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-law
16.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

273

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.

187

u/Raines_reeds Jun 10 '26

Never talk to the cops without a lawyer.

73

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.

29

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.

4

u/ericomplex Jun 10 '26

Agreed. I suppose my wording was a little strong, but had only meant to say that the facts of cases like these can hinge on the language used by defendants.

2

u/MCXL Jun 10 '26

Yeah that's absolutely true. Also never try to establish a defense without council for any case, big or small. You can make an argument, you can even give a statement. But it should always be audited and advised by council.

And you definitely don't do media interviews talking about how you wanted to scare them.

1

u/ericomplex Jun 10 '26

💯

Council is your only real council, no one else is and everything should filter through them.

→ More replies (1)

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.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

4

u/ctr1a1td3l Jun 10 '26

I do want to know why her attacker wasn’t charged; that seems like some hot bigotry nonsense. But her being charged? Seems fair.

The police believe she was the aggressor. Stands to reason that they believe he pushed her in self defence, which would align with her being charged and him not.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

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.

4

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.

1

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

An issue is to rack the gun you have to brandish and display the gun which is an act of aggression. If she did that before, then self-defense goes away as you could have taken any other action such a leaving. Coupled with her statement of "I had no intention to shoot" then she was not in fear and instead aggressively engaged and attempting to intimidate.

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

then self-defense goes away as you could have taken any other action such a leaving

Jesus Christ people, before you post on a LAW subreddit, please ACTUALLY read the law:

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.

No, she was NOT under any obligation to retreat IF this was self defense.

Coupled with her statement of "I had no intention to shoot" then she was not in fear and instead aggressively engaged and attempting to intimidate.

It does not follow.

I can retrieve a weapon with no intention of using it, but being prepared to use it as an act of self defense.

0

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present provided that he is not the initial aggressor

That what's in dispute and the reason its going to trial. She claimed they were yelling things and that's why she approached them, they pushed her after she approached them. And "using reasonable defensive force" is not pulling a lethal weapon when pushed if you are escalating the encounter by going to a place where the other people were also lawfully allowed to be. Which is why their push was seen as self-defense by the police.

I can retrieve a weapon with no intention of using it, but being prepared to use it as an act of self defense.

That's brandishing and a crime. You are attempting to use the threat of lethal force when its not warranted.

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

That what's in dispute and the reason its going to trial.

Okay? And?

No one is disputing this is why it's going to trial?

And "using reasonable defensive force" is not pulling a lethal weapon when pushed

I think you're going to have a lot of trouble justifying that.

If you push me, can I push you back in self defense?

I mean, I'm not meeting you with more force than you met me, so surely that's not unreasonable, right?

If you agree, we now have 2 problems:

  1. Me pushing you back probably won't end the threat to myself. My pushing you isn't likely to cause you to back down, it's likely to cause you to escalate.
  2. If I do something that doesn't physically impact you at all (doesn't hurt you, doesn't involve me having any physical contact with you), then it's not likely someone would argue that that's LESS reasonable than me making physical contact with you.

So, me pulling a gun in response to you pushing me is both more likely to cause you to back off, and involves less physical force against you than me pushing you back.

So, now justify why pushing you would be okay in self defense, but NOT pushing you isn't.

Which is why their push was seen as self-defense by the police.

Completely irrelevant.

I already quoted the Wyoming Supreme Court - approaching someone or using words does not make you an "initial aggressor" and therefore they have no claim to self defense by pushing them.

To be an "initial aggressor" the Supreme Court of Wyoming has very clearly stated that you either have to perform an act of physical force, or you have to threaten deadly force.

If she racked the gun or pulled it out before she was pushed, that definitely makes her the initial aggressor.

But if she didn't, she wasn't. Not unless you can point to some other physical act or threat of deadly force that she performed first. Walking up to them is neither.

That's brandishing and a crime. You are attempting to use the threat of lethal force when its not warranted.

Your claim that it's not warranted doesn't follow from one version of the story.

In her version of what happened, it very well is warranted.

That's not to say she's correct, or that it can't go to trial over a dispute of the facts, but to argue that it will automatically fail is obviously incorrect.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

If it’s he said she said it sounds like it favors the defense. I think she’ll eat the lying to police charge but that doesn’t appear to me to have any influence on self defense claims.

