• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeffrey Sumpter

Excon

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Jeffrey Sumpter


I was not aware of this case until I read a member's user title saying "Free Jeffrey Sumpter".


When looking into this case one finds out that he was convicted because he had, by law, a duty to retreat.

On the surface that is a good reason to dislike his conviction and want him set free.

Yet, in this case, had he not been convicted under that duty to retreat, he still would have been convicted, even in a state that did not have such a duty.
Why? Because his attackers had disengaged and were fleeing. He is the one who reengaged and stabbed his assailant and thus became the attacker.


So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time.
 
Excon said:
Jeffrey Sumpter


I was not aware of this case until I read a member's user title saying "Free Jeffrey Sumpter".


When looking into this case one finds out that he was convicted because he had, by law, a duty to retreat.

On the surface that is a good reason to dislike his conviction and want him set free.

Yet, in this case, had he not been convicted under that duty to retreat, he still would have been convicted, even in a state that did not have such a duty.
Why? Because his attackers had disengaged and were fleeing. He is the one who reengaged and stabbed his assailant and thus became the attacker.


So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time.
Click to expand...

I looked it up too after seeing the title. And as you, I first thought WTH? Convict someone for defending themselves? But I then read he chased after them and stabbed one of them. Oops....can't do that.
 
holbritter said:
I looked it up too after seeing the title. And as you, I first thought WTH? Convict someone for defending themselves? But I then read he chased after them and stabbed one of them. Oops....can't do that.
Click to expand...

Same here. Reminded me of the case where someone shot a would be burglar in the back as they were running away, up until they did that they were acting within their right to defend themselves and property but once you step over the line you will have legal problems.
 
If this were an incident where a cop was doing his or her job and then got attacked by three people and then gave pursuit and shot one of the 3 attackers, it is highly unlikely that the cop would be charged with anything. In this particular case...without regard to any of the participants personal history...this incident showed that a man was at work when he was attacked by 3 people. The fight went from inside to outside and he stabbed one of his attackers. That he was charged at all is ridiculous. I dont care about their status as 'juveniles'...the three were 'man' enough to attack him. He should have the right to defend himself to whatever level he felt necessary until the threat was ended.

Any time a story starts with "man was attacked by three people..." the ending should be "and he did whatever he felt necessary in response".
 
holbritter said:
Oops....can't do that.
Click to expand...
No they currently can't.
But I am not opposed to acknowledging that folks can get caught up in the moment and continue to react.
 
VanceMack said:
If this were an incident where a cop was doing his or her job and then got attacked by three people and then gave pursuit and shot one of the 3 attackers, it is highly unlikely that the cop would be charged with anything.
Click to expand...
A police Officer has a proscribed duty to engage law breakers and would therefore be in the right to confront them after they fled.
In such a scenario he would be doing his duty, not attacking.


VanceMack said:
In this particular case...without regard to any of the participants personal history...this incident showed that a man was at work when he was attacked by 3 people. The fight went from inside to outside and he stabbed one of his attackers. That he was charged at all is ridiculous. I dont care about their status as 'juveniles'...the three were 'man' enough to attack him. He should have the right to defend himself to whatever level he felt necessary until the threat was ended.
Click to expand...

No. The fight did not go from inside to outside.
That attack was over and they were fleeing. He chose to reengage and attack one as he fled. That is not self-defense, but is attacking.
As he is attacking a person who had disengaged and was fleeing he was justly held responsible regardless of a duty to retreat.


VanceMack said:
Any time a story starts with "man was attacked by three people..." the ending should be "and he did whatever he felt necessary in response".
Click to expand...
If it is actually in self-defense.
In this case it wasn't. It was attacking after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
No they currently can't.
But I am not opposed to acknowledging that folks can get caught up in the moment and continue to react.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Reporting ALL the facts in a story is important. But bias reporting doesn't much care about that.
 
Excon said:
A police Officer has a proscribed duty to engage law breakers and would therefore be in the right to confront them after they fled.




No. The fight did not go from inside to outside.
That attack was over and they were fleeing. He chose to reengage and attack one as he fled. That is not self-defense, but is attacking.
As he is attacking a person who had disengaged and was fleeing he was justly held responsible regardless of a duty to retreat.
Click to expand...
Unless he left, drove around the neighborhood, found them two days later, and then stabbed one of them, he was justified in defending himself...even if that meant chasing down an attacker.

He was attacked by three men.
 
VanceMack said:
Unless he left, drove around the neighborhood, found them two days later, and then stabbed one of them, he was justified in defending himself...even if that meant chasing down an attacker.

He was attacked by three men.
Click to expand...
This was not defending himself.
What are you not getting about that?

He did this after the fact. After the attack was over and they were fleeing.
He became the attacker. He left a safe place to do it.


Like I previously said; "So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time. "
 
Excon said:
This was not defending himself.
What are you not getting about that?

He did this after the fact. After the attack was over and they were fleeing.
He became the attacker. He left a safe place to do it.


Like I previously said; "So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time. "
Click to expand...
Unless it happened a day later, its still part of the attack. This was all a part of the attack, even if the three attacked decided to try to skeedaddle.
 
VanceMack said:
Unless it happened a day later, its still part of the attack. This was all a part of the attack, even if the three attacked decided to try to skeedaddle.
Click to expand...

