Makes you want to move to Connecticut

[oldag]

or not.

Man gets 18 months prison for defending himself from three thugs.

Fox:
A Connecticut man who was assaulted by three juveniles while at work has been sentenced to prison for stabbing one of the attackers.

The Connecticut Post reports 21-year-old Jeffrey Sumpter of Bridgeport received 18 months in jail Monday at a Stamford courthouse.

The paper reported that Sumpter — who was convicted of felony first-degree assault — also will have to spend three years following his release on probation. If he breaks the law during that time, Sumpter could be made to serve all or part of a 42-month prison sentence.

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.

“I was defending myself,” Sumpter said during the hearing.

Judge John Blawie told Sumpter that he believed his version of events, but had to follow the letter of the law.

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.

 

[easy rider]

Nope.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Nope.

This...

 

[busykngt]

Wonder if he could have gotten a jury trial? (sentencing by jury?).

(I would have led an informed discussion of ‘jury nullification’ if I had been a juror behind closed doors)

 

[Sam7sf]

The justice system that most prosecutors have in their head is messed up. Everyone involved gets in trouble or the guy defending himself is the only one getting in trouble. In reality...don't wanna get shot, stabbed, punched, or broke? Don't be a scum bag.

 

[baboon]

When I see the word Connecticut, yankee just seems to be the next thing in my mind!

 

[oldag]

Should never have been arrested, much less charged and convicted.

 

[BillFairbanks]

That’s wrong!

I hope can someday escape to a free country like Texas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gdr_11]

Newspaper article is meant to draw sympathy for the "minors" who attacked this guy. This is what most of those minors in Bridgeport look like...

 

[sidebite252]

Connecticut - home of the Jerry Springer show? Nuff said.

 

[Fosty]

Newspaper article is meant to draw sympathy for the "minors" who attacked this guy. This is what most of those minors in Bridgeport look like...

View attachment 142576

Hey but maybe he could have ran away from them! Think of the poor soul who got stabbed.

 

[Sam7sf]

Newspaper article is meant to draw sympathy for the "minors" who attacked this guy. This is what most of those minors in Bridgeport look like...

View attachment 142576

Hoodlums

 

[Byrd666]

Cincinnati, Ohio is home to Jerry Springer. Was also the Mayor of said city.

 

[grumper]

That entire state can eat the dingleberries off my ass. I wouldn't know who to root for in this story. The victim? The Yoots? The State govt? Probably for the asteroid on a collision course with that turdhole.

 

[Moonpie]

That entire state can eat the dingleberries off my ass. I wouldn't know who to root for in this story. The victim? The Yoots? The State govt? Probably for the asteroid on a collision course with that turdhole.

 

[Big Dipper]

In several reports I have read “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.” https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/po...k-assault-gets-18-months-for-not-13044078.php

Isn’t that akin to shooting someone in the back after they sucker punched you and are running away?

 

[Sam7sf]

In several reports I have read “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.” https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/po...k-assault-gets-18-months-for-not-13044078.php

Isn’t that akin to shooting someone in the back after they sucker punched you and are running away?

Sure enough it is. You become the aggressor anytime you chase.

Edit: its important we all remember in the eyes of prosecutors what defense means. We have gone over this many times gun or without gun training. Even without a gun I will do what I gotta do to get away. Never chase your attacker. The system will railroad your butthole.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

If it happened that way, then it obviously was not self defense.


ETA: Ninja'd.

 

[busykngt]

BD, I understand you’re quoting what the author of the article said, which implies the attack would have been concluded once it had moved from inside the building to outside the building. I would suggest that likely is not the victim’s version of what happened. And further, the judge said he understood and believed the victim’s version of what happened (whatever that is... we simply do not know, since that version of the story was never presented in the article). It appears the only evidence of a factual nature is, the violence took place, both inside the building and outside of it. The question hinges on the issue as to whether that violence (attack) “continued” outside OR was “resumed” outside the building.
The victim clearly stated he was defending himself which, according to his version would imply the attack had not ended but was continuing and had merely changed location from inside the building to outside of it. Why the location change? Maybe, perhaps because the victim was trying to retreat? I don’t think there’s evidence (at least in this article) to say the victim had suddenly become the aggressor and pursued the attackers outside.

 

[Big Dipper]

BD, I understand you’re quoting what the author of the article said, which implies the attack would have been concluded once it had moved from inside the building to outside the building. I would suggest that likely is not the victim’s version of what happened. And further, the judge said he understood and believed the victim’s version of what happened (whatever that is... we simply do not know, since that version of the story was never presented in the article). It appears the only evidence of a factual nature is, the violence took place, both inside the building and outside of it. The question hinges on the issue as to whether that violence (attack) “continued” outside OR was “resumed” outside the building.
The victim clearly stated he was defending himself which, according to his version would imply the attack had not ended but was continuing and had merely changed location from inside the building to outside of it. Why the location change? Maybe, perhaps because the victim was trying to retreat. I don’t think there’s evidence (at least in this article) to say the victim had suddenly become the aggressor and pursued the attackers outside.

Agreed.

Just a wrinkle in the facts as so far covered in this thread.