In May of 2023, Cyrus Carmack-Belton entered Rick Chow’s store to purchase a water:

Andy [Chow’s son] told jurors he first noticed Carmack-Belton while stocking shelves. His mother asked the teen to leave his bookbag at the front of the store, to which he complied. “He goes to the water cooler, and that’s when I think he pockets the water,” Andy testified. “He starts coming to the front, and I ask him if there’s anything in his pocket, and he says no.” Carmack-Belton was telling the truth. But the Chows pursued him anyway. (Harris, R. J. L. (2026, May 31). In the death of a 14-year-old, Rick Chow’s defense rests | the State. The State. https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article315949118.html)

Essentially, Chow’s son was suspicious of 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton leading to the latter being confronted by the entire family. 

What possibly occurred is as follows: Belton entered the store; he complied with Chow’s request to leave his belongings at the door; he was confronted by Andy Chow for concealing an 8-ounce water bottle in his pants pocket; he denied the inquiry; there was some altercation with the family attendants inside of the store; Belton attempted to stabilize the volatile situation by leaving; Andy or Rick Chow interpreted this as fleeing; 52-year-old Rick Chow pursued Carmack-Belton, armed and accompanied by Andy Chow for the entire length of a football field -over goal post to goal post- off of the store premises.

During the final seconds of Rick Chow’s pursuit, he feared 

1. that Carmack-Belton had a gun

2. that he pulled it out

3. and that he aimed it at Andy Chow with the clear intent to harm

So, Rick Chow, used tactical-rapid-reaction resulting in the use of deadly force against Carmack-Belton because Chow could confirm that he would pull out a gun and aim it at his son with the intent to harm.

How could Rick Chow have processed all these points in a matter of seconds as the aggressor? When did he have time to arm himself? During the in-store engagement; prior to Carmack-Belton’s departure from the store, or in pursuit? When Carmack-Belton de-escalated the situation by leaving the store premises, did Andy Chow pursue him willingly or did Rick Chow abet his son into being an accessory to the pursuit? These questions remain unclear.

Regardless, Rick Chow admits to his premeditation, yet a judge rules in favor of a jury’s acquittal verdict, arguing Chow is legally protected by South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground Laws to defend his son. I would like to note that, as far as court records publicly report, police apprehended a 9mm handgun off of the ground, and a 45-calibre handgun from Rick Chow. 

The “Stand Your Ground” laws are an expansion of “ancient ‘Castle Doctrine’” into The Protection of Persons and Property Act (2026). However, you can be prosecuted by the law despite these statues if a) you were not engaged in unlawful activity and had a right to be in that location, b) you were not at fault and did not provoke the violent encounter, and/or c) you had a reasonable fear of imminent peril, death, or great bodily harm. See the following clarifications on Stand Your Ground Laws, Code Duello, and history around the 2006 Protection of Persons… Act: 

In antebellum states, Stand Your Ground is protection against someone’s challenge in the event that the person who initiated the duel/challenge is murdered, a ‘no duty to retreat’ burden of proof. In Alabama, before “Stand Your Ground” became law, Alabama enforced an example of antebellum-frontier culture by relying on the “Code Duello” (a strict, unwritten 18th-century set of rules originating in Ireland from a feudal period where there was no law enforcement) to settle personal grievances. However, this does not legalize deadly force to settle a personal grievance in any era in America. In fact, if a person who initiated a duel/challenge murders the person they pursued, they can be tried for murder under the full extent of the law. 

With all of these dense facts and legislative statutes surrounding the event, how was Rick Chow acquitted of all charges if he was the aggressor and pursuer?

You may have figured this article would focus only on the protection of Black Lives and Black-Youth, however, you have heard this narrative 100 times over, and South Carolina v. Rick Chow has brought this debate to a head in measure. We must now accept that black repression is real—not simply a positionality.

Rick Chow’s actions may not clearly present as racist towards Carmack-Belton being Black. However, if Carmack-Belton was not the aggressor, complied with the discriminative request upon approaching the storefront, and even de-escalated tension (regardless of Andy Chow’s testimony) by leaving the premises, then how did Chow get acquitted when Carmack-Belton was being chased for 130 yards and fatally shot in the back?

Chikei Rick Chow, George Zimmerman, and Soon Ja Du from the L.A. Riots were all protected by outdated laws in favor of “no duty to retreat” despite video evidence, despite 911 calls, and despite irrefutable forensics proving the accused should have served a life sentence. Yet this seems to have been too hopeful an idea. 

Author’s Note

As a Black-Woman who founded her mission to pursue a law career in public interest during the Trayvon Martin case, I, in 2026, am now concerned that the need is not to amend loopholes or modernize the law, but fight against institutionally backed anti-Black exemptions. 

I am fearful I will have to fight between the lines in the same way my predecessors have, for social justice reform to be humane; despite believing society has progressed past its chattel roots.

Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.