A clear-cut case of self-defense in Connecticut has resulted in a conviction for manslaughter. Having been extremely familiar with this case and reviewing the evidence, I am absolutely certain the verdict was a profound miscarriage of justice. Read about it here and read the link therein.
I have recommended the best appellate lawyer for the case and hope you will do the same.
Another victim of insane, left-wing ideology. One more name to add to the 100 million or so deaths (in the 20th Century) plus the millions more (including Covid) already racked up in the 21st Century. I say “death”, in this case, because a possible 20 year sentence is, effectively, a death sentence for an 80 year old man. I doubt he would last 5 years in prison.
I made a donation and I hope that justice is still reachable for this man.
Quote of the Day:
“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” – Joseph Stalin
This is shaping up to be yet another tragedy to inflate the Left’s statistics.
Reading the first description of the incident, and then the second, I have to wonder if the extent of the victims injuries weren’t documented properly-photos + written. Given the descriptions, how the dickens was he supposed to retreat? Especially from a younger and presumably fitter man.
Related question Mas, would an ER visit be a good idea in such a case? (If EMS doesn’t roll-if they do I expect their treatment log would help.)
There was photo documentation of Mr. Fisher’s injuries.
Proxy war against the 2A indeed. If I understand Duty to Retreat correctly, it requires that the possibility exists which does not seem to be the case here.
From the CT Insider (the “link therein”): The jury may well have gotten the verdict right based on the state’s duty-to-retreat law….
From the GoGetFunding page: Despite Robert’s efforts to deescalate the situation, the man would not stop attacking him, and the man had him cornered. Terrified and no way to escape. [emphasis mine]
Is CT’s “Duty to Retreat” law so draconian that one is required to retreat even if unable to do so in safety? Or did the CT Insider get that bit wrong?
In any case, it does look like a clear self-defense case. A man in his 30s was brutally assaulting a man in his 70s, threatening to kill him, had the ability and opportunity to make good on his threats, and was indeed in the process of doing so. A reasonable person in Mr. Fisher’s position would conclude he was in grave danger and must act immediately. AND he was cornered, unable to retreat in safety (and likely unable to retreat effectively at all due to physical condition; again, attacker in his 30s, victim in his 70s).
In a state where plea deals let actual violent criminals out to commit more violent crimes, going hard after an octogenarian lawyer screams an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
The CT Insider calls this case part of “a proxy war against Second Amendment rights”. That is an excellent description. One which I may need to start using more often.
It seems to me, standing here, that it is more likely a proxy war against liberty and good health. My state has steadily devolved to a condition approaching that of Connecticut. How much further down the rat hole it will descend, and how quickly, is not clear. I am starting o consider relocating…. but to where?
I followed this case as well. Agree with your characterization of the verdict. Shame on you prosecutor and CT law.
What happens when no duty to retreat (“Stand Your Ground”) doesn’t apply, and there is a lack of understanding that blows from fists are likely (doesn’t have to be more likely than not) to result in deadly force harm. Especially to a person of his age.
I wrote about punches and kicks under Florida law in April 2024, see p.8: https://www.8jcba.org/resources/Documents/Apr%202024%20Newsletter.pdf.
Oops – p. 4.
Having lived in CT for decades, I’m disappointed but I’m certainly not surprised. The PRK (Peoples Republik of Konnecticut) is openly hostile to the 2nd and anyone foolish to try to exercise that right. I am one of the lucky ones, I was able to escape more than 15 years ago.
“I have recommended the best appellate lawyer for the case and hope you will do the same.”
Perhaps you dropped “… and donated to the cause …” ?
My donation was prior…
but what does the “hope you will do the same” refer to? I assumed you suggested to make a donation (which I did), not to recommend a lawyer.
