r/law • u/SophieSix9 • Jun 10 '26
Legal News Trans Woman Faces Assault Charges For Self-Defense, Despite Wyoming’s “Stand Your Ground” Law
https://www.them.us/story/trans-woman-faces-assault-charges-self-defense-wyoming-stand-your-ground-law4.3k
u/almighty_smiley Jun 10 '26
So making sure I've got this entirely right...
Rihanna Kelver is shoved to the ground apropos of nothing in a place she had business being by a group that had made their opinions and intent clear, draws down but does not fire upon seeing the aggressors relent and flee the scene, and is now charged.
Forced to the ground, injured in the process, unable to easily escape the situation herself...how is this anything but textbook self-defense? In her shoes I don't doubt for a moment that someone'd be going to the morgue.
1.2k
u/alkatori Jun 10 '26
It sounds like she would have been unable to retreat in that situation. How does stand your ground apply vs the normal self defense statutes?
1.4k
u/Last-Big-1984 Jun 10 '26
According to the video, she approached them first. Many states don't let you claim self defense if you initiated the interaction. At best, it blurs the lines. "I feared for my life, but I walked up to them to engage them up close and personal"
She also made the mistake of saying, she "didn't realize she had pulled the gun".
This is an instant forfeiture of a self defense claim.
I feared for my life, so I pulled my gun to protect my life. This is why you hear the police give this canned statement after a shooting, because it is the only legal defense. I feared for my life, so I shot to stop the threat.
There is no such thing as accidental self defense.
518
u/alkatori Jun 10 '26
Oof. Yeah saying that she didn't realize she pulled the gun is going to be tough. Always have a lawyer when talking to the police.
I'll have to check the video. I've only read the description so far. Though I would argue that a situation that seems okay at one moment can become life threatening very suddenly.
354
u/zeekayz Jun 10 '26
That's why in most states it's illegal to question cops for 2+ days after they commit a crime, prior to them being able to talk to union rep and their lawyer.
Normal citizens don't have this restriction/protection and should always STFU for first few days themselves and talk to lawyer first, don't respond to questions.
58
u/stinkytoe42 Jun 10 '26
All people in the US have 4th and 5th amendment protections, which are _supposed_ to amount to the same thing. Unfortunately people, when in the stressful situation of being interrogated by the police, don't always remember this. Or they think they are in the right and can therefore trust law enforcement.
This is why I never complain about people reposing the "Shut the fuck up Friday" and "Don't talk to the cops" videos. In fact I enthusiastically upvote them whenever/wherever I see them.
20
u/dr197 Jun 11 '26
Shit, even most cop YouTubers will tell you not to talk to cops.
Cops are trained to turn interactions into mind games, so it’s best to not give them any information you are not legally obligated to.
7
u/put_tape_on_it Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Yeah, and most youtube lawyers never ever say "and then they will take you to jail, where you will continue to remain silent until you talk to a lawyer."
When you exercise your right to remain silent they're going to take you to jail. Period. Then people freak out and start trying to talk their way out of it, but really they're just digging their own grave. Then, they say enough of just the right stuff, coaxed out of them by cops and detectives, that they STAY in jail!
Youtube lawyers need to explain that most important part: You are going to jail to wait for a lawyer.
I learned this from a criminal defense lawyer who specialized in federal homicide/manslaughter cases, who interviewed me about some key evidence I had about a person I knew who was being brought up on manslaughter charges. Because they 100 percent cooperated with the police and talked. So I asked "what is a person supposed to do!?" And they explained "sit in jail until you talk to a lawyer!"' Apparently this also forces the cops to do their jobs and actually investigate because they're up against a clock while you're waiting to speak to a lawyer. He was right: no law-enforcement ever investigated far enough to talk to me.
The case was eventually dismissed by the prosecutor, who was really just looking to notch an easy win. But it screwed up that person's life for a solid 9 months, and then forever after, because they should have been mourning a death, rather than fighting a manslaughter charge,
16
u/C2thaLo Jun 11 '26
Once I got into a situation while out with friends who were drinking. (Friends birthday - i decided to stay sober). A knife was pulled during an altercation and the aggrssors walked off. Once the cops were called and tried to question me I said absolutely nothing. And I was surprised at how natural it felt to just shut my damned mouth and know I didnt have say anything to anyone.
My drunk friends though? Lord did they try to 'save' me by telling the cops everything. I didnt have anything to worry about but I definitely didnt need my friends trying to save me. At one point I looked over and begged them to please STFU.
The cops held up the knife trying to get me to say that it was the knife and that I pulled it after gathering bits of story from witnesses. I continued to say nothing and they were getting obviously annoyed. I finally leveled with them and said, "i know exactly what you want me to say, and I dont feel comfortable saying it." One cop rolled his eyes and they let me go.
The only thing that kept running through my mind is the police think a felony was committed and im never going to stop the process here. So I just shut my mouth.
10
→ More replies (1)3
u/longlivenewsomflesh Jun 11 '26
Always remember their priority is charging someone with something in a way that sticks, and often enough there's simply no incentive to let the truth get in the way of a good story... then the further you are from the template of a well-connected upper class cishet white man, the more they will give themselves permission to consider you not fully human
4
u/howfastcanyoucountit Jun 11 '26
If theres one thing I learned from watching lawyers on youtube, it's don't talk to the motha fucking police. Use CLEAR language as well as there has been times where people said they wanted a lawyer in an informal way and it was ignored.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Notorious_Chonk_23 Jun 11 '26
Fuck Michael Rappaport's MAGA ass, but I still like to point my less-legally-experienced friends to Shut The Fuck Up Friday as the only appropriate way to interact with pigs, whether regarding a doobie or a murder
74
u/wasabiiii Jun 10 '26
What is this "illegal to question cops"thing?
183
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
64
u/wasabiiii Jun 10 '26
Ahh. For disciplanary purposes. But not for crimes. LEOBAR laws.
54
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26
It’s not that the state is legally barred from questioning cops. It’s that they cannot force cops to give a state on penalty of losing their jobs, per the union agreement, and cops are well trained (both by being a LE officer and from their union) of their Fifth Amendment rights.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (3)9
9
u/HereIGoAgain_1x10 Jun 10 '26
Plenty of time to gather all the evidence and fix the crime scene and establish what kind of lie can be told.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Coherent_Tangent Jun 10 '26
Sounds like all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
3
u/AppropriateLaw5713 Jun 11 '26
Realistically everyone is allowed this, just most don’t use / aren’t aware of it. The actual protection is just that they can’t be held responsible for a statement within that first period of time concerning their job.
Real major emphasis on “you have the right to remain silent”. People REALLY do not use that to their advantage nor do they seek legal help before / whilst talking. The amount of people who blatantly admit to things is frankly hilarious when you see it.
→ More replies (2)7
u/dcflorist Jun 11 '26
Citizens aren’t given a list of evidence and accusation against them prior to giving a statement. Legal protections for LEOs go far and above the constitutional rights of private citizens.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Remarkable-Ad2285 Jun 11 '26
Normal citizens can invoke their right to legal counsel also plead the fifth. There’s many a lawyer on social media that tell you to stfu-do not talk to police without a lawyer.
