not justified.

If you were on the jury, would you convict Scott for INTENDING TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY to Chris Cervini? Or would you decide he was not guilty and operated within his rights to DEFEND HIMSELF WHEN FEELING THREATENED, as any "reasonable" person would have done?

Please remember the premise of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Also please remember it is the PROSECUTION'S JOB to PROVE GUILT. Scott is presumed innocent unless that guilt is proven.

Since the jury gets this case tomorrow afternoon (likely), the poll will end in 72 hrs.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

God help us all if the jury doesn't acquit this man! This case should have never gone to trial. It's just one more example of a complete waste of taxpayer $$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I want Scott as my neighbor! Criminals are of any age, and that cousin who was on probation TWICE, should be charged! Jail Cervini the criminal! I do not want my tax dollars spend on protecting criminals, which both Cervinis and Hopkins are!

Anonymous said...

The prosecution did not produce evidence that proved their case. Their main witness was a boy who was probably drunk at the time of the incident and slept it off before he could be questioned. Besides being a criminal himself we should not rely on his testimony since it could be tainted by an alcoholic blackout.
The wounds on the boy that died are not conclusive enough to prove there was not the threat felt by Scott.
So what else was their evidence? That he was a boy shot by a man. Also the amount of alcohol in the boy that was shot could have caused him to act in a reckless manner and not be under control. His actions could definitely have been aggressive. Even the bravado of the 3 as they patrolled the neighborhood with no fear of getting caught. Reckless. Youth and substance abuse are not a good mix. And the lack of parental oversight gave those boys the aura of invincibility. Very senseless death but the law cannot find Scott guilty.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for self-defense when there is an imminent threat to self or family, but Scott made a bad choice when he got his gun, left his home, and confronted the three people outside. Better choice: wait for the police to arrive, be a credible witness and provide a detailed account of what he saw. There was no good reason to exit his home with a gun in the absence of a threat to himself or someone else. I think he bears some responsibility for taking actions into his own hands when he could have waited for the police.

Anonymous said...

Scott made a bad choice when he decided to get his gun, leave his house, and confront the three suspects outside. His life was not threatned until he left the safety of his home with a gun in his hand. Better choice: Wait for the police to arrive, be a credible witness, and provide detailed testimony on what he saw. I'm all for defending self and others when a threat is imminent, but three suspects burglarizing cars does not rise to this standard, in my opinion.

Guilty.

SCATS said...

To 7:27PM ~~ Scott had the right to go outdoors and investigate. He's not charged for doing that. His life was not threatened until Mr. Cervini made HIS "bad choice" of charging at a man who had already announced that he had a gun.

Once again, the only issue the jury must decide was whether a reasonable person would have pulled the trigger at the moment that Scott pulled it ... due to feeling threatened. I'm pretty sure that if you were to put a police officer in Scott's shoes at that exact moment and under those same conditions, the outcome would have been the same. Not guilty.

Anonymous said...

I've listened to both Parrinello and Finnocchio on the news every night since the trial started. Parinello explains why his client isn't guilty. Finnocchio usually states something much less exacting like "You can't pick and choose which shot came first" or "You don't get to just come outdoors shooting "bad kids." She has NOTHING concrete to point to. I think she knows it too. That's why she tried to get the judge to let the jury have the option of finding him guilty on a lesser charge. Sorry Julie, but your resume will not be made better by this case.

Anonymous said...

Scott made a bad choice when he decided to get his gun, leave his house, and confront the three suspects outside. His life was not threatned until he left the safety of his home with a gun in his hand. Better choice: Wait for the police to arrive, be a credible witness, and provide detailed testimony on what he saw. I'm all for defending self and others when a threat is imminent, but three suspects burglarizing cars does not rise to this standard, in my opinion.

Guilty.

SCATS said...

To 11:45PM ~~ The choice you mention isn't what the jury must consider. It has no part in determining this case. As I said before, at the moment that he pulled the trigger given the circumstances at that moment, would a reasonable person have felt their safety/life was threatened. If yes, he's not guilty. I don't see 12 people calling him guilty. Just my opinion.

