-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
CONN man gets 18 months for stabbing attacker
- Thread starter AM13
- Start date
I'm sure his race didn't factor into this at all.......
Ya I was thinking this as well
Asaltweapon
NES Member
Heard it yesterday. Retreat state is bad enough but chasing after the bad guy and stabbing him after the attack is over is another.
I'll bet it felt good at the time.
I'll bet it felt good at the time.
Palladin
NES Member
Under Connecticut law, assault victims cannot use deadly force if they are able to retreat from their attackers. By contrast, 27 states — most notably Florida — have passed so-called “stand-your-ground” laws, which entitle citizens to use force in self-defense if there is a reasonable belief of a threat.
Sumpter was working at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Norwalk last October when he was jumped by three males. During the assault, Sumpter stabbed one of them in the leg.
another story: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men
Sumpter was working at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Norwalk last October when he was jumped by three males. During the assault, Sumpter stabbed one of them in the leg.
another story: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men
FrugalFannie
NES Member
Read more: Self-Defense Claim Lost When Defender Becomes Aggressor
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.
When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight, he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.
When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight, he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.
Still a good poke in my book. Don't want to get stabbed? Don't assault anyone.
This is not a clear cut self defense case. If he had stabbed one of the guys WHILE they were attacking him, sure, yeah, but he did not. They left and he chased after them, then started a second fight in which he became the aggressor and stabbed one of the other dudes. Is this fair or just? Probably not, but given the legal framework at play, it is what it is. And no, this has nothing to do with racism.
cockpitbob
NES Member
They say that especially in these liberal north-east states, if you defend yourself with deadly force, even if justified, it will be the start of the worst and most expensive period in you life.
Only use deadly force if you are sure it's required to save a life or limb.
Only use deadly force if you are sure it's required to save a life or limb.
Similar threads