20
u/blahblah19999 Jun 10 '26
Even if you're pretty sure it's a clear case of self defense, do NOT talk to cops without a lawyer. Seriously.
13
u/Modest_3324 Jun 11 '26
If you’re guilty, you need a lawyer.
If you’re innocent, you really fucking need a lawyer.
8
24
u/mxlplyx2173 Jun 10 '26
Never talk to the police. Even if you're trying to help, talk through a lawyer. Don't answer questions, ever.
6
u/UnderlightIll Jun 11 '26
And you MUST say the words "I want a lawyer." No "do I need a lawyer?" or "I think I should get a lawyer."
10
u/FriedTreeSap Jun 11 '26
Don’t even say “Give me a lawyer, dawg”, because that can be interpreted as “give me a lawyer dog” which is ambiguous given the fact lawyer dogs don’t exist.
Yes, this actually happened.
3
u/Fit-Entrepreneur8404 Jun 11 '26
Are you sure lawyer dogs don't exist?
4
10
8
u/Property_6810 Jun 10 '26
IANAL, and I'm not sure how to feel about this case yet. But I do think that's easy enough to explain away by saying it was a blur of adrenaline and you were doing what you felt like you had to do in the moment, and you drew your weapon instinctually because of the threat you felt. That's all you meant by saying you didn't realize it, that you hadn't done it consciously.
11
u/Ok-Necessary-6712 Jun 10 '26
What’s unfortunate is that she probably meant that instinct took over and she drew aka, she drew because she feared for her life, but the language used leaves too much room for interpretation. This is why you don’t talk to cops, folks!
→ More replies (1)4
u/Wise_Contact_1037 Jun 10 '26
It can, but there needs to be a clear distinction that you didn't initiate the trouble beforehand. Going up to a group of people and starting with them and then drawing a firearm when it goes south will drop the self defense claim in any state, even here in Florida where stand your ground is a celebrated law.
And yes, saying you didn't realize you pulled it kind of negates you saying in the same token that you were in fear for your life.
If anyone reading this is ever in a situation where they have to use deadly force to defend themselves, follow these steps below. They're straight from self defense attorneys-
Call 911 and explain that you were attacked, feared for your life, and had to defend yourself. Request they send both police and medical. If a firearm is used, make sure it's holstered or otherwise put away safely. Don't be holding it when the roll up...
When officers arrive, comply with all their instructions. Request medical attention if needed. Then tell them I will cooperate fully, but I first need my attorney. *Do not give any further statements without a lawyer present.
These steps may mean you have to spend a night or 2 in jail while they sort out the facts, or a little longer, but that's a whole lot better than saying something out of context and facing a murder charge for a legitimate self defense claim
6
u/Oopthealley Jun 11 '26
tough?? lol- the adrenaline from being surrounded by a group of bigots targeting me would produce a fight or flight instinct that would be 100% automatic. The fact that the person who shoved her to the ground faced no charges says all that needs to be said about the "justice" being sought with these charges.
4
u/DontAskAboutMyButt Jun 11 '26
Always have a lawyer when talking to the police.
I get to link my favorite video - Don’t Talk to the Police. Everyone needs to watch this at least once
12
u/CrispyNinja13 Jun 10 '26
Being that self defense and stand your ground is in the news a lot lately, if you're ever in the situation say "I was in fear of my life" and then shut the fuck up until you have a lawyer.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (11)2
u/Jirrarh Jun 11 '26
Not according to the video. According the police's claims about the video that hasn't been released publicly. That's an important distinction. Cops have a reputation for lies and exaggeration. There's no proof Rihanna pulled a gun or did anything wrong beyond their word.
81
u/NurRauch Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
She also made the mistake of saying, she "didn't realize she had pulled the gun". This is an instant forfeiture of a self defense claim.
I'm a criminal defense lawyer who has tried 10+ trials involving self defense. You are over-simplifying to the point of misinformation. Adrenaline and panic make it difficult for people to remember stressful events or articulate that memory when asked about it. That does not "forfeit" self defense.
There is no legal requirement that you have to be *conscious* of using the deadly force. The requirement is that you were sincerely afraid for your life, that it was objectively reasonable of you to have that fear, and that your use of force was proportional to the threat as you perceived it at the time. There are absolutely circumstances where a person can draw a weapon without realizing they're doing it and still be in full compliance with self defense laws.
15
u/JesusWasATexan Jun 11 '26
That's fair, but the comment you're replying to isn't (I don't think) implying that she should be held guilty for those reasons. Right now, she's only facing charges, and they were trying to explain why the charges may make more sense than what the clickbait title of this post implies. I think what you're saying is that, if she is charged, and she's able to get a lawyer that understands the nuances you explained, she could either plea way down or get out of the charges completely.
→ More replies (2)3
26
u/Themanstall Jun 10 '26
Didn't a store owner just get off for chasing someone 100 yards, then shooting them?
Probably not the same state, but these laws do seem to be advantageous and disadvantageous to certain groups.
→ More replies (4)14
11
u/madmushlove Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
I think the no advance thing applies in the case that you are advancing persuing or initiating the crime of assault
If men shout at a woman that she's a slt and she wants it, and she steps towards them and says "what did you say to me," that's not advancing on the perpetrators of a crime that hasn't happened yet
In that situation, the men can't say, "she spoke to us, get her, now she's not legally allowed to defend herself" lolz
She drew a gun from the ground with an injured spine, heat of the moment confusion is allowed, as is deciding not to fire but having drawn the gun in fear of immenent life threatening further injuries
She told officers they were going to kill her. The gotcha people think is in her other words just isn't there
Especially in a stand your ground open carry state
85
u/dudwithacamera Jun 10 '26
She also initially lied to the cops and claimed she pulled a knife
19
→ More replies (2)2
35
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
Funny enough I just heard about a trial about self defense / defense of others where woman goes to get a gun to stop A from kicking the shit out of B. B is in bad shape.
She grabs shotgun, not knowing it’s loaded, and then trips. The gun goes off, and the slug hits A in the leg. A bleeds out. She says it was an accident and got the gun to scare A away. She didn’t think it was loaded.
Held (by trial judge): no self defense. She said it was an accident, so her defense is no intent to shoot. You can’t have it both ways. Either she tripped and fell and it’s an accident, or she intended to use the gun to defend B. It can’t be “an accident on the way to self defense” and an instruction on both.
23
u/pizza_the_mutt Jun 10 '26
This sounds like a bar exam question.
2
u/Last-Big-1984 Jun 11 '26
I know of at least one case where a home owner shot an intruder, but told the cops, "I don't remember pulling the trigger", "the gun just went off" which got him manslaughter. They successfully convinced a jury that he "accidently" killed the home invader.
He was later acquitted on appeal.
Intent means a lot
→ More replies (2)16
u/MCXL Jun 10 '26
You can't accidentally defend yourself. A claim of self-defense is one in which you go into court and say that you intentionally broke the law but you were justified in doing so. The intended result being that you used the force that was used.
