sleeperkid
6742
402
25
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/us/south-carolina-murder-trial-cyrus-carmack-belton
AP —
Jun 2, 2026 10:14 PM
sleeperkid
6742
402
25
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/us/south-carolina-murder-trial-cyrus-carmack-belton
AP —
TrevorZenMiami
Funny that you don't mention that the kid had a loaded 9mm Semiautomatic handgun with him when he robbed the store and ran away. In fact, he dropped it and picked it back up just before the store owner rightfully smoked his ass.
flounder35
ansiichan
sound like someone is not saying whole story, i doubt even in usa you get acquited from shooting anyone even a black boy, just for thinking he has stole water bottle
jolem53
Did he have a gun or not?
urusername2
What a lowlife. People are worth more than that
huffnpuff72
A technicality? Appears like murder, maybe should have been tried as manslaughter (or other legal term for killing someone) to make a guilty verdict more likely?
roughingupthesuspect
He pointed a gun at me so I chased him and shot him as he was running away?
VictusVonGuyver
Killed over a bottle of water... Wtf? Looked this up.
The jury gave a not guilty verdict because Rick Chow claimed that the kid pointed the gun at him.
Defense lawyer Jack Swerling said: "My heart goes out to them, but 14-year-old kid should not be roaming the streets of Columbia or South Carolina with semiautomatic pistol loaded and ready to fire,"
Prosecutor argued that the gun was dropped while running away but the jury didn't believe it since the kid was walking around with a handgun.
ansiichan
meme is portraying kid as innocent victim, while it most likely was like this - guy runs store and have often thefts done by "innocent youth", thinks its yet another one, this time he's wrong, kid spaz out under pressure starts waving gun araound, guy arms himself, boy run, guy runs after him and shoots him, quite different than "boy just was shoping around and evil racist shot him for nothing"
Hrafna55
Yes but that all falls down when you chase the victim for over 100m and shoot them in the back.
ziralien
I hope they appeal.
bigheadface
They can't. He's been found not-guilty. They are filing civil suits though and will hopefully take everything this man will ever own.
[deleted]
[deleted]
ziralien
Oh, I thought this was his family having taken the store owner to court.
walnutbreath
There's only a few circumstances where the government can appeal an acquittal in a criminal trial (and they're exclusively tied to the judge's actions). That's an inarguably good thing otherwise shithead prosecutors would keep trying acquitted defendants until they found a jury willing to convict.
duhh33
I appreciate the sentiment, but that's not what an appeal is.
walnutbreath
The shithead brandished a firearm at the store owner's son. The owner shot said shithead. And then tried to perform CPR until first responders arrived on scene.
Blame the prosecutor for pursuing a murder charge instead of a manslaughter charge. And then watch the defense attorney's closing argument and you'll see why the jury returned a not guilty verdict. Or be wholly ignorant of the facts of case and instead have a knee-jerk reaction based entirely on your own biases. You do you.
LuminoZero
Nobody else in the store saw him holding a gun and the owner chased him ONE HUNDRED YARDS down the road to execute him. My man ran in a touchdown just for the chance to shoot a black kid.
walnutbreath
It was never alleged that he brandished the gun in the store. It was alleged that he drew it after he ran outside.
How out of shape are you that ONE HUNDRED YARDS is considered a long distance? That's like 15-20 seconds of running for the average person.
If the owner wanted to execute him, why did the owner perform CPR on him until first responders arrived?
LuminoZero
Wow, you really did turn "Running after a black kid to execute him" into an attack on somebody else's physical health.
You're fucking disgusting.
GoodChange
With guys like that running around it seems like black people should have a stand-your-ground case to just randomly kill shop keepers who look at them racistly.
TrevorZenMiami
I thought I had seen the absolutely stupidest shit today but, man oh man, you just topped them all.
Azoloth
Well I would ask why a 14 year old had a handgun on him and why he was brandishing it before I start advocating killing people trying to run businesses when criminals attack their businesses.
worm61
I would ask why you uncritically believe the narrative that he had a gun at all?
UnHappyMoon5
Does it serve you well to be uneducated?