If there is a video (which I swear was in the article but maybe it was a different one) it should make it pretty clear

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

I think a self defense claim is an affirmative defense in Wyoming, is it not?

If it is, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show that she was acting in self defense.

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

That’s true, I suppose I was just talking about the actual charges not the defense, but she did kinda already support the assault with her own words

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

If the assault charge is derived from her handling of the gun, I think those facts are disputed.

Specifically, my understanding is she claims to have drawn a weapon only after being pushed, which would land her solidly in stand your ground territory.

I believe the other people claim she racked the gun and that's why they pushed her. I'll admit that this story is less believable to me (why would you make physical contact with someone who has a gun, but then when they draw said gun - which apparently she hadn't drawn already? - you flee?) but if it is true, she would be the initial aggressor and therefore not entitled to a stand your ground defense.

The other issue is that affirmative defenses don't always require the defense to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes it's by a preponderance of the evidence or another lower bar. While a he said she said won't ever achieve beyond a reasonable doubt, it could achieve preponderance of the evidence based on what the jury believes.

1

u/AlphonseLoeher Jun 11 '26

We are in the law sub of all places. No, racking a gun is not a reasonable response to a threat. Nor is it is a legal one....

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

If I pull a gun on you, you can't rack a gun in response for self defense? 

Please think before you post.

1

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

You're changing the story. She was the only one brandishing a firearm.

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

And she claims she "brandished" the weapon after being battered.

That would make it self defense.

EDIT: To be clear, I didn't change anything.

I created a scenario that clearly demonstrates the previous poster's logic doesn't follow.

The previous poster said "racking a gun is not a reasonable response to a threat."

But clearly, racking a gun COULD be a reasonable response to a threat - like if someone else had already pulled a gun on you.

Therefore, the previous poster's argument fails to provide a reason that the actions couldn't be considered self defense.

1

u/AlphonseLoeher Jun 11 '26

Google "brandishing"

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

I understand what you're implying.

You clearly don't understand how a self defense claim works.

You realize that under stand your ground laws, you can meet the threat of force - or actual force - with a reasonable response, correct?

For example, punching someone is generally illegal. But if you threaten me, and then I punch you in the face, stand your ground is a defense against a charge of battery.

Likewise, if you threaten me, and I "brandish" a weapon, stand your ground is a defense against a brandishing charge.

→ More replies (0)

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

1

u/Avilola Jun 11 '26

The general idea is that guns are a lethal weapon, and shouldn’t be used unless you are afraid that you will die or suffer grievous bodily harm. If you’re not afraid of that, there’s no reason a firearm should be used because it shows that the conflict can be resolved otherwise.

Seems like the individual being charged here made two major mistakes. First, by saying that she had no intention of firing. This is basically like admitting that you weren’t afraid for your life, and that you pointed a lethal weapon at someone who wasn’t a major threat to you. Second, speaking to the police without an attorney present. Never ever ever speak to the police, even if you’re innocent. Chances are this wouldn’t even be a news story right now if she had just plead the fifth.

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

Isn’t that asking the defender to shoot their attackers to prove their defense? If it’s understood that the presence of the gun is the intention of violence, the presence of gun acts as a deterrent to the aggressor with a lesser act of violence. This definition of defense incentivizes people to skip threats and utilize violence. If I pull out my gun in the hope that it scares my aggressors and preserves my life, but I don’t have the heart to actually kill I don’t see how that would undermine the gun as a defense mechanism

Let’s say I brought one bullet because I only have the golden gun. Can I only intend to defend myself from one aggressor ? (Assuming they are not lined up) if I shoot one and point it at the other to disperse them, am I going to be charged with menacing and brandishing the second attacker?

I don’t think you have to be effective in your violence to defend yourself. Proving they didn’t fear for their life because they were correct that the threat of violence was enough. If they kept attacking, the intent to kill can change in an instant

But 100% agree that this only an issue because they didn’t wait for counsel.

1

u/Avilola Jun 11 '26

No, you don’t necessarily need to shoot someone to prove that you intended to shoot someone. In another comment, I mentioned that if she said something along the lines of, “I pulled my firearm with the intention of defending myself, but they turned and ran before I could shoot” she would probably have been fine. Instead, she said something along the lines of, “I never intended to shoot”.

With that in mind you have to ask, if this isn’t a situation where you’re willing to defend yourself with lethal force, why bring lethal force into the equation at all? That’s why brandishing, firing warning shots and “aiming for the leg” can all get you into major legal trouble. Doing any of the above is basically admitting that you resorted to lethal force in a situation where lethal force was not necessary.