SCATS said...

By the way 11:45, copying and pasting a previous comment isn't advisable, especially not if you want to ensure that your comment gets posted ;)

Anonymous said...

Guilty. When he told his gf to call 911, he already acted to resolve the problem.

By taking the gun, going outside (supposedly with a limp even though his witness was a proven liar and arrested previously for soliciting a prostitute) he left HIS property, he was under no threat, immediate or otherwise, went onto his neighbors property, allowed 2 of his detainees to flee, and took his anger out on the third and final victim.

Vigilante's are not heroes. Frustration over crime in your neighborhood does not give you the license to kill.

Guilty.

Anonymous said...

What do I do if I think he is guilty of reckless endangerment?
I would "hang the jury" and explain my reason to the prosecutor after.

Yes, I know "not guilty" is the technically correct answer but I would not be satisifed with that verdict.

Anonymous said...

Has it been proven in court that Cervini charged Scott or is this an assumption because Scott said so?

SCATS said...

To 7:56AM ~~ Regarding "allowed 2 of his detainees to flee, and took his anger out on the third and final victim."

Where has anyone showed/stated/proved that Scott was "angry?" By the way, victims don't usually come towards their attackers ... but Cervini being intoxicated does explain that lack of judgment quite nicely ;)

SCATS said...

To 10:54AM ~~ Both sides have attempted to show how their side's "scenario" played out. Due to the lack of available/credible GPD to testify (who aren't also awaiting trial, quit or got fired) and the lack of evidence collected from the scene, credibility of the witnesses is going to be a key element for the jury's decision. It's not looking good for the Cervini's given James Cervini's contradictory stories.

Anonymous said...

I would love to have a neighbor like Scott and if he came on my property to get a thief, more power to him.
Enough of this political correct crap.
This will be a hung jury because you will never get 12 people who will see this the same way.

Anonymous said...

Victims coming towards their shooter don't get shot in the back either. And people who are shot, usually can't run 30 feet sideways easily either.

Guilty.

SCATS said...

To 11:53AM ~~ The Medical Examiner's testimony and report does NOT say Cervini was shot in the back. It says he was shot in the right axillary area ... which is the armpit, not the "back" ;)

Anonymous said...

From the prosecutor:


Finocchio: (points to her front and back) and says-- this is the back. The underarm is part of the back. Dr. LaPoint said the bullet entered in the posterior. that's the back.

BACK.

GUILTY.

Anonymous said...

Cervini died from a gunshot that entered the extreme right side of his back next to his right armpit and traveled though his chest until it exited near his left collarbone, a forensic pathologist said today.

LaPoint said he couldn’t determine which of the two shots was fired first. But in the case of the fatal shot, he said the shooter would have been to Cervini’s right, somewhat behind and below Cervini.

LaPoint’s opinion is expected to come under sharp cross-examination this afternoon by Scott’s lawyer, John R. Parrinello. He has speculated that Cervini was hit first by the shot to his left chest, which spun him around so the second shot could hit him near the right armpit.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091214/NEWS01/91214017

Scott testified he was coming TOWARDS him for both shots.

LIAR. GUILTY.

SCATS said...

To 12:44PM ~~ The article you noted states: "Greece teenager Christopher D. Cervini died from a gunshot that entered the extreme right side of his back next to his right armpit and traveled though his chest until it exited near his left collarbone, a forensic pathologist said today."

I call my armpit my SIDE, not my back. The article further states: "LaPoint said he couldn’t determine which of the two shots was fired first."

That's a HUGE issue that the prosecution will have a very hard time overcoming with the jury ;)

SCATS said...

By the way, I suggest everyone read my latest BLOG which tells you the central issues the jury must decide, as described to them by Judge Egan.

SCATS said...

Oh and Lonsberry predicts the jury acquits Scott by dinner hour tonight. It should be interesting ...