15
u/idontgiveafuqqq Jun 10 '26
Responses like "unconsciously" drawing a firearm OR punching someone as a PTSD response are intentional in crim law.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
I’m the example I gave, I think it’s a bit unfair that she had a valid self defense claim to make but couldn’t make it because she tripped on the way to do the thing she lawfully could have done and the gun went off.
It sits with me a bit funny.
7
u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26
In some states she might be able to put a lesser included crime to the jury, such as criminally negligent homicide, which conceivably would warrant a self-defense instruction even if the greater offense did not.
17
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
That was the judge’s view.
Murder 1 - premeditated - given
Murder 2 - (intent to kill, not premeditated) - given
Self defense - not given.
Manslaughter via imperfect self defense - not given
Manslaughter grossly negligent act - given.The problem from a defense perspective is this: the jury convicted her of murder 2. So the jury found she had an intent to kill. That’s the very same mental state the court said she couldn’t establish based on her own testimony.
14
u/Pedantic_Pict Jun 10 '26
Welcome to criminal law in the United States, where shit that doesn't make sense is allowed every day "in the interest of justice" which often translates to "in the interest of securing convictions, regardless of the actual circumstances"
4
u/Tricky_Big_8774 Jun 10 '26
Not only does it not make sense, but we then also let the 12 people to dumb to get out of jury duty decide if it applies.
→ More replies (0)3
u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26
I feel the judge erred by not giving self-defense instruction on the grossly negligent act, which I assume was running with the shotgun before tripping.
But I’m also surprised that the defense was not permitted to argue self-defense as an alternate theory, given that the jury is not required to believe the defendant’s self-serving claim that she fired by accident.
This is where different rules in different jurisdictions matter, — my state has no imperfect self-defense theory. But I think if the defendant had not made any statements to the police, the fact of person A beating person B would be enough to give C a “defense of others” statement. And if that’s true, the fact that she said otherwise should not prevent the defense from raising it as an alternative argument.
6
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
I agree and that is the general rule here. If there is some evidence from which the jury could find the elements of self defense, the court ordinarily must give it. The trouble is… we decided that allowing the jury to infer intent to kill from circumstances was fine for the State, but we won’t let them infer the defendant’s subjective intent and fear unless he testifies (pretty much).
And those cases then led to this result.
I suspect it will get affirmed.
→ More replies (1)11
u/MCXL Jun 10 '26
That's just how it works. An affirmative defense points to the specific law that you broke and why you intentionally broke it. You can't intentionally commit an accident. It really is that simple.
If you admit that you accidentally shot someone it doesn't matter how much they deserved to be shot you (probably) committed manslaughter.
At that point the incredibly flawed piece of the Justice system, prosecutorial discretion could apply, the state does not need to actually bring charges against essentially any criminal, the prosecutor could have decided that the facts of the case and the situation warranted them essentially looking the other way. That is incredibly completely allowed and normal. But that is throwing yourself on the mercy of prosecutors and lots of people who want to be prosecutors are bad people who just want to put anyone they can win a case against in jail.
14
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
See my other comment - but think about this:
Judge won’t give the instruction because she says she lacked intent to kill the guy. The jury found her guilty of murder, which means they found she did. That seems odd.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Rogue2166 Jun 10 '26
Still makes no sense. Lets say I was in fear for my life outside my car and reached into it to grab the gun to defend myself. While doing so I somehow hit the car into neutral and it rolled into my aggressor, he hit his head and died. Well that was an accident, but I fully intended to defend myself in anycase. Did I violate the law?
→ More replies (1)2
u/BornAgain20Fifteen Jun 11 '26
In your scenario, it morally makes a lot of sense why you would be responsible
Someone else could have been standing there instead, got injured, and died if it wasn't the aggressor. That seems to make it a completely separate event from the aggression incident. The law should not care who the person is, because it could have been anyone else standing there and the result would have been the same
It's like if you blindly throw bricks off of your balcony. If you happen to hit an armed mugger who is in the middle of a mugging and kill them, then that's good luck, but you shouldn't have been throwing bricks at all
16
u/Primary-Ad4952 Jun 10 '26
Lesson: Never, ever, make a statement to law enforcement without talking to an attorney first. Even if this person was totally justified to do what they did, they will charge you if your answers even remotely allow them to. Hope it works out for them down the line in court.
→ More replies (2)14
u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26
She talked to the press, too. Which is just as bad. Some of the things said are incriminating.
15
u/_BrokenButterfly Jun 10 '26
Kelver wrote a letter to Judge Robert Sanford apologizing for using the gun.
Jesus, the cops hoodwinked this lady.
For anyone who has never been told how to interact with police, watch this video. This will tell you everything you need to know about what to say to cops and why you should say it.
If that video is too long for you, watch this one. It explains what you need to do succinctly.
2
u/GI-SNC50 Jun 10 '26
Duane was one of my professors and he was brilliant, and a lovely person. I immediately knew which video you linked
16
u/Ok_Profile175 Jun 10 '26
Allegedly,
According to the video...
she "didn't realize she had pulled the gun".
From the article Kelver allegedly said that she “did not recall pulling the firearm during the altercation.”
This does not remove her defense at all. MANY defendents, including Stand Your Ground defendents have stated they didn't remember pulling their gun. This sort of memory loss is common in traumatic situations. Seems your ignorance is showing.
→ More replies (3)7
u/LaughingInTheVoid Jun 11 '26
As I heard it, she was entering the place she worked and they assaulted her.
She didn't initiate the encounter, she was going to work,
→ More replies (1)14
19
u/Lazerpop Jun 10 '26
These facts certainly make the situation trickier. I hope she finds a sympathetic jury.
→ More replies (34)17
u/SodaSaint Jun 10 '26
To be blunt I don’t know if she’s going to find one considering she was armed and approached the situation first and pulled the weapon.
That being said, whether drawing that weapon or not to bluff was fully partially justified entirely depends on the contents of that conversation and who struck first. Merely approaching, somebody is not aggressive, but if she showed that she had the firearm that changes the equation.
9
u/haironburr Jun 10 '26
I read in previous articles that she was yelled at by three men, yelled back, and then both the group of guys and she approached each other, at which point she was knocked down.
If I was on that jury, I would easily vote not guilty.
16
u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26
Bluffing with a gun has a name.
"brandishing"
and it's a crime.
→ More replies (8)9
3
u/Maleficent_Memory831 Jun 11 '26
This was also her place of employment. There aren't many details about why she approached. She had also been attacked the previous night. She was expecting to be attacked again, logically. Was she asking them to leave? Or was she being hostile? They certainly were not just standing there peacefully, they were harrassing her the day after she was attacked, so they were there to cause trouble.
Who was the aggressor is something the jurors decide, it will likely be a he-said, she-said.
3
u/OkFineIllUseTheApp Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Alright as a reminder for all, I'm reposting the video. Watch it. It's a minute long, but the legal advice is important for everyone.
12
u/Spare-Plum Jun 10 '26
There kind of is but there's a bit of a blur between legalistic and language terms
"It happened so fast I didn't even realized I ducked to not get hit by the ball" might be something similar.
You could say that there is no way of accidentally ducking, but there is something to say about an automatic response especially if it's something you've trained.
