@jamieemorgann: 🚨 A SOUTH CAROLINA JURY HAS FOUND RICK CHOW NOT GUILTY In The 🔫 Death Of 14-Year-Old Cyrus Carmack-Belton. The verdict was returned Monday evening after more than eight hours of jury deliberations in one of South Carolina’s most closely watched criminal trials. Cyrus Carmack-Belton, 14, was shot and killed in 2023 after being chased from a Columbia convenience store. Prosecutors argued Chow wrongly believed Cyrus had stolen water bottles and 🔫 him in the back after pursuing him for more than 100 yards. ##cyruscarmackbelton##rickchow##southcarolina##columbiasc##justiceforcyrus

Reese see :

Tana 🌺 :

Murder is murder he wrong

James Pierce :

“ A system cannot fail those it was never designed to protect”~W. E. B. Du Bois

Khi :

If a store owner is being weird leave the store immediately

Bliss Tilly :

Boycott A businesses

️ :

This cause is close to my heart - please sign: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/justice-for-cyrus?source=web_share_api&utm_source=web_share_api&share=6945f8cd-1bb9-4d7c-a980-5d44d9b89e06

Marvin :

They only left it as murder no other considerations

James Pierce :

One of the biggest questions following the acquittal of Chikei Rick Chow in the shooting death of 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton is why prosecutors did not pursue voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter charges instead of murder. The prosecution was led by 5th Circuit Solicitor Byron Gipson and Senior Assistant Solicitor Dale Scott of Richland County. Their decision was based on how South Carolina law defines the different levels of homicide and what they believed the evidence would support in court. Under South Carolina law, murder requires proof of malice. Malice does not necessarily mean hatred. It can be shown through an intentional act carried out with a reckless disregard for human life or an intent to kill. Prosecutors argued that Chow falsely believed Cyrus had stolen bottled water, pursued the teenager for a significant distance, and then shot him in the back. Their position was that these actions demonstrated malice and therefore supported a murder charge. Voluntary manslaughter is different. It applies when a person intentionally kills another person in the heat of passion after sufficient legal provocation. The key issue is that the law requires a sudden emotional reaction to a provocation that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. Prosecutors apparently did not believe the facts fit that legal standard. Their argument was not that Chow lost control in the heat of passion, but that he made a conscious decision to pursue and shoot the teenager. Involuntary manslaughter is different again. It generally applies when a death results from criminal negligence, recklessness, or an unlawful act that was not intended to kill. In this case, there was no dispute that a firearm was intentionally discharged. Because the shooting itself was intentional, prosecutors likely concluded that involuntary manslaughter was inconsistent with the evidence. This highlights an important reality about the criminal justice system. Prosecutors do not simply charge every possible offense. They choose charges based on the legal theory they believe the evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Byron Gipson and Dale Scott built their case around

crazybunny816 :

Why are you blaming the jury when it was persecutor’s fault for not doing their job properly.

yeet_bich :

wait, the gun was real? isn't he not an adult?

drippppp._ :

🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾

Ds :

Oh so you’re going to leave out the most important part that Cyrus had a gun with one in the chamber and pointed it at Chows son and that’s when he fired? That’s very convenient lmaooo

sammyboy7 :

We need to stop giving our money to establishments that do not directly support us. Your money is one of your strongest weapons and choosing not to spend it is powerful. The black dollar has influence.

Womensport-tv :

sorry he died but juries got everything right . how on earth and it is insane 14 years old carry a gun.

Mr.Kitty :

south Carolina is one of the deeply racist states historically and im not suprised that the courts from the racist state of South Carolina would be so color blind in their delivery of "justice". also facts racist cant stay in business if they ain't got no money

HisProdigalSon :

Personally if I own a store and you steal something I’m not chasing after you. They were wrong on that part. Why does a 14 year old have a gun is my question. I don’t want to talk about the unfortunate situation, I want to talk about the series of choices by the parents and child combined that has lead up to this event where his life was unfortunately taken. Chow was wrong, but why was the kid set up for failure…..

Grungy4 :

Empty book bag, loaded weapon, no money. What was he doing in that store. What was his plan for the weapon.

god’s mistake :

“The 2 owners ran after him” no the son of the owner who was also a minor at the time dumbly ran after the kid, why present the minor with a gun with a bullet in the chamber as a kid while referring to the other minor as an owner? It’s a tragedy a 14 year old had access to a gun with a laser pointer, unfortunately in the real world once your brandish a weapon there is no way to tell how others will react

notreallydina :

they had no right to kill him he was running from them gun or no gun it doesn’t matter 🤦‍♀️

Pnwjustin250 :

Why not hold accountability for a 14 year old with a gun and attempting to steal no the kid does not deserve to die but come on a 14 year old with a gun isn’t up to any good

Terminator1993 :

do dumb shit earn the prize. look even if he was running you should steal from anyone let alone point a gun at someone. 14 or not her knew what he was doing.