First, Mr. Fisher was physically attacked by a criminal. By lawfully defending himself, he saved his physical life. Second, Mr. Fisher was attacked by the government of the State of Connecticut. As of right now, the State has impoverished Mr. Fisher financially, and persecuted Mr. Fisher, A CRIME VICTIM, making his life miserable. To my way of thinking, both the prosecutor and the judge in this case are government-protected criminals. They are tyrants who are persecuting an innocent man. Mr. Fisher is a victim of crime, twice.
That’s beyond despicable
This is exactly why I joined The Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Network. I have no intention of ever becoming involved in a defensive shooting, but you never know because sometimes you have no other choice. In addition, the cost of membership is very inexpensive & may go towards helping someone else who is being persecuted. If Robert Fisher had been an ACLDN member, it is likely that he never would have been convicted or financially ruined.
This seems to be a case where having a secondary, non-lethal weapon option would have been useful. Due to the age difference, clearly, this was a disparity-of-force situation. I don’t know all the details about this case, but it seems that (like a lot of people), this gentleman was carrying a handgun as his only self-defense weapon option.
Quote of the Day:
“…if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow
In other words, if your only option is to use a weapon of lethal force because going “mano a mano” is off-the-table due to disparity of force (or any other reason), then one has no option but to escalate matters up to the lethal force level.
We see one downside of such a situation here. The anti-self-defense prosecutor seized the fact that the defender used lethal force against an unarmed attacker to paint the defender as a murderer. The jury (clearly) did not understand the disparity-of-force issue (at play) and was gulled into convicting for manslaughter.
Suppose this elderly gentleman had a canister of pepper spray available in addition to his firearm? He could have tried the pepper spray first (from the linked article, it seems he had time to do so as the attacker cornered him).
If the pepper spray worked, then great! The attack would be ended without resorting to lethal force at all. If the pepper spray failed and the defender was forced to use the handgun anyway, then the fact that he tried a non-lethal option first, and it failed, would have gone a long ways toward undercutting the prosecutor’s narrative of the “Killer Old Man”.
So, one lesson from this incident is (once again) don’t rely on your lethal-force option alone. As Mas says: “A handgun is not a magic talisman that will protect you from harm just by carrying it”.
Instead, have a non-lethal option (like pepper spray) available as well. It can be an effective defense tool, in its own right, and it may also provide “public relation” benefits if you are ever forced to defend your actions at trial.
TN_MAN,
What you say is true, but;
“In fear for his life and worried what kind of weapon his attacker could have in his pocket, Robert Fisher, who had a CT Concealed Carry permit, pulled his pistol from his pocket and pointed it at his attacker. In the 15 years Robert had been legally exercising his constitutional right by frequently carrying his hand gun in his pocket, he never had to brandish it. He hoped this action would stop the assault, but devastatingly that did not happen. Very quickly, the man lunged forward at Robert, reaching with his right arm, for Robert’s gun.”
Roberts gave the attacker a warning. He pointed his gun at the attacker. Instead of putting his hands up and backing away, the attacker tried to disarm Fisher. This should convince the jury that Fisher defended himself lawfully. Because the attacker went for the gun, Fisher should never have been arrested and put on trial. There is no need for a trial in this case.
Nevertheless, what you write is helpful. It is good to have a less lethal option, if we have time to employ it before going for our guns. Pepper spray, Byrna, fist, pen, flashlight, key, knife, et cetera.
It is clear the prosecutor, judge, arresting police officers and the State of Connecticut are trying to make an example of Mr. Fisher. They want to discourage ordinary citizens from defending their own lives. They want us to submit to violent criminals.
The sheep defended himself with a gun. The sheep must be punished. To their way of thinking, only criminals and government agents can use force. Notice how they persecute Mr. Fisher, while at the same time they let violent criminals go free.
@ Roger Willco – “Because the attacker went for the gun, Fisher should never have been arrested and put on trial. There is no need for a trial in this case.”
There is no argument about that! I completely agree with you.