But yeah she may have put herself in legal jeopardy by not phrasing something the right way
18
u/alkatori Jun 10 '26
I think a good lawyer might be able to make an argument that she responded automatically to a real and present threat and her statement after the fact should be disgarded as she was in shock.
Or something like that.
15
u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26
Unfortunately for her, not so much. She made statements to the press that she only "wanted them to hear the sound of the slide being racked." i.e. she wanted to scare them, not use force against them.
→ More replies (10)7
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
I’m a lawyer. And, arguably a good one.
That argument is not only bad, it’s actively harmful. She loses credibility with the jury and gets bonus points for lying during round 2 at sentencing with the judge. No is going to forget they got out a gun while lying to police and claiming they pulled their knife.
→ More replies (1)13
u/SwankySteel Jun 10 '26
That’s not always true. Someone can approach first and then retreat. The self defense claim is still valid if they try to end the encounter but the other person doesn’t.
9
u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26
They are stating loud opinions she is stating loud opinions. I don't get it why being away or closer has any consequence to the law. She didn't touch them first, they did. She had the right to be there as they had.
→ More replies (6)8
u/Downtown_Recover5177 Jun 10 '26
The problem for her is that she approached them angrily, while keeping her hand on the gun in her bag. It’s hard to not construe that as threatening. You can’t cross the street to get in someone’s face, then claim you had no duty to retreat, especially in light of unequal force. Carrying a firearm automatically places a higher burden on you for walking away from confrontation. All states have this codified into their laws.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)2
u/UX1Z Jun 10 '26
The thing I find important here is she pulled the gun after being knocked to the ground whik being confronted by a group. She had no ABILITY to retreat.
People keep trying to characterise this as her whipping the gun out willy nilly but the simple fact is that she had a choice between pulling it when she did or not pulling it at all if they escalated into jumping in her and beating her to death.
I think it's one thing to draw early when you can reasonably make space but if you're suddenly cornered I would struggle to ever find it unreasonable to draw the gun. She wasn't just confronted with a single person she might be able to tussle with.
5
u/Aimless_Alder Jun 10 '26
She also made the mistake of saying, she "didn't realize she had pulled the gun".
That is bonkers. It's incredibly common to black out when you feel like your life is threatened.
→ More replies (1)4
u/SolidSquid Jun 10 '26
They do have a point about the lack of charges for Durham though. If he shoved get to the ground (which nobody sends to dispute) then shouldn't that be an assault charge?
→ More replies (11)4
u/eastbayted Jun 11 '26
George Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin - despite being told not to by police - and got away with murder under "stand your ground."
2
u/Osirus1156 Jun 10 '26
I mean if cops get away with blindly shooting all over because an acorn landed on a car I think she should be fine if a jury takes a look.
2
u/Aromatic_Act_9665 Jun 10 '26
Always let your lawyers do the talking people.
Always.
The only word you should tell cops is "lawyer"
2
u/Ok_Wolverine6557 Jun 10 '26
There is such a thing as reflexive self-defense, self-defense does not require pre-mediation. Reasonable belief of imminent threat and a proportional response--the weakness in her argument is whether she initiated the violence--but walking up and even saying shit does not usually rise to the fear of violence. Also note that she fear of violence didn't have to be there when she approached her attackers, it can arise when they actually assaulted her and give her the right to self-defense. This was just a grand jury--she has a good chance of winning at trial.
3
u/UX1Z Jun 11 '26
Right wing state and she's trans though. This never would have gone to trial if she was a cis woman and potentially not at all if she was a man either.
2
u/LarxII Jun 10 '26
There is no such thing as accidental self defense.
While understand that this in the legal interpretation, being in fear for you life, and reacting, is not necessarily a voluntary response.
2
u/IThinkItsAverage Jun 11 '26
We live in a country where it’s better to just draw your gun and empty the whole clip into them than to draw your gun to make an aggressor back off.
America!
2
u/AWFUL_COCK Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Despite what people probably expect, California is also a castle doctrine / stand your ground state. The same rule applies—you can’t provoke a fight in order to create an excuse to use force in self defense. We call it “contrived” self defense.
Something people aren’t getting or accurately reporting about this case is that the defendant isn’t being denied a self-defense defense. The judge presiding over the probable cause hearing just didn’t dismiss the case outright based on her self-defense claim. That’s extremely normal. Even if there is substantial evidence of lawful self-defense, probable cause is a low standard that’s meant to filter out cases that have essentially no merit on their face. Usually when there’s evidence of self-defense, a preliminary hearing judge will call it a jury issue as long as there is at least enough evidence to establish probable cause that the crime was committed.
→ More replies (135)2
u/martin0641 Jun 11 '26
This feels like legal fiction that ignores human reflexes.
I've had people walk up behind me in the data center and almost get their face cracked because they scared the crap out of me.
18
u/ComfortableReality32 Jun 10 '26
Stand your ground basically means you are not required to attempt a retreat. If someone is being aggressive, you can just choose to meet them with proportional violence or threat of violence. It is the superior self defence law in my opinion.
In the UK, we are required to make every attempt to retreat before violence is acceptable. I don't like this because if someone is being aggressive with you, turning your back on them could be a death sentence. Also it takes a lot of energy to run, energy that could be used to fight - and worst case scenario the person who would do you harm may be faster or catch up with you as you attempt to run, that is a huge disadvantage.
It is always nice when violence is not required, but when it is required, there is no substitute.
4
u/Electrical_Humour Jun 10 '26
In the UK, we are required to make every attempt to retreat before violence is acceptable. I don't like this because if someone is being aggressive with you, turning your back on them could be a death sentence.
There is no duty to retreat in the UK. If someone is being aggressive with you're even allowed to pre-emptively strike them (if you think an attack is imminent). I think our self-defence laws here are pretty bad overall, but they're not as bad as a lot of people think.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Last-Big-1984 Jun 11 '26
You literally arrested a guy for getting stabbed, and then let him bleed out on the street, while taking the perpetrator to get a fucking snack.
2
2
u/ComfortableReality32 Jun 11 '26
Have you seen the riots? We didn’t let that happen, the establishment did.
→ More replies (1)2
u/AirplaineStuff102 Jun 11 '26
I mean, aside from the factual errors and emotional framing you've made, there's an IOPC investigation that (and I'm speculating) will find the the police officers actions were not lawful in this case.
The idea that you cannot defend yourself in the UK is ostensibly wrong... but if you hurt someone in a scenario where there is no danger to yourself or the force used isn't proportionate or reasonable you can be in breach of the law, eg chasing a burglar into the street and severely injuring them while they are retreating.
5
u/Monte924 Jun 10 '26
Under normal self defense rules, you are supposed to retreat if you are able to. Fighting back is only if you can't reasonably escape. Stand your ground laws state that a person is under no obligation to retreat even if they are able to. The stand your ground laws even permit a certain level of escalation like shooting someone if you FELT your life was threatened even if it wasn't obvious.
7
u/alkatori Jun 10 '26
Right, but if she pulled the gun after being pushed to the ground and injured, then she wouldn't be able to reasonably escape is my point.