No. Fleeing is not part of an attack.
Had he stabbed the guy while being attacked that would have been self-defense. But not after they had disengaged and were fleeing.



After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.​
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
No. Fleeing is not part of an attack.
Had he stabbed the guy while being attacked that would have been self-defense. But not after they had disengaged.
Click to expand...
Sure it is...and you would be fine with a cop pursuing the attacker.

It is completely unrealistic to expect anyone that is being attacked to dispassionately just 'stop' once the attacker has decided they have had enough.
 
VanceMack said:
Sure it is...and you would be fine with a cop pursuing the attacker.
Click to expand...
No.

1. Fleeing after disengaging is not an attack in any legal or rational sense.
Stop arguing nonsense.
2. A police officer is charged with pursuing criminals, so it would not be an attack in any legal or rational sense either.
So stop arguing nonsense.


VanceMack said:
It is completely unrealistic to expect anyone that is being attacked to dispassionately just 'stop' once the attacker has decided they have had enough.
Click to expand...
1. Though I am not arguing this, let me point out that there was actually a sufficient break in time for a prosecutor to argue otherwise.

2. Do you really not understand what was previously said?

Again.
So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time.​

That was me already recognizing what you are now commenting on.
This current case is different from me arguing 5 years ago that a threat that changed to a non-threat in the milliseconds it took for his reaction to come to fruition, was a person caught up in the moment. And as such should be considered when sentencing him.

The current case is one in which there was a break between the disengagement and his then pursuing and stabbing one of his attackers. That is not self-defense, and he would have been convicted regardless, even if the duty to retreat law didn't exist.
That is reality.

That I recognize people can be caught up in the moment does not negate the fact that they broke the law. It only changes the punishment I would seek. Here, 18 months is a slap on the wrist for stabbing someone outside of self-defense while being caught up in the moment.
He is lucky he only got 18 months.






Pursuing and engaging your attacker and stabbing them after they have disengaged and fled, is an attack. The law will see it no other way.
If you do not believe that, go ahead and give it a try. You will end up behind bars just as he did.
 
According to Florida SYG law (and probably all States' law, SYG or not), if an attacker retreats they regain self defense applicability. No chasing on public property.
 
Excon said:
No.

1. Fleeing after disengaging is not an attack in any legal or rational sense.
Stop arguing nonsense.
2. A police officer is charged with pursuing criminals, so it would not be an attack in any legal or rational sense either.
So stop arguing nonsense.


1. Though I am not arguing this, let me point out that there was actually a sufficient break in time for a prosecutor to argue otherwise.

2. Do you really not understand what was previously said?

Again.
So unless, and until, States start recognizing that people can get caught up in the moment of what is occurring and react to it, the conviction is justified, and he is damn lucky he didn't get more time.​

That was me already recognizing what you are now commenting on.
This current case is different from me arguing 5 years ago that a threat that changed to a non-threat in the milliseconds it took for his reaction to come to fruition, was a person caught up in the moment. And as such should be considered when sentencing him.

The current case is one in which there was a break between the disengagement and his then pursuing and stabbing one of his attackers. That is not self-defense, and he would have been convicted regardless, even if the duty to retreat law didn't exist.
That is reality.

That I recognize people can be caught up in the moment does not negate the fact that they broke the law. It only changes the punishment I would seek. Here, 18 months is a slap on the wrist for stabbing someone outside of self-defense while being caught up in the moment.
He is lucky he only got 18 months.






Pursuing and engaging your attacker and stabbing them after they have disengaged and fled, is an attack. The law will see it no other way.
If you do not believe that, go ahead and give it a try. You will end up behind bars just as he did.
Click to expand...

It’s not nonsense. Any individual that was attacked has a right to defend himself. This individual was attacked by 3 people. It’s entirely unrealistic to expect someone that has been attacked by three people to just stop because the three attackers lost their stomach for the fight. This was all a continuation of the initial attack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
It’s not nonsense. Any individual that was attacked has a right to defend himself.
Click to expand...
You are still not getting it, huh?
Pursuing and stabbing an attacker after they disengaged and fled is not defending ones self, it is called attacking.
You have yet to refute the reality of that.


VanceMack said:
It’s entirely unrealistic to expect someone that has been attacked by three people to just stop because the three attackers lost their stomach for the fight.

This was all a continuation of the initial attack.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Go ahead and try it out for yourself. You will be convicted and left wondering in your cell where you went wrong

Again.

Excon said:
No. Fleeing is not part of an attack.
Had he stabbed the guy while being attacked that would have been self-defense. But not after they had disengaged and were fleeing.


After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.​
Click to expand...
Not only were the events separated by sufficient time, but also by sufficient distance in location.

He was in the wrong and would have been convicted regardless of the duty to retreat law.
You have no valid argument here.
 
It was all in the heat of the moment. The law should recognize that. Now that he's been found "guilty", what's to stop the attacker from suing him in civil court? Our justice system is screwed up.
 
VanceMack said:
Unless it happened a day later, its still part of the attack. This was all a part of the attack, even if the three attacked decided to try to skeedaddle.
Click to expand...

Link to actual reference in law that dictates timeline of self defense, please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom