Kinja reply list

Read More
JustinBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 10:44am
His mistake was not shooting them. Sadly, even in a lot of stand your ground states, defending yourself with fists (Sorry, Grandpa.), a brick (Sorry, Craig.), a knife, or a pipe isn’t allowed, only a gun.
Yes, it is some shit.
Reply
- Read More
  Get Some Dak SausageJustin
  7/06/18 10:50am
  Connecticut is not a stand your ground state.
  Reply
- Read More
  PlayerOneGet Some Dak Sausage
  7/06/18 10:58am
  The point he was making was even in those states which have Stand your Ground, if you use anything other than a gun, you get those charges thrown at you. Stand Your Ground in some states are very specifically worded that way.
  Reply
Read More
DarkwingChuckBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:13am
This ruling was still completely wrong but this article does leave out a fact that I think is important to why the judge made the wrong decision that he made.
After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
Reply
- Read More
  bfredDarkwingChuck
  7/06/18 11:22am
  I was wondering about that. Usually when something makes this little sense there’s a piece of information missing. What caught my eye was the “first degree” part. If you’re backed into a corner defending yourself it’s not first degree.
  Reply
- Read More
  decgeekDarkwingChuck
  7/06/18 1:47pm
  I disagree. The initial assault took place inside. From what I read from the news articles his attackers had no weapons. Since no weapon was used and it doesn’t sound like his injuries were life threatening the most they probably could have been charged with was simple assault. It appears the offenders broke off the attack and left the building. The initial incident is considered over. By pursuing them outside he instigated a separate incident. At that point he was no longer defending himself. He became the aggressor. He was retaliating. By pulling a weapon and stabbing one of his attackers he escalated that into felony assault. The concept of retreat is not about “running away”. It’s about not retaliating once the initial attack is over. I feel bad for the guy but at the point he stabbed that person he was defending his honor more than himself.
  Reply
Read More
David E. Davis rides again!Breanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:15am
Connecticut law requires Sumpter to retreat after he was being beaten up at the Dunkin Donuts where he worked.
This is a bad law. Why should anyone have to retreat in a place they are supposed to be safe like home or work? Choosing to do so is one thing; being legally “forced” to do so and then having the egregious insult of getting prison time for defending yourself is about two hundred bridges too far.
Reply
- Read More
  StacyDavid E. Davis rides again!
  7/06/18 11:23am
  Also, how was he supposed to “retreat” when he had three people beating on him?
  Reply
- Read More
  ZombieShooterStacy
  7/06/18 11:55am
  Also, how was he supposed to “retreat” when he had three people beating on him?
  You can’t. He was legally defending himself.
  His problem was that the fight ended. His attackers left. At this point he should have called the police but instead he grabbed a knife, ran outside and attacked his previous attackers.
  There are two fights here. One where Sumpter is the victim and one where he is the aggressor. In the second fight is where he stabbed someone and that is why he got 18 months in jail.
  The media is not reporting the story correctly.
  Reply
Read More
macoog95Breanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:00am
I’m sure he would have liked to run away, but it’s sort of hard with multiple people beating the shit out of you. Stand your ground laws are good in theory but don’t account for the instigator factor which should have been what put Zimmerman in jail.
Duncan Donuts should have paid for a decent lawyer and hopefully they can do so under appeal.
Reply
- Read More
  capeomacoog95
  7/06/18 4:53pm
  There’s a bit of confusion because the article isn’t very clear but the original altercation was over and three assailants left the premises. At that point Sumpter grabbed a knife, ran outside and stabbed one of them. CT laws allow you to defend yourself during an altercation, including deadly force. The “retreat” aspect means that you shouldn’t use force if you’re safely able to leave the scene and you certainly can’t retaliate after the altercation is over. At that point Sumpter became the aggressor, hence the felony assault.
  Reply
Read More
Yes...They Are Real!Breanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:22am
I live I CT. Coincidentally I was recently discussing topic of CT self defense law with my therapist. Two weeks ago, the topic of our group session was anger management, and coping skills.