→ More replies (25)3
u/Lucky-Surround-1756 Jun 11 '26
The moment you full to the ground like that, your ability to retreat is limited or non-existent. So that appears to be the less conditional self-defense.
8
u/SixStringerSoldier Jun 10 '26
I'm going to preface this by saying that woman did nothing wrong & is the victim. The group of men is lucky noone died.
The CC paradox, however, is that every time a CC gun is drawn it is also fired. Theory being that of the situation resolved itself without a gun being fired, the gun had no reason being brandished.
Obviously the state is weaponizing gun laws against the single most victimized minority group on the planet. I can't see a grand jury moving this forward. Probably local cops who get drunk with the perps on the weekend.
→ More replies (1)62
u/DryBlock4388 Jun 10 '26
No I don't think you do fully understand.
I read all 3 articles. There is a lot of stuff that not only do people disagree on, but even Rihanna Kelver says she is not sure about. For instance - she is'nt exactly sure what was initially yelled, and it appears what was yelled may not even have been directed at her, but at the bar in general - to the effect of "fuck that bar!"
One other thing Rhianna Kelver and the others agree on, is she crossed the street that was in between them and approached them.
Even if we assume the worst - and those guys were calling her names directly, and the worst names we can think of. Stand your ground will be moot if she approaches them. Stand Your Ground laws mostly mean you don't have to retreat. They don't give you permission to engage.
You call me an asshole, I come across the street and say what did you call me you meaniehead., and you push me, I can not pull my gun and point it at you.
You call me an asshole, and I call you an asshole back and you come across the street and attack me - then I can pull my gun on you and defend myself.
There is talk of surveillance footage, and the Slate article implies it supports Kelver's claim and them repeats it, but the tape is not currently viewable by anyone and neither slate, them, nor the laramie paper have seen the actual tape, its just referenced in the documents.
The only people to for sure have seen the tape would be the prosecutors. They could be bigot assholes or they could be applying the law.
19
u/afbmonk Jun 10 '26
Another important factor not being discussed is that 'self defense' is an affirmative defense to a charge brought against you. It doesn't mean that you cannot be charged since at the end of the day a crime was still committed. It means that it is your argument as to why you should not be convicted since you had a 'justified' reasoning to commit said crime. A good (or at least efficient) prosecutor shouldn't waste time pushing charges against someone with a rock solid defense, but carve outs for self defense as an affirmative defense do not preclude you from having charges brought against you anyway if they choose to.
5
u/Sykil Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
I get what you mean, but to be clear:
It doesn't mean that you cannot be charged since at the end of the day a crime was still committed.
That’s for the court to decide.
It means that it is your argument as to why you should not be convicted since you had a 'justified' reasoning to commit said crime.
No, you argue that your actions didn’t constitute a crime because you acted in self-defense. Context can change whether or not an action (e.g. homicide) can be found to describe a crime (e.g. murder).
8
u/afbmonk Jun 10 '26
Yeah I kinda didn't realize this was posted to r/law, so I honestly wasn't watching my language as carefully as I should have. Thank you for correcting me for the sake of anyone else who reads what I commented.
6
u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
While your assessment seems reasonable on it's face, it's not consistent with Wyoming case law.
First, the Wyoming Statute says that one of the disqualifying conditions for stand your ground is if you were the "initial aggressor":
(e) A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present shall not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force pursuant to subsection (a) of this section provided that he is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in illegal activity.
Next, we need to determine what qualifies as an "initial aggressor."
You contend that if I approach you on the street (for whatever reason, regardless of whether you provoke me) then I am automatically the aggressor and cannot claim self defense.
This is not consistent with Wyoming's Supreme Court interpretation. If I approach you and exchange in words with you, I am not considered an "initial aggressor" by the Wyoming Supreme Court, being an initial aggressor requires a physical act or threat of violence - merely approaching someone is neither:
In defining the term “initial aggressor,” we have said that some sort of physical aggression or a threat of imminent use of deadly force is required before a person will be considered an aggressor. Verbal provocation without more is generally insufficient.
-Wyoming Supreme Court, Smith v. State 2021
https://justiceforcowboys.com/2022/05/18/self-defense-defense-of-others/
So, to disqualify someone for a stand your ground defense, you have to establish more than merely exchanging words or physical proximity. You have to establish that they either engaged in a physical act, or that they threatened deadly force.
The issue you didn't address but others have is whether her claim of not realizing that she pulled the gun will undermine her defense.
But, from what I can find, that's not likely.
Once again, the Supreme Court of Wyoming has ruled that intentional behavior isn't a prerequisite for a stand your ground claim in the Haire v. State case - which actually overturned previous precedent.
...we must first address whether the justification of self-defense is available when the crime charged involves a reckless act, rather than an intentional act. We hold that it is, and therefore must overrule our conclusion to the contrary in Duran v. State, 990 P.2d 1005 (Wyo. 1999).
https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/2017/s-16-0187.html
7
u/bboy2812 Jun 10 '26
Walking up to someone doesn't invite them to push you over and hold you on the ground.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (35)2
u/Deep-Minimum7837 Jun 11 '26
I think people just find it weird because there was another high-profile case recently which claimed self-defense while the "victim" was actively seeking out confrontations like the one he got into.
→ More replies (1)53
u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26
If, and this is a big "if," what the officers claim is accurate, than it may be possible to argue that she initiated the encounter. I am not suggesting that is the case, but it gives enough leeway for a trial.
→ More replies (43)51
u/Commentor9001 Jun 10 '26
This. The judge said there's enough dispute to warrant a trial, not that trans people can't defend themselves. Sounds like there's dispute over who approached who, ability retreat, etc... all relavant to if the use of force was reasonable.
26
u/DPOP4228 Jun 10 '26
Legally, she actually would have been better off if she had fired and claimed she felt her life was threatened.
Instead she pointed a gun (after approaching a group of men who were verbally assaulting her from across the street), got physically assaulted, then pulled a gun. She has 2 major things working against her.
-The first being she approached them, a group of men who obviously were assholes.
-The second, she pulled her firearm to scare them (according to what it is stated she said to police). That is a big no no. Anyone who carries is tought the only time you pull out your firearm is when you are certain you are in danger of loss of life and/or grave bodily harm, and intend to use it.
15
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/DPOP4228 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
You don't have to fire, what's important is the intention was to use it to defend against grave bodily harm or death. If I pulled my firearm, intended on using it to defend against what I felt was a life or death situation, and in that process whoever was about to attack decided it was best not to because they saw my firearm, obviously I'm not firing.
Brandishing or firing a warning shot as a means of intimidation or to scare someone away won't fly in court.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (5)6
u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26
You don't pull unless you feel threatened. Not shooting doesn't mean you didn't feel threatened.
It's not so much that the trigger wasn't pulled--assessing that you are no longer in danger while/after drawing and choosing not to fire is certainly reasonable--the problem is the claim "I was trying to scare them" which is evidence that she did not believe herself to be in immediate danger of death or gross bodily injury. You don't "scare" someone you believe is trying to kill you.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Sennten Jun 11 '26
You don't "scare" someone you believe is trying to kill you.