Mistruths
Weird how this is your first comment in 2 years.
arikelrecords2000
“Nobody testified that happened that doesn’t have the last name Chow,” Gipson said.
The boy was chased 130 yards from the store, more than a football field away. He did not have a gun on him when authorities found his body.
domillomew
where was the gun found? I genuinely am asking because if these details exist they aren't in the news articles I've found. tried watching some videos of the case too and couldn't find so many details about this case.
arikelrecords2000
The gun was "found" far away from the murdered boys' body, which is the only relevant location.
It means maybe the story is true. Maybe it's completely made up and the gun was planted. It definitely was not a threat to the killers son, which was the stated motive
domillomew
where did you get this information about the guns location from?
wasanewtgotbetter
OK, devil's advocate; so what if he had stolen a bottle of water? It certainly isn't worth a death sentence. The shop owner is a murderer. I feel for his family, this is effed up.
Azoloth
I would want to ask more why a 14 year old had a semi-automatic handgun and according to reports was brandishing it before he was shot. That doesn't sound like murder that sounds like someone Fing around and finding out
LuminoZero
A gun that magically went missing after he was shot in the back 100 yards away?
walnutbreath
Shame on you. You're making shit up. The firearm was recovered at the scene.
worm61
Why are you so desperate to defend the death of a Black child that you’re spamming this reply under every comment?
Azoloth
Oh yes because responding to different people who were like you to brain dead to read the actual case files on what happened I must be rasist!
worm61
You’re not making a strong argument that this has anything to do with you reading something.
bakerguy1337
Why didn't he defend himself with it then???
Azoloth
Maybe if you were smart enough to actually read what happened and not rely on some meme designed to generate hatred you would know that
bakerguy1337
I was implying that if he *actually* had a gun, he would have fired it back.
Goatfer
You are right that a 14 year old should not have access to a firearm and no firearm should be used the way he did. Additionally, chasing down a shoplifter who stole 4 bottles of water, over 130 meters and shooting him in the back should never be considered self-defense.
Azoloth
Well if you had brain cells enough to actually read what the defendant claimed happened the kid brandishing the gun pointed it at his son, which is why he was shot in the back. It was not because his life was in danger but because someone elses was. But of course its easier just to assume racism than to use critical thinking and reading skills.
Goatfer
The alleged gun pointing can not be seen in the surveillance video. What can be seen is chasing after the suspect which resulted in the suspect being shot in the back. Chasing down a person, over 130 meters and then shooting them in the back can not be considered self-defense. They choose to chase after an armed individual. If they had shot him in the store as the gun was being pointed, they would have a case for self-defense. As the suspect had already retreated, he no longer posed a threat
mrblack53012
Telling others to use critical thinking when you clearly never have is an interesting way to go.
LoudBirb
If the guy shot the kid because the kid was actively pointing a gun at the guy's son, then why was the gun found so far away from the kid's body?
Or did the kid point a gun at the guy's son, run away, and then the guy chased him down and shot him in the back?
frozenlake247
Yep. No chance an ammophile could have a black market gun to plant in this kind of situation. Plus, it’s not like cops ANYWHERE have a tendency to side with business owners or assist/enable coverups. /s
If there’s only one side alive to tell the story and no objective witnesses then it’s on the audience to question every single bit of the story with full suspicion since we are all then potential future victims.
Goronhead
Bottles of water are, on average, about 1-2 dollars. He got shot over, at most, $5 if it was fancy water.
walnutbreath
No, he was shot because he pointed a gun at the store owner's son.
MrSqaureCan
He was shot in the back. That's not an appropriate use of force by anyone.
Shut the fuck up
walnutbreath
That's an inane argument that has been repeatedly disproven in numerous courts because things like reaction time and target movement exist. It takes less time to turn around than the average reaction time between deciding to shoot, squeezing a trigger, and a bullet hitting the target. Further, targets in motion can present different angles as they move. We don't know if any of those things happened. As such, we cannot infer whether the use of force was appropriate or not.
Goronhead
You say you can't infer whether the use of force was appropriate or not... after inferring the use of force was appropriate.