During the group session, another client was discussing a close call altercation with an acquaintance, where things almost came to blows. The therapist jumped in, giving us all a stern warning regarding self defense laws here in CT. Stating that the victim is allowed only “1 blow, and MUST RETREAT!”. Specifying thay there is no staying to fight your attacker. Even if they other party initiated it. Even if it’s in an attempt to subdue the attacker. Even if it’s in an attempt to force the attacker to stop kicking your ass. We sat there in disbelief. All of us insisted she’s wrong, oristwken somehow. Because a law simply doesn’t make any logical sense.
As one other client colorfully put it, “So I’m laying there on the ground, getting my ass whopped, and I’m to run away? I can’t fight back, even with them coming after me?!?”. Yep, said the therapist. We still left group, thinking the councilor must’ve been mistaken. The therapist explained she knew the information because she’s currently working on her Master’s degree, and came across this law while studying.
After whole week had passed, I was still dumbfounded by this idiotic law, that I just had to get it off my chest and tell my oldest brother. He couldn’t understand it either. “Nah, she must’ve gotten her information wrong somewhere. Just make sure that you don’t take no legal advice from her. Ever!”, he told me.
Well, I guess she was right after all. I’m bringing this article to our next Wednesday’s session. Because I’m curious how long this law has been on the books. I mean, could it be an overreactionary effect of the Zimmerman debacle? Just so many questions here.
Reply
- Read More
  ZombieShooterYes...They Are Real!
  7/06/18 11:42am
  She was wrong.
  Even in CT you have the right to defend yourself. It does call for a retreat if it can be safely done but if you are not able to retreat you can defend yourself.
  This story, unfortunately, is not being reported right. There were two fights. In fight one Sumpter defended himself legally. He’s not in trouble for that fight.
  Where Sumpter went wrong is that he started a new fight against his previous attackers and during that fight he stabbed someone. That is why he is getting 18 months in jail.
  You don’t have the right to start a fight even if it’s against the idiots who previously attacked you. If he had stabbed the guy during the first fight he would have been fine. He had no ability to retreat as it was 3 vs 1 and he couldn’t retreat. Three vs one is a good disparity of force and he could have claimed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself.
  Reply
- Read More
  AstronomyDomineYes...They Are Real!
  7/06/18 12:01pm
  This does not appear to be true though: deadly force for self defense is considered justified, especially in home or office.
  2005 General Statutes § 53a-19
  Reply
Read More
hillratBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 2:24pm
THIS. IS. BULLSHIT.
You don’t just immediately return to a state of rational thought after being violently attacked. Your adrenaline is through the roof and if you’ve been trained (military, martial arts, etc.) your body may just start doing what it’s been trained to do. When you’re in “fight or flight” mode you can’t be expected to just calm the fuck down and let the people who attacked you be on their way.
Now of course my man should not have run outside to stab someone and I still say this is bullshit.
Reply
Read More
MalcireBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 3:51pm
“Marissa Alexander” there was more to her story and why she initially didn’t benefit from the stand your ground defense. These included the police claiming the garage door worked, her shot almost hitting 2 children in another room (even in self defense you are responsible for where your bullets go) and an initial claim that said shot was a warning shot .
And being black likely didn't help her of course.
Reply
Read More
BlaqntelligenceBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:28am
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six...
Reply
Read More
boredalwaysBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 10:46am
If only he was....
Does this young man have a previous criminal history that I missed? Why hasn't Dunkin Donuts stand up for this man?
Reply
Read More
Mr.DuckSauceBreanna Edwards
7/06/18 11:50am
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the new movie, the light skinned black girl got used and abused by the system and when they were done with her, they let her go alone without any type of help and just used her up like she was a thing to do.
If that is not a direct telling of the system and justice being absent for poc that they created their own monster.
That is what I am tired of for people in the cut, how long until the system will create monsters that it will blow up in their faces.
Reply