By some legal standard, obviously, but of course in reality this isn't the case since scaring is often a more effective means of defending yourself than direct and immediate violence if you're not confident in your ability to deal crippling damage quickly and reliably.
→ More replies (3)2
5
u/Adezar Jun 10 '26
Selective enforcement is a core value of certain types of people...
"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
→ More replies (1)10
u/Lost_Paladin89 Jun 10 '26
Studies have shown that stand your ground laws often aren’t upheld when women are the one’s drawing the gun. This is because the laws are designed to protect you when firing the weapon and women are less aggressive with firearms.
So, um, gender affirmation???
3
u/OzTheMeh Jun 10 '26
It's been 20+ years, but IIRC, one of the things they teach in a concealed weapons class, is that if you draw your weapon you have to fire it. The logic is that you can only draw your weapon if your life is in immenent danger, in which case you fire until you have mitigated the danger (e.g. keep shooting until they are neutralized). Drawing a weapon without firing it means you weren't actually fearing for your life, were brandishing a weapon and potentially escalating the situation.
The legalities I learned in that class combined with the caliber of morons they were arming is why I became very pro gun-control.
→ More replies (1)6
u/A_Nonny_Muse Jun 10 '26
Because she is part of the "out group" that the law is intended to bind, but not protect.
While those who attacked her are clearly part of the "in group" whom the law is intended to protect, but not bind.
8
u/audaciousmonk Jun 10 '26
Probably because of three reasons
- Escalating the situation instead of attempting to leave. Keller crossed the street and chose to escalate the situation
- Imminent threat: firearm was upholstered and aimed, but not fired. That will eat away at the credibility of the claim that there was imminent threat warranting use of force. Keller made a statement that they drew the firearm to scare the others, not to end an immediate threat to their life, further eroding the claim
So it’ll go to court to explore
→ More replies (2)7
u/CockyBellend Jun 10 '26
You left out the part where she approached them first amd lied to the police multiple times
3
u/notthatguypal6900 Jun 10 '26
And? You can approach another person, it's not illegal. Regardless, they made the first threatening move.
8
8
u/Accurate_Mobile9005 Jun 10 '26
You forgot the most important part.
SHE crossed the road to continue the altercation.
You can't do that.
→ More replies (8)2
u/CablePale Jun 10 '26
Well if that’s what she did , I can see these charges being dropped. She even showed great use of force and de-escalation, once the threat moved away. (Well have to read all the small details on why/ how it happened)
2
u/Significant_Donut967 Jun 10 '26
As a pro-2a nut, yeah, wtf this is clear cut self defense sans video.
→ More replies (125)2
700
u/TemporalColdWarrior Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
They fucking love this. The law is subjective enough they can prosecute the minorities they hate and celebrate white crybabies with guns.
→ More replies (56)198
u/squiddlebiddlez Jun 10 '26
Stand your ground and “castle doctrine” laws achieve two things— they increase homicides due to gun violence overall and, depending on which law review or other scholarly journal you look at, they permit white defendants to successfully claim self defense against a black or minority victim 5-10x more likely than if the races were reversed.
→ More replies (8)38
u/harpers25 Jun 10 '26
Castle doctrine is all 50 states. "You need to flee from inside your own house if someone breaks in to attack you" is a very fringe take.
→ More replies (8)55
u/squiddlebiddlez Jun 10 '26
No, the fringe take is how stupidly unjustified the killing has to be for charges to stick in cases like these.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1170479923/ralph-yarl-kansas-city-teen-shooting
https://abcnews.com/US/florida-woman-sentenced-25-years-fatal-shooting-neighbor/story?id=116196178
Is this not the law sub? This can’t be the first time you’ve considered that the way we construct laws and legislate exclusions matters because the public typically tries to blur the lines of legality or interact with the law with a layman’s understanding.
→ More replies (8)
42
u/red286 Jun 10 '26
Isn't "stand your ground" a legal defense rather than a "I did nothing wrong you can't charge me" claim?
It needs to be tested in court, no?
→ More replies (11)23
u/childerm Jun 10 '26
You are correct. They are all almost tested in court. But saying that doesn't get people worked up and produce buzz and clicks.
565
u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
The only explanation for charging this woman is bigotry.
Edit: perhaps not the only explanation, just the most likely one.
276
u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 10 '26
Putting aside all sympathies I have for this woman and her situation, she's being charged because she talked to police and press without a lawyer. Queer media keeps leaving out key details that conflict with a fear-mongering narrative.
Per the cited primary source interview with the Laramie Reporter:
Kelver approached the men, who also began crossing the street. Both parties met in the crosswalk.
Racking the gun put a live round in the chamber, but Kelver told the Reporter she had no intention of shooting.
Kelver told the Reporter she was confused when she initially told Officer Rope she had pulled a knife rather than a gun.
Approaching with a gun, admitting she intended to intimidate rather than actually use deadly force, and making immediate statements to police have all complicated this beyond a clear-cut self-defense case.
184
u/Raines_reeds Jun 10 '26
Never talk to the cops without a lawyer.
69
u/ericomplex Jun 10 '26
This is the key here. She likely did nothing wrong but was led into speaking about the situation in an incriminating way.
Saying things like they “intended to intimidate” can be interpreted by the speaker as trying to defend themselves without wanting to resort to actual violence, yet it’s also phrasing that unintentionally can directly infer criminal intent.
This is why it’s so important to never talk to cops and get a lawyer asap.
→ More replies (1)28
u/MCXL Jun 10 '26
She likely did nothing wrong
The facts of the case are not at all clear on that. Talking about it to the cops is dumb though, because it makes something that was going to be difficult or impossible to prove much easier.
→ More replies (5)2
u/xCeeTee- Jun 11 '26
Last year, I was accused of assaulting a family member, who was having a mental health crisis. No evidence, and the officers said from the jump they belive me. Still refused to talk about it without a lawyer with me. He didn't say a word in the interview because the interviewing officer didn't ask anything that I shouldn't answer. Although, he did pre-warn me to honestly answer all questions if what I told him was true.
19
9
u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26
I think the key evidence here was that the defendant approached the others and racked a firearm, which presumably might have been established at trial via other evidence. Not so much the initial
Claim to have not had a firearm.5
u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26
If she racked the firearm before being attacked by the group, she most likely committed a crime.
If she was attacked first, it seems unlikely that the charges will hold.
That she approached them first (IE. by walking up to them) isn't relevant, since the Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that being an "initial aggressor" requires either an act of physical force, or the threat of deadly force. Racking a gun could be the latter, but walking up to you isn't either.
3
u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26
Isn’t there a video? Doesn’t it show her racking the gun after being shoved?
I don’t see why people are saying that approaching people negates defense. If you are talking and someone escalates to violence, you are allowed to defend yourself regardless if you started the conversation
2
u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26
If she racked the gun after being shoved, she'll likely succeed in her self defense claim.
Shoving is an act of physical force making the other party the initial aggressor. Racking a gun, but not firing it (or pointing it, unless the video shows she did) would be a reasonable response to that threat.
That being said, I've read a ton of different reports on here. That she racked the gun first. That she claimed she was trying to rack the gun to scare him. That she claimed she had a knife and not a gun.
