Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think about the possible (and often likely) consequences.
Imagine... a bully starts a fight , but, the victim is unbeknownst to the bully a tough and skilled fighter. The bully quickly figures out that he has messed with the wrong person and attempts to flee and announces that he has had enough and quits...
Are you saying that we should now allow the original victim to go vigilante on the bully? To what extent?
No. It has been settled law for many years that if an initial aggressor gives up the fight and makes it known that he "quits", the original victim is not permitted to take on the role of aggressor.
There is an update to the original article at the bottom of the page that addresses that. The author actually apologizes for being less than vigilant in seeking the facts.
Yep, he wasn't defending himself, he pursued after them and then stabbed one of them.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy was curious about the vagueness of the news coverage describing the incident and checked in further. He tells me it turns out that the fight didn't just "spill out" of the shop as the news coverage indicates. The assailants were actually fleeing the scene. Since Sumpter was chasing after them, it is very likely that even without the "duty to retreat" component of Connecticut's law, the stabbing probably would not have been considered self-defense. I take responsibility for not being more curious about the gaps in the news coverage describing the incident.
As much as I may cheer for thugs to get a good thumping by their would be victims, in this case they were in retreat. Meaning attempting to leave.
I understand the heat of battle, adrenalin etc. can cloud your judgment. That said he lost his self defense argument when he stopped defending and started pursuing. I think the sentence was too harsh and I hope that the thugs get a lot more.
Tyranny has many forms. Who ever charged & sentenced me, would wear the scars of a tyrant once I was released from bondage. They better kill me, in the war they started.
Tyranny attacked him, and then tyranny punishes him for getting instant justice with his attackers??? **** THAT!
Tyranny has many forms. Who ever charged & sentenced me, would wear the scars of a tyrant once I was released from bondage. They better kill me, in the war they started.
Tyranny attacked him, and then tyranny punishes him for getting instant justice with his attackers??? **** THAT!
You are CLEARLY mistaken. The thugs left and the guy chased them. He got charged for doing just that and not for anything less. No tyranny here, just misunderstanding and rhetoric.
There's an update to the blog; the three would be robbers turned tail and ran, and Sumpter pursued them out the store, then stabbed the one. I think that blows self-defense anywhere in the country.
There's an update to the blog; the three would be robbers turned tail and ran, and Sumpter pursued them out the store, then stabbed the one. I think that blows self-defense anywhere in the country.
I'm working so I don't have time to read the article just yet. Does it say anything about the 3 would be robbers being charged with attempted robbery or anything like that? Because while I understand and agree that this man wasn't actually defending himself when he injured one of his attackers, they should still be charged with a crime themselves for the attempted robbery.
This is revolting and numbing it is now the criminals lauded as heros
Has the world gone mad
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.