At every chance, you can trust mainstream media and liberals to try to make concealed carry license holders look bad. They have their work cut out for them. Instead of finding common examples of this group of people falling, they often have to resort to bad examples and incorrect comparisons.
That is the case that involves Jeffrey Sumpter. He was involved in a self-defense trial, but his conflict never involved firearms. Media narrative aside, anyone who carries a gun can learn an important legal lesson by looking at his case.
Jeffrey Sumpter is a simple man from Connecticut. He is 21 years old and works at a Dunkin Donuts. Well, he worked at the donut shop. In fact, it was during one of his shifts that he was attacked by three assailants.
This is also where our story begins. Sumpter was minding his own business when the three (all under 18) youths came into the shop and attacked him. He fought them off, and by the end of the scuffle, he had stabbed one of them in the parking lot. He was tried for felony first-degree assault and was ultimately convicted. He’ll face 18 months in jail and 3 years of probation.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but you are probably wondering how he was pinned with first-degree assault when he was attacked out of the blue. Was it because the attackers were minors? Is it because he ended up with a weapon and they didn’t? It’s actually neither of those. The key part of what you read so far is the words “parking lot.”
If you are wondering if using a weapon somehow undermines legal claims of self-defense, you needn’t worry. The knife is not what incriminated Sumpter.
Let’s break it down. Self-defense law requires five pillars to hold in court: innocence, imminence, reasonableness, proportionality and avoidance. Even if Sumpter used a knife and the others didn’t, the three-on-one nature of the fight granted him proportionality in this incident.
There’s an argument that he may have failed in avoidance. This goes back to stand-your-ground laws. Connecticut is not a state that observes those laws, so it could be argued that Sumpter didn’t sufficiently retreat from the fight. It’s a stupid argument and highlights the exact problem with states like Connecticut, but it isn’t what undermined Sumpter’s defense.
The reason he was convicted is because the stabbing did not happen in the same location as the beginning of the fight. The four were in the donut shop at the beginning of the scuffle. Sumpter defended himself and they retreated outside. From there, he pursued the attackers and eventually stabbed one.
There is no doubt that this was all a single fight in Sumpter’s mind. In fact, many of us would likely respond in the same way. Unfortunately for Sumpter, the law is clear in this instance, and it bears impact on how all of us view defense in every state.
Lessons to Learn
Sumpter’s trial split the event into two separate fights. There was a single incident where he was attacked in the shop. When the youths left, that signaled the legal end to the conflict.
Even though the time between the two fights was minimal and the people involved thought of them as one and the same, the law states that Sumpter initiated the second conflict. This destroys his innocence. In a legal sense, he initiated a retaliatory conflict, and that is never protected by self-defense.
This is a lesson for all of us who carry. A simple change in setting can constitute an end to a conflict. If you are attacked, you pull your weapon and the attackers flee the building (or into a building if you’re outside), the conflict is legally over.
Even though there are many situations that would justify pursuing the attackers in our minds, the law does not protect that action. If a second conflict takes place, you still need the attackers to make the first move before you respond. That can be incredibly dangerous, but it is how the law works.
There are plenty of circumstances where the tactically sound decision is not legally protected. That is where the decisions of concealed carry holders are at their most difficult.
We can’t tell you exactly how you should face a situation like this. We can only to make sure you understand the stakes by explaining the legal procedure. Whether your situation constitutes breaking the law or not will have to be up to you, but at the very least, you can learn from Sumpter’s case and make an informed decision.
~ American Gun News
We all absolutely must remember that as a private citizen you can only use any weapon in self defense of you’re self or the innocent when you are in present and unavoidable danger of grate physical harm ( a crippling injury ) or death. The leagl standard of lawful use of deadly force is the level of malice displayed to a readable person, that would naturally place him/her in a real fear of harm or death. The simple 3 points of conduct they must be present are Means, opportunity, jepordy. If you don’t know the meaning and context of these words consult an attorney. The Warren Doctrine that is the standard of lawful use of deadly force in America society. A former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that calm reflection is not required in the presence of the uprased knife. That was Clearance Darrale I believe, look it up. Rember that any private citizen has NO DUTY to pursue, lay hands on, subdue, place in custody and transport to a demotion center any person. Only a sworn police officer has this duty. Thare is no codified law that makes the wounding or killing of a human being lawful. No civilian has a duty to wound or kill any human being. It is arguably so that a police officer has a duty to kill a violent criminal that can no other way be subdued or prevent from escaping thus posing a grave threat to society. That’s why the killing is called a homicide. The leagl concept that will keep you out of prison is The leagl President of competing harms
That is it would result in greater human desaster to obay the law or violate the law. The subject of this article unlawfully broke these laws and as a result is where he belongs. He became the assailant when he pursued the 3 subjects into the parking lot and unlawful used deadly force. Rather than remain in relative safety and call the police he chose to peruse and attack the 3. The level of malice that you display is what makes the killing of you’re attacker is what you’ll be Judged by. A simple standard to go by is when you drew and or fired you’re weapon were you’re hands shaking or were you’re ears burning. It is just that simple. Doubt it try shooting somebody some day and you’ll find this out the hard way. This is not a tolerant society when it comes to this
He deserves to be charged with that crime. It’s called self defense and not self retaliation! Once the attacker’s retreated there is no longer a reason to defend yourself because there isn’t a threat to you. This has nothing to do with being wrongfully convicted of a crime and everything to do with someone wanting to think they are a tough guy.
I have to agree with the assessment of this crime, it’s sad but it is true you cannot follow the attacker out of the location, just like you cannot shoot a person in the back as he is leaving the scene of the crime, in fact according to the law you can only protect yous self if the perp is still advancing towards you. Do to moving from two states I have been through the concealed permit examination three times, and I definitely know the law about self defense. Another thing you really need to do, if your going to carry a concealed weapon, is to definitely get legal insurance, because if you are taken to court in either a legal trial or a cvil trial , the cost can be staggering and can put you in the poor house or jail and maybe both. You can get legal insurance from either the NRA or the USCCA, but if you can’t afford legal insurance, DON’T CARRY.
The thing to do is go outside with a gun, face the attackers, and kill all of them. Then turn the gun on yourself because death by your own hand would be better than going to jail and being raped and killed by somebody else. OR plan ahead and find other people that are criminals and before you kill yourself, do the world a favor, kill them, then kill yourself. That’s probably the best plan of action.