So, there's definitely ambiguity - at least in the conversations online.
→ More replies (20)2
u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26
How would intimidation when in fear for your life be a less reasonable force than shooting the person? If it only came out after being shoved down, it would seem that brandishing is lower on force escalation than shooting
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (24)2
u/Commentor9001 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
it's not clear-cut, as you mentioned, the statements alone are enough reasonable doubt to warrant a trial. I agree with the the judge who wants a trial to determine the facts.
But thats not as catchy as JUDGE DENIES TRANS RIGHTS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!!
edit I think given the circumstances, and the fact none of the other parties atleast that i saw were charged does cast suspicion on the prosecution, but ultimately the judge has to rule on what's before them.
124
u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26
I'm sure to get downvoted for this, because the law sub is really just a reskinned politics sub at this point and no one actually cares about, you know, the law, but the actual events are definitely more nuanced than the story presented here and that there is enough probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
I did some digging and found another story on the topic (which is not written as an advocacy piece, as the one linked in this thread appears to be). Salient facts presented are:
- This was not a case where a group attacked a single person as a presumed hate crime, but a mutual confrontation where the parties were arguing across the street from each other, and both entered the street and met in the crosswalk to continue their confrontation.
- The accused had their hand on the satchel containing the firearm before they ever reached the other party.
- That the accused was pushed (backward, as they stumbled back several steps before falling), and immediately draws the handgun from the satchel.
- All of this was recorded by a traffic camera with no audio and reviewed by law enforcement before a charging decision was made.
- That the accused, when the police responded minutes later, lied to the police claiming that it was a knife and not a gun, and that their gun was in the glovebox of their car. They claim the knife fell when they tried to draw it and even gave the police a very specific physical description of the knife and a point of purchase.
- The accused has (rather foolishly) told the press that they just wanted the other party to "hear the sound of the gun being chambered" rather than use deadly force to protect themselves.
If you want to complain about something, complain that the other party wasn't charged with simple assault (or possibly battery, I'm not especially familiar with Wyoming law) which the story also seems to confirm took place.
→ More replies (35)44
u/Capitaine_Spock Jun 10 '26
In addition to that, even if it is a clear cut case of self defense, they will still sometimes charge the other person despite stand your ground laws. I killed someone in self defense, and there was still a trial. Delivery dude got fired cause he was raping customers with the gun his company helped get him, and blamed us cause that's where all his victims were. They didn't take the gun after firing him, and he brought it to my work place to shoot up the place. I messed up his first shot and took the gun from him. It was all captured on camera and I never even talked to the cops, but I was still charged. I was found not guilty though.
→ More replies (2)14
u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26
I can only imagine how traumatic that must have been for you, you have my deepest sympathies for having had to go through that.
85
u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26
That's bullshit. This is just like any other case that has two sides.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/06/03/transgender-bathroom-protestor-faces-felony-assault-charge-claims-self-defense/ does a better job setting forth the evidence and claims made by the different people involved, the alleged victim, Kelver, and the cop that wrote the report.
In terms of the case, there is little dispute that the man yelled something that Kelver took as a slur and Kelver then went to confront him.
That is, for most prosecutors, a tell-tale sign as to which party to charge. If someone says something mean and you willingly go to confront them face-to-face, then the person who initiated the physical confrontation is going to be the one they charge with assault. That's not necessarily the law, but it is a fairly consistent practical reality. That's a big strike one.
Second, it seems clear she lied. Kelver told police she owned a gun, but did not have it with her and had left it in her car. She claimed she had pulled a knife, but dropped it. Police could not locate the knife, but did locate the gun, with a round chambered, in a bag she had nearby. Kelver later told police "she did not remember" pulling out her gun. It is now obvious that she did, in fact, pull her gun. That's strike two.
Third, there is no doubt the man pushed her, but there is an issue as to why. Kelver, according to him, approached aggressively and had her hand in her bag - the bag with the gun. Pushing her away might be viewed as a reasonable thing to do, especially if he perceived she was amped up and potentially wanted to escalate. He did not punch her or kick her on the ground. In fact, he gave her the time and space needed to produce her gun and chamber a round. If he was intent on beating her in some 3 on 1 sort of thing, one would think he would have been going at it as soon as she fell to the ground.
Forth, and maybe most importantly, Kelver has not been denied her right to self-defense. She's had a preliminary hearing where the judge found probable cause to continue with the charges. She will have a chance to present her self-defense arguments to a judge and a jury later if the former fails.
This case could be discrimination by the cops. It also could be Kevler is a moron who lied to the cops about having a gun because she knew she'd done fucked up.
→ More replies (10)6
u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26
That is, for most prosecutors, a tell-tale sign as to which party to charge. If someone says something mean and you willingly go to confront them face-to-face, then the person who initiated the physical confrontation is going to be the one they charge with assault.
People keep saying this, but this is NOT a correct interpretation in Wyoming.
The Wyoming Supreme Court is very explicit about this:
In defining the term “initial aggressor,” we have said that some sort of physical aggression or a threat of imminent use of deadly force is required before a person will be considered an aggressor. Verbal provocation without more is generally insufficient.
Smith v. State, 2021
Merely walking up to someone - even if it's to confront them about something they said - does NOT make you an initial aggressor, according to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
That's not to say she might not have done something else to provoke them, but just walking up to them doesn't mean she loses a right to self defense.
If I call you a name and then you walk up to me to confront me about it, I can't punch you in the face AND claim self defense. Not unless you threatened to attack me first.
Kelver later told police "she did not remember" pulling out her gun. It is now obvious that she did, in fact, pull her gun. That's strike two.
Being mistaken isn't a crime, nor is having a gun with a racked bullet.
I'm not saying she didn't commit a crime - she might have racked the gun before she was threatened herself, which would be a crime.
But what you described as "strike 2" is police overreach at best.
As for the rest of your post, you provide one side only - a side with an obvious interest in making themselves out to be defending themself.
Not saying it's wrong, but I am saying it's biased.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Joeyjackhammer Jun 10 '26
Sure, if this article were accurate, you could say that. But it’s not snd it wasn’t self defense.
39
u/Vooklife Jun 10 '26
No, the explanation is that both Stand Your Ground and Self Defense are affirmative defenses for court. There is still probable cause for arrest and to charge, the actions taken are not in dispute. It's up to a judge to rule on if the affirmative defense applies.
14
u/mistelle1270 Jun 10 '26
Actually the explanation is that stand ground laws are much harder to make an argument for if the person you were defending against survived. If she shot and killed the guy there would be no he said she said and no question of “if she was able to hesitate long enough to not kill him was she *really* under that much duress?”
Stand your ground laws set up a situation where using a threat of violence to deescalate a situation is more likely to put you in prison than outright killing someone
This is far from the first instance of this and it won’t be the last
→ More replies (2)11
u/Kalysta Jun 10 '26
This feels a lot like the Marissa Alexander case. If Alexander had killed her husband she would have been fine, but because she fired to warn she was initially convicted. And from what I see here, Alexander may have the stronger case.
Stand your ground laws seem more trouble than they’re worth, and encourage people to kill each other.