MrSqaureCan
No it hasn't. Standard use of force paradigm includes not shooting someone in the back.
I've fucking been there cunt
worm61
Yet you seem suspiciously determined to convince people it *was* appropriate.
walnutbreath
Cool ad hominem.
VaxxedCanadian
So the kid FAFO. If youre going to be pointing a semiautomatic pistol at someone don't be surprised if you get shot.
Cookiesnm1lk
even if he had a gun, hell even if he brandished the gun, the moment he turned and ran, stand your ground stops applying
sleeperkid
There's boot cum on your chin, bro.
Miller16of16
Yep. He didn't brandish it, but somehow the handgun nobody but Chow and his son claimed to have observed in the store, fell off his person while running. That's quite the coincidence, and quite the manipulation of the facts for this post.
SubTrout
Yeah that shop owner was sure caring about his son by chasing the guy OUTSIDE of the store over $5 of possible product stolen. Real concerned.
dontrike
I didn't know stealing water equated to a death sentence. Guess we know where you stand when people go after Nestle for having all the water.
walnutbreath
He was shot because he was pointing a gun at the store owner's son.
dontrike
There should be evidence of that if it's true
worm61
According to the guy and the son.
ChazzK
Multiple witnesses testified that Cyrus did not have anything in his hands, and did not brandish a firearm in the store.
The gunman not only chased Cyrus out of the store, but 130 yards away from it.
Cyrus was shot in the back while fleeing from someone with obvious intent to assault and (eventually) kill.
If the gunman had simply been "trying to protect his son" he wouldn't have bolted down the street with his own gun after someone.
domillomew
the son chased cyrus and the dad followed. you make it sound like the alleged gun pointing happened in the store then the dad chased him down and shot him, thats not how it's described at all and the store security footage would disprove that. witnesses saying he didn't do it in the store makes sense because thats not where anyone is claiming it happened. the way you write this makes me think you're being disingenuous. you're not even pretending to care about the details
soupiswhatitsoundslikewhenyoueatsoup
Also...if he was shot in the back...how could he have been pointing a gun at those behind him, whilst running away from them? If a gun were involved, I would suspect it to have been planted there by police or the shooters, to try to justify their actions.
domillomew
the person he was allegedly pointing the gun at isn't the same person who shot him. saying "any evidence I don't like must have been planted" really makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. the shop owner whos never killed anyone prior to this just has an illegal gun he carries all the time to plant on people? or cops are planting guns for a shooting they're not involved in that the shooter immediately upon their arrival says exists? none of that makes any sense man.
soupiswhatitsoundslikewhenyoueatsoup
My comment does sound like I'm making a blanket statement, but I was just talking about this incident.
Your quoted statement exists only as a strawman argument in your own comment. That said, police are known to plant evidence, lie, and unfairly target black folks; so that's pretty much always a *POSSIBILITY*, especially with black folks.
domillomew
it's not a strawman it's a summary of part of your post. you literally say you suspect the gun was planted if it exists. no one involved in the case is saying that at all it's completely unhinged and serves no purpose except to get rid of evidence that you find inconvenient to your narrative. it makes 0 fucking logical sense in this case. like is nuance and critical thinking just completely gone? VICTIM BLACK COP PROBABLY PLANT GUN is the level of thinking you're currently employing.
Sebastopol140
How? How the fucking fuck can the verdict be "not guilty"??
Pentjotal
South Carolina
InfocalypseRising
Don't know much about the South, do ya
swedeonamoose
some bs "self defense" law loophole ?
CaldariBob
I just started to write this, almost verbatim. If any competent administration was in power, there'd be a federal charge over the clear violation of his human rights. What a shithole country.
IDontKnowWhatToDoAnymoreAndImTired
It's a black kid in South Carolina. For it to be murder the guy would probably have had to take a selfie while shooting the kid execution style.
NZSheeps
Have you met their president?
jammer909
South Carolina. Firmly in Confederate territory. Only evidence the shop owner needed was that the "thief" was black. No threat, no crime, just black; which in many places in America is considered a threat and a crime itself.
Zetor
Racism.
walnutbreath
There were numerous black jurors who unanimously found Chow not guilty. I guess they're racists too. Or maybe it was the black prosectuor?
thisistheusernamethatneverendss
That was a factor. Also the kid had a gun too. Too many guns in this country. It makes everyone a target because everyone is assumed to be carrying.
BlackMoira
the police determined that the cause of death was suicide by hanging himself from a tree
cuddleskunk
South Carolina was the first state to secede during the Civil War. That tells you everything you need to know.
walnutbreath
And West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union. It's now a racist shithole that went to Trump by 30 points in 2024. It's almost like things can happen over a 160-year period...
The Columbia SC area is nearly 50% black. The prosecutor was black. The jury was multiracial. They unanimously found Chow not guilty.
But go ahead, ignore that part of your brain asking to engage in a mote of critical thinking because it might conflict with your ignorance-fueled narrative.
cuddleskunk
Everything that has happened around us has been sure to remind us that the Civil War never actually ended...it just got put on the back burner. I'm stuck in Florida myself, and I see an awful lot of Trump flags here...way more than I did in California (go fucking figure). Also...being racist against one's own race is a thing...extreme self-loathing. Don't forget that there were black slaveholders and let's not forget about the Jewish concentration camp guards.
walnutbreath
You're just going to make a blanket, vile accusation against a bunch of people that you know nothing about? Good fucking lord.
FYI: the majority of black slaveowners in the U.S. were a result of manumission laws that required freed slaves to leave the state. Resultingly, most black slaveowners owned a family member to keep the family together. There were comparatively few blacks slaveowners that did it for a profit motive.
And there were no Jewish concentration camp guards. Kapos were forced
walnutbreath
(often at the threat of death) to perform certain duties (which, again, were not those of a guard). They were assigned supervisory or administrative duties.
cuddleskunk
"Kapos guarded and supervised concentration camp prisoners" https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/kapos-and-other-prisoner-functionaries-in-nazi-concentration-camps
Miller16of16
He waved a gun around and dropped it as he was running. Even in the case Chow thought the kid was still armed, unless there was an attempted robbery he wouldn't be cleared to shoot. This post is deliberately slanting the facts, only the prosecutor claimed it was about bottled water.
pancreas
dont you lose the "self defence" claim if you chase someone?
NothingPrince
Depends on the country. In Aus a man chased and killed some one who was known to police to be stalking his family.
Miller16of16
Not if it was brandished in anything resembling a robbery. In NY you'd be within your rights to shoot someone fleeing a robbery. I'm not saying that's what happened, but clearly this was about more than bottled water. He didn't display a gun but somehow one fell from him as he ran? Quite the gamble by the storeowner - without that gun he'd be convicted for sure...
DocWats
Citation for your NY claim? In most states youre not allowed to shoot someone in the back as they flee. Like Castle Law doesnt even give you that unless youre in TX.
Craizie
Yea, you dont even need that much of a reason to shoot someone at night in Texas.
Miller16of16
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical force...and may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:...(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
CaptainSweatPants
The only witnesses who said he brandished a gun were Chow’s family. No one else saw a gun in the store.
Miller16of16
It doesn't strike you as somewhat damning that a gun did in fact fall from the deceased as he fled the scene?
worm61
Because guns are never planted on dead Black bodies, right?
Skevoid
He was shot in the back while fleeing and unarmed, 'previously holding a gun' is not license for everyone nearby to kill someone.
skizzit
Crazy how "right to bear arms" goes out the window as soon as the person is black...
Goatfer
As a minor, he did not have that right with a handgun.
ThisUsernameWasntTakenIGuess
So, theoretically, all you have to do to get away with murder is to have an extra gun and enough money to pay off the family of the deceased to say it was his? Interesting. I'm not saying that's what happened, mind you, but clearly this was about more than bottled water.
Camelspotting
Real life isn't like TV. There usually aren't a bunch of witnesses and camera footage of crimes.
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
So you don't have a 2nd amendment right?
walnutbreath
No, you don't have a 2nd amendment right to brandish a firearm or to use one in the commission of a crime.
orthodoxorthography
Minors generally do not, no.