South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 8:40 AM

South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen

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, Andy Chow, only after the teen pointed a gun at him.

"This case is not about a shoplifter. This case is about a father who sees a gun pointed at his son and had to make a decision," defense attorney Shaun Kent told jurors during closing arguments. The defense attorney said Andy Chow testified that Carmack-Belton 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.

[Solicitor] 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.

She also confirmed the teen died from a gunshot wound to the right lower back, "consistent with someone who was running away."

--

Supposing the family's story is true, is it justified to kill someone who threatened your son 15 seconds ago, but who is now unarmed and running away?

Tinker Grey · Tuesday at 8:55 AM

Short answer: No.

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 9:56 AM

Generally, shooting someone in the back as they are running away is at best manslaughter and at worst, murder. Jury nullification is a real thing.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 10:04 AM

What is a 14 year old doing with a gun?

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 10:12 AM

Hentenza said:
What is a 14 year old doing with a gun?

This is America!

Hentenza · Tuesday at 10:17 AM

essentialsaltes said:
This is America!

Nope. Where are the parents? How did this 14 year old get a gun? Who gave it to him? Why did he think he needed one? Why did he walk into a store with one?

Let me remind you that it is illegal for a 14 year old to carry a gun and the exceptions are very narrow.

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 10:35 AM

Hentenza said:
Nope. Where are the parents? How did this 14 year old get a gun? Who gave it to him? Why did he think he needed one? Why did he walk into a store with one?

Let me remind you that it is illegal for a 14 year old to carry a gun and the exceptions are very narrow.

Does that have any bearing on the case in the OP? Does it justify a not guilty verdict?

Tuur · Tuesday at 10:48 AM

essentialsaltes said:
Supposing the family's story is true, is it justified to kill someone who threatened your son 15 seconds ago, but who is now unarmed and running away?

If that’s what happened, then no. The person is no longer is an immediate threat. That’s not a justifiable use of deadly force.

What the CBS account failed to mention is that under South Carolina law, murder seems to require malice forethought. Voluntary manslaughter, OTOH, seems to be basically a heat-of-the-moment sort of thing under SC law. So perhaps the real question is why prosecutors went for a murder charge and not voluntary manslaughter?

Tuur · Tuesday at 10:56 AM

DaisyDay said:
Generally, shooting someone in the back as they are running away is at best manslaughter and at worst, murder. Jury nullification is a real thing.

Which is why there are federal civil rights violation laws, to allow federal prosecutors to go after clear instances of such.

Be that as it may, if the judge described murder as defined in his charge to the jury prior to deliberation, then it could have all come down to a question of malice forethought. Maybe the prosecutor should have gone for voluntary manslaughter.

durangodawood · Tuesday at 11:25 AM

Hentenza said:
Nope. Where are the parents? How did this 14 year old get a gun? Who gave it to him? Why did he think he needed one? Why did he walk into a store with one?

Let me remind you that it is illegal for a 14 year old to carry a gun and the exceptions are very narrow.

Parents are in no position to keep track of all the guns floating around in our USA society. They should manage their own, of course. But the rest? No parents can do that.

Its a de-facto near free for all out there re guns, and thats the way we prefer it, politically.

Tuur · Tuesday at 12:59 PM

durangodawood said:
It’s a de-facto near free for all out there re guns, and thats the way we prefer it, politically.

When I get that .357 I’ve decided on, I’ll go through a background check. Compare that to when Sears sold firearms through the mail, no questions asked. And I don’t think we should discuss zip guns.

durangodawood · Tuesday at 1:13 PM

Tuur said:
When I get that .357 I’ve decided on, I’ll go through a background check. Compare that to when Sears sold firearms through the mail, no questions asked. And I don’t think we should discuss zip guns.

You are a stand up citizen, Mr Tuur! Others not so much.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 1:15 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Does that have any bearing on the case in the OP? Does it justify a not guilty verdict?

Yes. The 14 year old flashed the gun. Actions have consequences.

Tinker Grey · Tuesday at 1:24 PM

Hentenza said:
Yes. The 14 year old flashed the gun. Actions have consequences.

Really? You should be able to shoot people after they drop their weapon?

"Kick your gun over there" *blam* -- make one heck of a western

Oh wait, I forgot ... "turn around first"

Hentenza · Tuesday at 1:24 PM

durangodawood said:
Parents are in no position to keep track of all the guns floating around in our USA society.

They are in a position to keep track of their kids.

durangodawood said:
They should manage their own, of course. But the rest? No parents can do that.

Never hinted at that.

durangodawood said:
It’s a de-facto near free for all out there re guns, and thats the way we prefer it, politically.

Parents are responsible for their children’s actions. Parents are responsible to keep up with their children in all aspects of their life. What bothers me about the article is that people are blaming the shop owner but no responsibility is given to the kid with the gun. The article demonizes the store owner but doesn’t even mention anything about how the kid got the gun or who gave it to him. Did the gun belong to the parents? Did he steal it from someone? Did he buy it in the black market?

Tinker Grey · Tuesday at 1:26 PM

Hentenza said:
They are in a position to keep track of their kids.

Never hinted at that.

Parents are responsible for their children’s actions. Parents are responsible to keep up with their children in all aspects of their life. What bothers me about the article is that people are blaming the shop owner but no responsibility is given to the kid with the gun. The article demonizes the store owner but doesn’t even mention anything about how the kid got the gun or who gave it to him. Did the gun belong to the parents? Did he steal it from someone? Did he buy it in the black market?

All irrelevant to whether it is ok to shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 1:27 PM

Tinker Grey said:
Really? You should be able to shoot people after they drop their weapon?

"Kick your gun over there" *blam* -- make one heck of a western

Why did the 14 year old have a gun Tinker? Why did the 14 year old brandished a weapon in a store? Why did the 14 year old kid point the gun at the owner’s son? Why didn’t the parents know what their kid was doing?

Hentenza · Tuesday at 1:32 PM

Tinker Grey said:
All irrelevant to whether it is ok to shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back.

No gun no shooting. It’s illegal for a 14 year old to have one. I don’t know about you but if someone points a gun at one of my love ones I will protect them in any which way I can. You have no clue what happened in that store. You have no clue if the kid threaten the owner’s son or terrorized both of them with future threats. The article does not say but a jury of 12 found him not guilty. They saw what you did not. The court of public opinion is bunk anyway.

Stopped_lurking · Tuesday at 1:45 PM

Hentenza said:
No gun no shooting. It’s illegal for a 14 year old to have one. I don’t know about you but if someone points a gun at one of my love ones I will protect them in any which way I can.

Even by shooting them in the back? While seemingly unarmed and moving away.

Hentenza said:
You have no clue what happened in that store. You have no clue if the kid threaten the owner’s son or terrorized both of them with future threats. The article does not say but a jury of 12 found him not guilty. They saw what you did not. The court of public opinion is bunk anyway.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 1:50 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Even by shooting them in the back?

No. The article is quite deficient in particulars and has been written with the spin to demonize the shop owner and the jurors that found him not guilty.

South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen

Fact-Based Lifeform