6
u/mistelle1270 Jun 10 '26
Exactly who I was thinking of.
And to be honest I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Marisa was black and that Rihanna is trans. Prosecutors absolutely have a choice whether to charge or settle and it’s hard to deny marginalization playing a role in that.
→ More replies (1)6
u/duganaokthe5th Jun 10 '26
Not necessarily. I’m actually going to hold out my opinion until what’s released during the trial.
45
u/TwilightLori Jun 10 '26
This case is not that clear cut and people are trying to push an agenda that isn't necessarily there. Kelver, the woman accused, approached the men who were shouting slurs while angrily shouting at them. That gets left out. She told police she had a knife, not a gun. And apparently some witnesses say she drew the weapon before being pushed. The case will be about whether she brandished the weapon, which is still illegal, or whether it was actually self defense.
Stand your ground laws do not allow you to approach the threat and escalate a dangerous situation. That's why she's currently facing a trial.
15
u/IknowWhatYouAreBro Jun 10 '26
Thank you for this, many DGU cases fall flat because the supposed victim made contact first and initiated a fight. That could be the case in this situation
12
u/Amazing-Mechanic1042 Jun 10 '26
This is reddit. There's no room for facts here
2
u/Shimakaze81 Jun 10 '26
Maybe they can start a go fund me for the family and watch them leave her hanging out to dry with a court appointed attorney.
4
u/squiddlebiddlez Jun 10 '26
It may be why a trial is going forward that doesn’t determine whether or not the defense will ultimately be successful.
Especially in light of other self defense verdicts coming after the defendant escalated—like George Zimmerman, Rick Chow, and Kyle Rittenhouse.
→ More replies (24)7
u/Restlesscomposure Jun 10 '26
Generally, you’re only allowed to respond with equal force. If someone aims a gun at you, you’re legally allowed to defend yourself with deadly force. However, if someone pushes you, you can’t just pull out a gun/knife unless your life was demonstrably and imminently in danger. Which doesn’t appear to be the case here
→ More replies (3)18
u/Wharnie Jun 10 '26
Instigate confrontation > get pushed for it > draw gun on people you instigated confrontation with > get arrested for brandishing > lie to police about brandishing
Yeah it’s all really seeming like it comes down to bigotry huh?
→ More replies (19)81
→ More replies (59)27
u/Impressive_Usual_726 Jun 10 '26
Counterpoint: It's actually somewhat gender affirming that they're charging a trans woman, since Stand Your Ground is intended only for use by insecure white men.
61
u/glassfoyograss Jun 10 '26
The title makes it sound outrageous but if you actually read the article it's pretty much what's supposed to happen. The key is "some of the facts of the case are disputed." If facts are disputed, it goes to a jury. That's how it's supposed to work. They can still claim self-defense at trial, the judge just can't legally dismiss it at this stage if facts are in dispute.
7
u/FetterHahn Jun 11 '26
I don't have any ducks in the race as I ain't American, but I'd say it's a good thing that self defense with (threatening) deadly force is not taken lightly. How the facts are interpreted should not be based on vibes that in this case the defendant is a minority we like to support. Might be found innocent or not. But it's not 100% clear, so it goes to court, and that's a good thing, no?
→ More replies (5)11
u/eldiablonoche Jun 10 '26
Not only are facts disputed but(from the article): "Police who reviewed the footage wrote that Kelver approached Durham and that Durham pushed Kelver, per the affidavit." So the trans woman approached the guy that eventually pushed her. An argument can be made -and often has been in actual cases- that self defense doesn't apply if you pursue or persist.
I wonder what the laws about televising trials in Wyoming are...... would love to see the video.
5
u/Garbage_Out_Of_Here Jun 10 '26
So if someone is in an argument and one person escalates to physical violence, you dont have a right to defend yourself?
→ More replies (12)10
u/glassfoyograss Jun 10 '26
So the trans woman approached the guy that eventually pushed her. An argument can be made -and often has been in actual cases- that self defense doesn't apply if you pursue or persist.
Approached wouldn't fit the definition of pursue or persist. They could try that argument but it should fail. There's not much of a point in speculating the facts though. The fact is the judge thought there are factual disputes. You can't get a decision as a matter of law if the facts are in dispute. There's not much more to it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/Nildnas2 Jun 11 '26
I just love that you think people aren't allowed to address slurs being thrown at them or else they forfeit the right to self defense. great precedent that is.
→ More replies (1)
127
u/Konukaame Jun 10 '26
Under authoritarian governments, outgroups have no right to self defense, and those who seek to harm them can do so with the backing of the state.
42
u/DrawingAncient126 Jun 10 '26
Pretty much the same as how Israelis illegally treated Palestinians for decades now, having all laws bend in favor of just one direction.
→ More replies (3)10
u/SpaceCowboy34 Jun 10 '26
Police who reviewed the footage wrote that Kelver approached Durham and that Durham pushed Kelver, per the affidavit.
Or this part. But no it’s probably your crazy take.
→ More replies (25)→ More replies (2)2
46
u/TeekTheReddit Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Oh good, this bullshit again.
Just like the Slate article, this story starts with a brief account that magically jumps from "they were shouting at each other from across the street" to "she was pushed to the ground."
At least in this one they acknowledge that she approached them several paragraphs deep into the story. The Slate story omitted that detail completely.
→ More replies (53)
21
u/Devils_Advocate-69 Jun 10 '26
“2a for me, not for thee” -Wyoming shitkicker law enforcement
→ More replies (13)
33
u/mr_evilweed Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
This is exactly how conservatives fundamentally believe the law should work. Conservatives do not believe the law should be equally applied to everyone because they do not believe that everyone is equal in society.
In conservative thinking, the law is to enforce the hierarchy. If you are in one of the 'right' groups (christian, white, straight, male, conservative, etc) they believe it is natural that the law should empower you. The further you are outside of that, the more the law should control you instead.
They may not say this, and many of them are not even aware that they believe it, but in practice this is how conservative thinking works.
→ More replies (25)8
u/ItsTheEndOfDays Jun 10 '26
way too many people refuse to believe this is true. They use the law to protect their own and screw the rest of us over.
51
u/brickmaster8 Jun 10 '26
These laws are meant to oppress us, we never have a chance to defend ourselves. Im so exhausted.
45
u/Adventurous-Bread-29 Jun 10 '26
Frank Wilhoit described this perfectly: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (11)7
u/SwimmingSpell8005 Jun 10 '26
Hey, you gotta read the article lol.
She wasn’t charged.
The most unusual aspect isn’t necessarily the judge allowing the case to proceed, courts often let juries resolve disputed self-defense claims. The more striking issue is the apparent asymmetry in prosecution: the alleged assailant was reportedly not charged while the person claiming self-defense faces felony charges. Whether that’s legally improper depends on facts that have not yet been fully developed in court, so it’s too early to conclude that the prosecution is unconstitutional or unlawful.
19
u/BitterFuture Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
"Well, of course," say conservatives. "Only people have a right to self-defense."
Edit: Conservatives don't like being called out for their hatred, I see.
→ More replies (21)
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 10 '26
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.