SpaceCritter
NES Member
I hadn't heard about this before this story appeared in the morning paper, so admittedly I don't know the particulars, but...
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
(Connecticut, Self-Defense) The Fisher Case
- Thread starter SpaceCritter
- Start date
I hadn't heard about this before this story appeared in the morning paper, so admittedly I don't know the particulars, but...
I think I recall hearing about this case before. What is presented in the article seems to support the defendent but it difficult to forecast how a jury will react.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Donkdoms are not fond of self-defense. Especially with firearms. The best thing to do with Connecticut (or Massachusetts) is LEAVE.
dcmdon
NES Member
I haven't read the case yet. But I will. I will tell you that this is not a "clean" shoot.
The initial aggressor retreated. Common sense says that if someone challenges you while you are in your car, you drive away.
NEVER get out of a car in a road rage incident. Drive away. That is common sense.
Historically CT has not been a bad place to have a defensive gun use. I can point to almost EVERY case in CT where the victim who used a gun to defend himself wasn't even arrested.
CT law, as well as its jury instructions make it very very clear that the victim must know that they could retreat with COMPLETE safety in order convict.
The actual jury instructions:
• Duty to retreat: the defendant had a duty to retreat from the physical encounter because (he/she) knew (he/she) could do so with complete safety.
That is a very high standard. The last person convicted in CT was a woman who was threatened in her front yard. She went inside her home, retrieved a gun, went outside and shot the guy. Obviously, this doesn't meet any reasonable standard for self defense. If she was in the relative safety of her home she should have barricaded herself in a room and called 911.
Not gone out and put herself back at risk to shoot the guy.
If you adhere to the ethical idea that if the threat is gone, your justification to use deadly physical force is also gone, you won't have any trouble in CT.
I will read up on this. If you recall, I spent 4 hours listening to the Brian Camp testimony (while driving) and once the facts were known, it became clear that things weren't as simple as some would like to believe them to be.
Here are the ACTUAL jury instructions. Primary documents need to be used in a situation like this because most reporting is inaccurate or skewed.
The initial aggressor retreated. Common sense says that if someone challenges you while you are in your car, you drive away.
NEVER get out of a car in a road rage incident. Drive away. That is common sense.
Historically CT has not been a bad place to have a defensive gun use. I can point to almost EVERY case in CT where the victim who used a gun to defend himself wasn't even arrested.
CT law, as well as its jury instructions make it very very clear that the victim must know that they could retreat with COMPLETE safety in order convict.
The actual jury instructions:
• Duty to retreat: the defendant had a duty to retreat from the physical encounter because (he/she) knew (he/she) could do so with complete safety.
That is a very high standard. The last person convicted in CT was a woman who was threatened in her front yard. She went inside her home, retrieved a gun, went outside and shot the guy. Obviously, this doesn't meet any reasonable standard for self defense. If she was in the relative safety of her home she should have barricaded herself in a room and called 911.
Not gone out and put herself back at risk to shoot the guy.
If you adhere to the ethical idea that if the threat is gone, your justification to use deadly physical force is also gone, you won't have any trouble in CT.
I will read up on this. If you recall, I spent 4 hours listening to the Brian Camp testimony (while driving) and once the facts were known, it became clear that things weren't as simple as some would like to believe them to be.
Here are the ACTUAL jury instructions. Primary documents need to be used in a situation like this because most reporting is inaccurate or skewed.
Palladin
NES Member
the guy was 74yo.....WTF was he going to run to?????
being knocked to the ground could have killed him, the assailant was half his age, in far better shape and offered no avenue to allow escape.
hopefully win on appeal
being knocked to the ground could have killed him, the assailant was half his age, in far better shape and offered no avenue to allow escape.
hopefully win on appeal
dcmdon
NES Member
If the younger guy attempted to retreat and the old guy followed him, then he has a big big problem. Regardless of any disparity in size or strength.
I really need to read the court transcripts, but this was a statement made about what was said in court.
But Shannon suggests that Fisher provoked a second confrontation in which he was the aggressor after Bromley retreated to the rear of the car, a scenario he claims substantiates a manslaughter with intent charge because, he claims, Fisher had the ability to retreat to his car.
If Fisher did in fact follow Bromley back to the rear of Bromley's car, rather than getting back into his own car and driving away, then he deserves to be convicted.
Forget the law for a moment. Ethically, you aren't justified in using deadly physical force if your attacker attempts to disengage, retreats and then you choose to follow him.
Last edited:
Garys
NES Member
My reference is "The Law of Self Defense," so my statement is based on what's in there.
Once the threatening person has retreated, following and confronting him undermines a claim of self defense.
Reading a few news articles, it's a very sad story.
Nothing about whether the "victim" and Fisher knew each other or had past contact.
Once the threatening person has retreated, following and confronting him undermines a claim of self defense.
Reading a few news articles, it's a very sad story.
Nothing about whether the "victim" and Fisher knew each other or had past contact.
dcmdon
NES Member
I just added some more info to what you are replying to.
It appears that Fisher (the old guy with the gun) followed Bromley after Bromley retreated to the rear of his own car rather than getting into his own car and driving away.
Garys
NES Member
That might have helped Fisher a bit, but still his continuing the confrontation doesn't help him at all.
dcmdon
NES Member
I think you misinterpreted what I meant. (I may not have been clear) Fisher RE-ENGAGED with the original aggressor after the situation was de escalating on its own. That makes him the new aggressor and IMHO makes his behavior criminal.
He had no justification to shoot the guy if the guy walked away.
Please note, that I' saying this on the assumption that my statements in post #9 are correct. If I have the situation wrong, then everything changes.
One nice thing about the Brian Camp trial was it was all on Youtube. So I could listen to actual testimony while driving. I can't seem to find any recordings of this trial.
Garys
NES Member
We agree on this. Even if he thought that the guy was going to go into the trunk for a weapon, his course of action at that point would have been to leave not engage.
I feel bad for him to the extent that at 78 any prison time could end up as a life sentence. No one gets healthier in prison.
I feel bad for him to the extent that at 78 any prison time could end up as a life sentence. No one gets healthier in prison.
dcmdon
NES Member
Yeah. that sucks.
Similar threads