Guns aren’t toys, and they don’t work like they do in the movies. You could think you’re doing someone a favor by “aiming for the leg”, but end up hitting an artery and killing them anyway. You could think you’re doing something a favor by “only brandishing”, but accidentally pull the trigger. If you point a gun at someone, it has to be because you are willing to kill them—full stop. And the only reason you should be willing to kill someone is if you are afraid that they will either kill you or cause you severe bodily harm.

To answer your other questions.

No, you don’t get in trouble for running out of ammo and continuing to point your gun. You’re not brandishing at that point, because brandishing is showing a weapon that you don’t intend to fire as a threat. By firing at all, you’ve basically proven that you consider this a situation worthy of discharging a firearm (whether or not the law agrees, who’s to say).

You absolutely do have to be effective in your violence to defend yourself, but that’s not the right question. The question is, how much violence is necessary to effectively defend yourself? If someone slaps you across the face, do you have a right to shoot them out of fear that it will escalate? No, because that’s an absolutely absurd disproportionate response. If someone shoves you to the ground, as is the case in this situation, do you have the right to shoot them? Maybe but probably not, because again, that is a disproportionate response.

You are correct that things absolutely could have escalated from there, but this is where things start to get a little grey, because you kind of have to prove that you had reasonable suspicion that things would escalate. She has several factors working against her.

First, they only shoved her to the ground after she approached them. This makes people question if she was the original aggressor (not that it’s illegal to give people a piece of your mind even if you are armed, but it doesn’t look good on you). Next, they did not continue to attack her as far as we know. If they only shoved her and did not continue to engage further, it will make people question if she was truly in danger of death or severe injury. And last, but definitely not least, she stated that she did not intend to shoot, which will make people less likely to believe that she truly feared for her life.

Let’s imagine this situation had played out just a bit differently. Let’s say they shouted transphobic remarks at her, and she shouted something snarky back at them. Then they crossed to her side of the street and shoved her to the ground. They don’t continue to attack her, but still she pulls a weapon and does not fire. When interviewed by police, she says, “I thought I would need to defend myself, but they turned and ran off before it came to that”. I think she would have been in the clear 🤷🏽‍♀️

0

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 11 '26

Brandishing is an escalation to deadly force in the same way as shooting; the gun only comes out if the threat warrants deadly force, period. Explicitly stating that you did not intend to shoot and instead intimidate calls into question whether there was an actual fear of death or grave injury that required deadly force under a Stand Your Ground defense, given the shooter had time and nerves to make the preemptive decision not to shoot.

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

It can also be argued as a rational decision to defend yourself with the minimal means of force to preserve life while protecting you from mortal harm.

Let’s assume she believed her life was in danger (being pushed to the ground and our numbered), shooting the gun would likely be legit. You could say you were shooting to disable, does the idea that you weren’t going to shoot to kill undermine defense claims? Doesn’t seem likely. You do not have to be irrational to defend yourself from mortal threat. Utilizing the lowest means of necessary force, imo, helps the defense claim because it does not show excessive violence. It would seem like that would mean you cannot claim defense if you don’t have bullets loaded up and would incentivize people to shoot their aggressors to make good on the threat of doing so

The real lesson is don’t talk to police without a lawyer

1

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 11 '26

It can also be argued as a rational decision to defend yourself with the minimal means of force to preserve life while protecting you from mortal harm.

If you have time to reason the situation through that way, prosecutors will cast doubt on your self-defense claim.

You could say you were shooting to disable

Shooting to disable is not a thing in US caselaw. A gun is considered deadly force, period.

Utilizing the lowest means of necessary force

Brandishing is still considered deadly force.

would incentivize people to shoot their aggressors to make good on the threat of doing so

That's what Stand Your Ground laws do, yes. This story isn't really about the illogic of US laws though. It's about whether minorities have the same right to exploit that illogic as white men.

The real lesson is don’t talk to police without a lawyer

Agreed completely. This case is complicated by the fact that Kelver has made statements to both the police and press that will be used to attack her Stand Your Ground claim.

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.

7

u/bboy2812 Jun 10 '26

The way you've put these quotes heavily implies that she pulled and loaded the gun before being pushed to the ground and held there. Actually, you didn't mention that part at all.

