Try as they may, liberals supporting laws which ban self-defense weapons and the use of such are not making their communities any safer. Conversely, doing such instead often makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Such was the case in Connecticut where a young man used self-defense against three minor criminals who suddenly attacked him “while at work.” However, since state laws do not protect against violence resulting from defending one’s self, the victim will be incarcerated for being attacked in an altercation where it was three against one.
Three 17-year-old adolescents began physically assaulting Sumpter. After “the fight spilled outside,” Sumpter, armed with a knife, reportedly stabbed one of his attackers in the leg in self-defense.
They subsequently “fled the scene,” but the stabbed individual was said to have been “bleeding profusely” from the stabbing.
While Sumpter may have had no choice in doing so to avoid being seriously injured or killed, Connecticut does not have ‘stand-your-ground’ laws which legally permit an innocent person to defend one’s self.
Under the current state law, if a victim of an attack is able to ‘retreat,’ then they are legally obligated to make such attempts prior to using deadly force.
Given the circumstances, Sumpter was detained following the incident and given a $25,000 bond.
On Monday, at the Stamford courthouse, Judge John Blawie charged Sumpter with “felony first-degree assault and risk of injury to a minor” and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
Following his release, Sumpter will be on probation for three years, “during which time,” if found guilty of any other charges, he could face up to three and a half additional months incarcerated.
However, the facts appear to back up Sumpter’s story and his claim that “I was defending myself.”
To this, Judge Blawie indicated that he personally did not find Sumpter at fault, “but had to follow the letter of the law.”
Rightfully outraged, Sumpter, did not reply to the judge’s ruling and silently accepted his sentence.
His public defender, Howard Ehring, however, disputed the unjust ruling, citing states such as Florida with stand-your-ground laws protecting its citizens.
It has yet to be reported if the three attackers will be held criminally responsible in a juvenile court or will be tried as adults nor if there was a motive for the sudden violence.
However, such is irrelevant considering the unfair advantage that the three minors had over Sumpter. Also, they were admittedly only barely underage at the time of the attack.
Retreating back inside the donut shop or elsewhere could have proven deadly for the victim if he was cornered.
Unfortunately, being the target of a violent attack is apparently unimportant in liberal states, run by democratic politicians living in a fantasy reality where banning weapons or self-defense tactics will prove useful in combatting violence.
Rather, it allows assailants such as those in Connecticut to freely attack unsuspecting victims who cannot fight back without first attempting to retreat.
Such is ridiculous considering that those who choose self-defense over becoming a victim generally do not wish to have to resort to violence, but absolutely will “if there is a reasonable belief of a threat.”
Most importantly, however, the state law and judge’s ruling have virtually assured a difficult future for Sumpter as he applies for jobs, among other circumstances.
Judge Blawie even admitted this, saying that despite Sumpter’s apparent need to resort to violence in protecting himself, “he will be treated more harshly by the criminal justice system going forward.”
Of course, as with any media coverage, there could be more to the story than authorities are detailing.
Some publications have speculated that Sumpter allegedly chased his attackers outside where he then stabbed one of them who was trying to get away.
Under this theory, Sumpter nor his attorney could not have claimed the stabbing to be self-defense.
However, the fact remains that Sumpter was the one supposedly minding his own business when three underage delinquents attacked him for no apparent reason.
The story is an unfortunate reminder of the importance of state laws which allow its citizens to defend themselves.
One might think that in Connecticut, nicknamed ‘the Constitution state,’ such liberties would be protected.
However, Sumpter, unfortunately, learned the hard way that living in a liberal city or state has its consequences and that law-abiding citizens are often not protected by self-defense laws.
Despite the state’s constitution promising that “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state,” such has recently been proven false in court.