Connecticut assault victim gets 18 months in jail for stabbing attacker

It’s a law against people gleefully shooting their attackers to death instead of taking the flight option which could be perfectly viable.

I understand the idea behind it, if the victim just runs nobody gets hurt. But obviously the law wasn’t very well written since nice it apparently doesn’t define what it considers to “able to run away” to mean very well.

 

You are trying to equate the wannabe cop moron Zimmerman who was playing at being a police officer ( in hue mind) two two people who were being threatened by a criminal act. Zimmerman wax no diferent than the criminals in the other two stories. Zimmerman was not the victim he was the criminal in my opinion.

 

Never shoot your attacker gleefully. Shoot them vindictively, for the good of the next person who would have been attacked.

 

What in those pictures is supposed to illustrate a bad path? Stupid taste in jewelry? Pot? Surely not support for the 2nd amendment! Flipping the bird? Have you ever know a teen boy?

 

Funny how that same rule doesn't apply when it comes to OJ's case. Also the jury agreed when it came to Roy Bryant and JW Milam and then after they were acquitted they told Life Magazine how they killed Emmitt Till.

 

They pretty much coerce defendants into pleading guilty. If they don't, the prosecutor will throw everything they have at the accused and he'll likely end up getting sentenced to twice as long.

 

In Connecticut but not in Texas, Florida and a few other states which are not leaning Socialist or authoritarian.

Not necessarily true.

 

OJ claimed he was innocent, not that he killed two people in self-defense. Nice straw man argument though.

There's a big difference in jury selections between 1955 and 2012, but I can see why you'd want to avoid admitting that fact. Secondly, there's a big difference between a 1955 all-male, all-white jury in Jim Crow Mississippi and a 2012 all-female, racially diversified jury...but I can see why you don't want to admit that fact either so it figures you'd never want to admit Zimmerman acted in self-defense when Martin attacked him and was beating him while sitting on top of him.

 

That's fine, and on an emotional level I say good for you, but in reality, the law is not based upon emotions and if you allow yourself to go from a defensive position to an offensive position in the eye of the law, you could wind up in prison even though you did not initiate or provoke the initial attack.

We have to become smarter than the bad guys and that means educating ourselves to understand the self defense laws so that we can legally defend ourselves to put the bad guys down and live happy & free afterwards.

--pete--

 

Same here, but the law has nothing to do with our emotions.

If you want to come out a winner after you've been attacked you have to be educated in the self defense laws and use the logical part of your brain to determine the best strategy and defensive move.

If we do the work now to educate ourselves and think about it, if it ever happens, we can act automatically and come out as winners.

--pete--

 

Thank you! I was trying to figure out the OJ angle and couldn’t figure out where that argument was coming from. Also, At the time OJ had money... which I’m guessing a lot of that money went to Kardashian (could OJ be indirectly responsible for the Kardashian insanity?) Cochran, Bailey, Shapiro, etc... and probably to the Goldman family when OJ was found guilty in the wrongful death suit. I think OJ still owes some for the Goldman suit.

Sorry for jumping in and the slight thread jack.
Carry on.

 

A travesty of justice no doubt. Should get a pardon.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately, money buys a lot of justice as we saw with both OJ and, a few years later, Robert Blake....both of whom were later lost lawsuits for wrongful death.

 

Actually...wasn't Connecticut the state with Ben Franklin's son as governor?

I seem to recall Ben disowned him because Connecticut was supporting the English....

 

Damn Tories!!!

 

I'm in my seventh decade. It don't matter now. And no grand jury here will indict somebody who takes out a thug anyway. I can afford to do a sacrificial good deed for the world.

 

So the guy chased his attacker and stabbed him? How is that self defense? The same thing happened a while back where two men tried robbing a store so the guy behind the counter pulls out his gun and shoot one of them while the other ran away. Fine. Textbook self defense. The problem is he chased the other guy outside and shot him in the street. Some of the same outrage was shown after he got prison time. Don't people know self defense ends when the victim becomes the one doing the attacking?