by J. Pharoah Doss
Recently, a South Carolina jury found Rick Chow, a 61-year-old Asian store owner, not guilty of the murder of Cyrus Carmack-Belton, a 14-year-old Black teenager whom Chow suspected of shoplifting four water bottles, chased over 100 yards from his convenience store, and eventually shot in the back in 2023.
After the verdict, social media was bombarded with messages such as “The price of suspicion is too high” and “Black lives are worth more than water bottles.” To compound the perplexity of the verdict, Chow has a history of shooting at suspected shoplifters.
In 2015, Chow tried to stop someone he suspected of shoplifting. The suspect proceeded to their vehicle and threatened to shoot Chow. Chow fired multiple shots at the vehicle. No one was hurt. In 2018, Chow confronted a suspected shoplifter; the accused attacked him, and Chow fired two shots, wounding his attacker. In both incidents, authorities said Chow’s actions were not criminal because, in South Carolina, self-defense law requires that the shooter does not instigate the incident, believes he or she is in imminent danger, and has no way to avoid that danger.
In 2023, USA Today initially reported that Carmack-Belton didn’t steal anything from the store. Carmack-Belton picked up the water bottles but put them back. After a verbal confrontation with the store owners, Carmack-Belton left the store and started to run. Chow, armed with a pistol, and his son chased Carmack-Belton. Carmack-Belton fell, then got back up. Chow’s son told his father that Carmack-Belton had a gun. At that point, Chow shot Carmack-Belton in the back.
A gun was recovered next to Carmack-Belton’s body, but Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott stated that the investigation showed Carmack-Belton did not point the gun at Chow before he was shot in the back. Lott added, “Four bottles of water are not something you shoot anybody over, much less a 14-year-old.” Lott described Chow’s actions as “senseless.”
Chow was charged with murder. However, Chow’s defense attorney argued self-defense of others—Chow fired to protect his son after the gun was visible.
For the prosecution, it was a straightforward case. The prosecutor presented the facts to the jury exactly like the media reported them. The prosecution insisted that Chow wrongly assumed Carmack-Belton shoplifted; Chow and his son were wrong to chase Carmack-Belton as far as they did; and it was senseless to shoot someone in the back over water bottles.
Chow’s defense attorney agreed with the prosecution. He suggested that it was probably ill-advised for Chow to chase Carmack-Belton, but it was not against the law. More importantly, the defense stated that if Chow executed a human being over water bottles, then the jury should convict Chow of murder, but that’s not why Chow fired his weapon.
The defense asked the jury, if Chow intended to shoot the teen for shoplifting, why chase him for over 100 yards? Why not shoot the teen in the back at 10, 20, or 30 yards? Chow did not shoot because he had no intent to do so, but the situation changed drastically when Carmack-Belton fell. The concealed gun was most likely dislodged from Carmack-Belton’s waist when he hit the ground. Carmack-Belton retrieved the gun and got back up. Chow’s son saw that Carmack-Belton was armed and informed his father. Chow immediately told Carmack-Belton to drop the weapon. Carmack-Belton turned to run, and Chow shot him in defense of his son.
The defense reminded the jury that in self-defense situations, an individual can respond after perceiving a threat, such as the gun in this case, and the person perceiving the threat has the right to be mistaken. The prosecution defined murder as the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. The defense gave the jury reasons to doubt the prosecution’s claim that Chow murdered Carmack-Belton.
Some believed Chow was guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide, but he was only charged with first-degree murder. According to WJLA-TV, lesser charges were not considered because the act—a fatal shooting with a firearm—fell under the highest criminal category in South Carolina law, and the prosecution’s case lacked evidence or legal grounds to add lesser charges.
The prosecution tried to prove to the jury that Chow senselessly shot a teenager over water bottles, but the defense convinced the jury the case was not about shoplifting; it was about a father who saw a gun and had to make a split-second decision. Therefore, the jury didn’t convict on first-degree murder. The jury might have convicted Chow of manslaughter or negligent homicide, but Chow wasn’t charged with those lesser offenses.
The prosecution took their shot and missed.