However, carrying a firearm with the idea of “bluffing” an attacker away is risky. If the attacker is high on narcotics, or (as seems to be true in this case) drunk on alcohol, then the attacker may be too impaired to bluff. In addition, some hardened criminals live in a “World of Violence” and, simply, do not fear or back-down from the mere display of a firearm.
The firearm is, inherently, a lethal-force weapon. IMHO, it really cannot serve two masters and function as a non-lethal weapon too. Therefore, it is always my policy to also carry a “True” non-lethal weapon option whenever I leave my home.
I always carry a small canister of pepper spray in addition to my firearm. However, pepper spray also has limitations. It is a poor choice at contact distances due to the fact that one ends up spraying oneself along with the attacker. So, I sometimes carry a “short-range” less lethal weapon, such as a walking cane, extendable baton, etc.
I favor an impact weapon at contact distances but, for age and medical reasons, I don’t want to go fisticuffs. YMMV.
The Left believes that an individual has no rights. No right to defense of your life. No right to the money you earn. No right to decide on your child’s education. No right to decide on your medical care. Only the State has rights. Why do you think they are doing anything and everything to fight Trump’s agenda?
“Why do you think they are doing anything and everything to fight Trump’s agenda?”
As you note in your comment, the leftist ideology is the ideology of a Statist. Indeed, to a leftist, the STATE is ALL and the individual is NOTHING. Since many leftists are functionally Atheist, it is fair (in my view, anyway) to say that the Left worships Government. Government (or the STATE, if you wish) fulfills the function of the GODHEAD for the Left. Hence, their total lack of any true morality.
As for fighting the Trump (or MAGA) agenda, they MUST do so. It is a matter of LIFE or DEATH to the Left. For decades, the American Left has been corruptly sucking taxpayer funds out of the Government Coffers and using the money to advance their own political power and to buy votes. The Trump agenda, and especially the work of DODG) threatens to turn off the spigot of dirty money flowing into the pockets of the Left and to fund the Democrat Political machine.
Money is the life-blood of American Politics. This flow of dirty money, robbed from the taxpayers and diverted into funding the Left’s political power, has given the Left a huge political advantage in this country. If that flow of dirty money is shut down, then the Left will be forced to compete with nothing more than their obscene ideological ideas. Instead of the Political Party with a powerful advantage in it’s pocket, they will become a weak party working at a disadvantage.
This won’t destroy the Left (completely) but it will destroy their political machine. The Democrat Party would be forced to revise itself or die. Many Leftists would rather die than change their ideology.
Thus, the Left fights to destroy President Trump because he is the greatest threat (in half a century) to their power. They must destroy President Trump, and his agenda, before President Trump does the same to them!
Thought of while in bed…..is there a go fund me website?
There should be a link in the linked story.
When I used the link, I expanded the story immediately and missed the first page heading entirely, my bad. Thanks.
While having a less lethal option is a good idea, the various systems have been known to fail spectacularly. Particularly if the subject is “under the influence.”
Mas,
As someone who lives in Kommiecticut and carries 7/24/365, I willingly pay for CCWSafe’s “Ultimate Plan”. Knowing this story and being stuck here behind enemy lines, I know for sure the state will always try to screw ANYONE who dares defend themselves. Even LEO!
I was told that one cannot appeal a decision merely because the jury got it wrong — there has to be some sort of procedural misconduct in the way the trial was carried out (e.g. evidence kept out or let it that should not have been).
What is the basis of the appeal? A claimed duty to retreat that wasn’t possible? I fear that a mere disagreement over whether fear of death or great bodily harm was reasonable — would be a basis for appeal.
I remember when this happened, Litchfield is one town over. I followed the trial and find it disgusting that a 78 year old with lower back issues backed up against his car being assaulted by a legally drunk raging younger man is told he has to retreat! Where to? How? and Why? Connecticut should remove its proud statement on its license plate “The Constitution State”. There is nothing constitutional going on in CT and nothing to be proud of either. This is lawfare and meant to scare gun owners if they use their firearms for self protection. I will donate to this gentlemans defense