Duty to retreat laws

[platoonDaddy]

Dang, so the fight ended when they left the shop, so pursuing them is the 2nd fight. As stated prior, what if they went for a gun, how friging dumb

Law of Self Defense: Self-Defense Claim Lost When Defender Becomes Aggressor

Self-Defense Fails If Defender Becomes Aggressor
The failure of Sumpter’s claim of self-defense is found in the element of innocence. How can that be, you might ask, given that it’s uncontested that the three aggressors attacked HIM. Because, as the media itself reports: “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.”

That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.

When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/0...mes-aggressor/

[SteyrAUG]

Dang, so the fight ended when they left the shop, so pursuing them is the 2nd fight. As stated prior, what if they went for a gun, how friging dumb

Law of Self Defense: Self-Defense Claim Lost When Defender Becomes Aggressor

Self-Defense Fails If Defender Becomes Aggressor
The failure of Sumpter’s claim of self-defense is found in the element of innocence. How can that be, you might ask, given that it’s uncontested that the three aggressors attacked HIM. Because, as the media itself reports: “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.”

That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.

When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/0...mes-aggressor/

I've seen this a couple times when the victim turned out to be a capable fighter / martial artist. I know one guy personally who had a knife pulled on him during an attempted robbery, actually got stabbed a couple times when he resisted but when he disarmed his attacker and started to really do some damage in return he was charged with "armed assault" because they considered his "black belt status" to constitute a weapon.

He was convicted when the jury bought the line that "once the attacker was helpless, he had a DUTY to stop his actions" and the only good part is the judge decided he didn't need to go to jail. This was back in 1978 in Florida and the defense attorney trotted out some horseshit like "being a black belt is like having a gun."

[The_War_Wagon]

Even if Republicans are in the minority in states like CT, I'd be filibustering just to change the name of the bill to - "Duty to BE a VICTIM" - so as to be on record, regarding the CONSEQUENCES of stupid, donkey, legislation!

[26 Inf]

I've seen this a couple times when the victim turned out to be a capable fighter / martial artist. I know one guy personally who had a knife pulled on him during an attempted robbery, actually got stabbed a couple times when he resisted but when he disarmed his attacker and started to really do some damage in return he was charged with "armed assault" because they considered his "black belt status" to constitute a weapon.

He was convicted when the jury bought the line that "once the attacker was helpless, he had a DUTY to stop his actions" and the only good part is the judge decided he didn't need to go to jail. This was back in 1978 in Florida and the defense attorney trotted out some horseshit like "being a black belt is like having a gun."

Was this a criminal of a civil case? If it was a criminal case his attorney would be the defense attorney. If it was civil, it would be the defense attorney if he was the appellant and we were speaking of the plantiff's attorney.

Either way, your friend's attorney had the right to object on foundation issues. Although I understand if his attorney didn't, because I've been involved in cases and had some weak attorneys let stuff get through. The judge tends to get irate if you say 'this is where you should object' to the prosecutor from the stand - in my experience that is all that has kept most officers from doing that very thing.

[SteyrAUG]

Was this a criminal of a civil case? If it was a criminal case his attorney would be the defense attorney. If it was civil, it would be the defense attorney if he was the appellant and we were speaking of the plantiff's attorney.

Either way, your friend's attorney had the right to object on foundation issues. Although I understand if his attorney didn't, because I've been involved in cases and had some weak attorneys let stuff get through. The judge tends to get irate if you say 'this is where you should object' to the prosecutor from the stand - in my experience that is all that has kept most officers from doing that very thing.

I think it was criminal because I remember him seriously worried about jail time, unless you can actually go to jail for a civil matter. But I could have sworn it was the defense attorney for the attacker, but it could have been a prosecutor. I wasn't actually there and got the info second hand from the individual in question.

I remember the impression it made on me that if you take steps to protect yourself others will portray you as the "bad guy" even when you were the person who was attacked. Colored my views on the subject from a pretty early age.

[Grand58742]

And then you have this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/fl...ing/index.html

Florida's "stand your ground" law could save a man from prosecution after he fatally shot another man following a heated argument over a parking space at a convenience store.

The shooting took place Thursday after Britany Jacobs, 24, parked in a handicapped-accessible spot at the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater, according to a news release from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Sheriff's detectives said Michael Drejka, 47, approached Jacobs while her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton, and the couple's 5-year-old son, Markeis Jr., went into the store. Drejka and Jacobs began arguing about her parking in the handicapped parking space.

Witnesses told police that McGlockton came outside, walked over to Drejka while he was arguing and "forcibly pushed" Drejka, causing him to fall.

In response, the news release stated, Drejka pulled out a handgun while he was on the ground and shot McGlockton in the chest.
"Witnesses say McGlockton walked back into the convenient store where he collapsed," the release stated. He was taken to a hospital where he died.

Here's the video.



There's always more to the story, but this one certainly looks unjustified.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I wouldn't have shot, yet- but I sure would have pulled my CCW. But then again, I would have just shot the lady a crusty look rather than go all hall monitor on her. If we had a society where people didn't park in handi places and just walk up and shove people to the ground would be the best thing.

[Grand58742]

I wouldn't have shot, yet- but I sure would have pulled my CCW. But then again, I would have just shot the lady a crusty look rather than go all hall monitor on her. If we had a society where people didn't park in handi places and just walk up and shove people to the ground would be the best thing.

Depending on what I saw, I'd think presenting wouldn't be irrational at all.

Shooting a person after they backed away? I'd be surprised if this one doesn't go to court and he gets convicted.

[Biggy]

Yeah, my guess is he gets convicted. IMHO, just because someone gives you a hard shove back or a hard shove back and you go down, doesn't justify the use of deadly force and shooting the person. Now if the guy that shoved him continued and proceeded to beat the shit out of him, you might have a George Zimmerman Travon Martin type situation.

[Averageman]

That video should convict him. I think once he was down and drew, the guy backed up/off. Had the gun not been there it might have been a beat down for the guy on the ground, as it is the guy saw the gun and began to retreat.
I'm no expert, but that's what I saw and if it goes to a civil trial, that's likely what the jury will see.

My Father and Mother in Law both require walkers to get around. If we take them grocery shopping, it takes me a minute to unload unfold and get them moving. If I can I try and do this close to the entrance to the store. There are a lot of people that are way too impatient when they have to wait 45 seconds for me to do that.