- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
CT man gets 18 months in prison for stabbing his attacker instead of retreating
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:35 am
quote:
Connecticut man who was assaulted at the Dunkin’ Donuts where he worked has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for stabbing one of his attackers.
Judge says he had to obey the letter of the law, which requires that he retreat from attackers.
What a terrible law out of CT
quote:
“I was defending myself,” Jeffrey Sumpter, 21, told Judge John Blawie on Monday morning at the Stamford courthouse when he was sentenced for stabbing one of the males in the leg last October. Blawie told Sumpter that he understood and believed his version of events, but he said he had to follow the letter of the law.
Sumpter, dressed in a white prison jumpsuit with short sleeves, did not reply. His public defender Howard Ehring said unlike a state like Florida, which has a law allowing its residents to stand their ground, Connecticut law requires Sumpter to retreat from the beating he was given at the Dunkin’ Donuts where he worked.
What is the reasoning behind having laws like this?
38
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Liberals have long wanted to criminalize self defense. This is just the first step.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Not sure but que Monty Python “run away! Run away!”
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:41 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Should be challenged. The right to self defense is a natural right. No state can take that away.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:41 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
That is a dumb arse judge.
Duty to retreat does not preclude self defense if retreat is not an option.
Duty to retreat does not preclude self defense if retreat is not an option.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:42 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Who's the shitstain prosecutor in that case?
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:43 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Time for a presidential pardon.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:44 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Judge should be beaten.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:44 am to Junky
quote:
Should be challenged. The right to self defense is a natural right. No state can take that away.
Would love for a truly constitutional SCOTUS to hammer the shite out of that law.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Hell, this had to first start with the decision to charge him by a district attorney followed by a jury's decision to convict him.
The entire state appears to have gone insane.
The entire state appears to have gone insane.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The reason is to takeaway your right to defend yourself. If you can’t defend yourselves from an individual trying to harm you, you can’t defend yourselves from the government. Punish the people who have the audacity to not want to be a victim. Goes against the Democratic Socialist plan if you have a gun and want to defend yourself. Absolutely insane for this guy to go to jail for this if true.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:46 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:The theory is that it is better to have someone injured and retreating than to have someone dead.
What is the reasoning behind having laws like this?
Sounds nice in principal, but it overlooks reality. If you attack someone, you should be estopped from complaining when he responds in kind.
It is relevant to note this this guy did not just “stand his ground,” He affirmatively chased the kids and stabbed one of them. The article does not quote the statute, but this fact likely played a role.
It appears that the defendant may have had a rap sheet himself. That also may have played a role.
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 11:01 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:49 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
What if the person is too fat or in a wheelchair and can't outrun an attacker?
Posted on 7/4/18 at 10:50 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Insanity
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
While I totally disagree with the law, he did run outside and stab him after he got beat down!
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Connecticut not only does not have a “stand your ground” law ... it has an affirmative duty to retreat.
quote:
Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he is in his dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:04 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Liberals have long wanted to criminalize self defense. This is just the first step.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The theory is that it is better to have someone injured and retreating than to have someone dead.
Everyone is also ignoring a key point...he didn't just fail to retreat. He actually pursued them outside before stabbing the guy. There's a huge difference in the eyes of the law between self defense and pursuing an attacker, whether we want to believe it or not.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:18 am to BamaGradinTn
Absolutely right, the law would have been on his side if he stabbed the other person “inside” his work place! Clearly states that in the law!
Posted on 7/4/18 at 11:18 am to demtigers73
quote:
While I totally disagree with the law, he did run outside and stab him after he got beat down!
This. From the article you cant tell if the immediate threat had been removed. If he had to chase them out of the store and the confrontation continued outside, the law sucks. If the attackers left and he got pissed because he got jumped and he followed out and stabbed the guy, stand your ground wouldn't apply.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News