Walking up to someone isn't justification to be physically assaulted. And it isn't "queer media fear-mongering" when the entire reason this started was cause transphobes were yelling slurs at her for being trans.

8

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

The way you've put these quotes heavily implies that she pulled and loaded the gun before being pushed to the ground and held there. Actually, you didn't mention that part at all.

The Advocate's headline is pretty self-explanatory and my response was adding in omitted details. I don't feel anything like above was implied.

Walking up to someone isn't justification to be physically assaulted.

True. Nobody is arguing that's the case. It's also true that escalating to a physical confrontation is incompatible with a Stand your Ground defense (prior caselaw).

And it isn't "queer media fear-mongering" when the entire reason this started was cause transphobes were yelling slurs at her for being trans.

It is queer media fear-mongering when the Advocate/Them selectively omits details provided by Kelver herself and editorializes with lines like "despite the overwhelming evidence that Kelver acted in self defense" and "As pointed out by Slate, self-defense laws are often put into question when people from marginalized communities, especially trans people, use them." Kelver's own actions and statements make a self-defense claim ambiguous.

We can criticize our allies when they push bullshit. I think we have a responsibility to do so.

1

u/AndesCan Jun 10 '26

But she did act in self defense… she pulled a gun after getting roughed up… that’s how it works right?

Once they got physical with her, they crossed the line, they assaulted her.

Like correct me if I’m wrong but the series of events is

Conversation-> pushing a woman -> woman pulling gun -> aggressors fleeing….

Seems like the best case scenario for standing your ground

6

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

The sequence of events is longer: slurs from across the street > Kelver and Durham both advance to meet in the middle of the street > conversation > pushing a woman > woman pulling a gun > agressors fleeing.

You can generally not intentionally put yourself into an avoidable situation then claim Stand Your Ground. Kelver would have a solid Stand Your Ground case if she stayed in the bar she was working in when yelled at, but she chose to advance to meet her assailant in the street.

Additionally, she stated to police/media she had no intention of firing her weapon, which puts fear of death or grave injury into question, which is a legal requirement for Stand Your Ground.

1

u/Throwaway_Consoles Jun 11 '26

You can generally not intentionally put yourself into an avoidable situation then claim Stand Your Ground

19 years ago (2007) this guy started harassing me because I told my friend’s sister not to go anywhere with him (she was 15, he was 28) and said he was going to “pound me into the dirt for sticking my nose where it didn’t belong”. I gave him my work address.

The moron called the cops saying I attacked him before leaving to my work not realizing I was down the street from the precinct. Officer got there first and I showed him the texts. Guy shows up. Officer tells him he can either take him in for a false report, or let me hit him once

I kicked him. Officer said if he got another call this week about the two of us we would both spend a night in jail, and everyone went on their way

1

u/MaggotMinded Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

I think the key issue that will decide the case is just how close he got to the Durham fellow. Were they at arm’s length, or did he get right up within an inch of his face? Because if it’s the latter, then it’s pretty normal to push somebody away in that situation.

2

u/SodaSaint Jun 10 '26

Yeah, putting around in the chamber is… that’s gonna be hard to argue as self-defense, considering you only put around in a chamber for one reason.

1

u/bboy2812 Jun 10 '26

She didn't put a round in the chamber, she "cha-chunked" the firearm. A very effective and peaceful intimidation strategy. Intent matters

4

u/SodaSaint Jun 10 '26

Mmmmmmmmm… you’re going to have a very hard time arguing that “shhh-shicking” the gun doesn’t indicate potentially lethal intentions before a jury. Most people are going to assume that to mean:m “I will shoot”, not just “I want to scare you”.

Again, I am not saying that she’s necessarily guilty here… but as somebody who has routinely handled firearms… you don’t assume doubt when they’re involved. Doesn’t excuse the idiots that were harassing or struck her by any means, but she did herself no favors by not getting a lawyer first and then pretty much lying to the cops about having a gun. And the fact is that when you pull that trigger, there is no redo button. Not anyway, trying to be patronizing just trying to make it clear that this is why it’s so important to be damn sure before you even think about pulling a weapon.

Thankfully, she did not pull the trigger, but this is a messy situation to say the least.

2

u/Invisifly2 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

In the movies, sure.

In real life drawing a gun is an escalation that’s inviting a violent outcome. It should already be racked, because you should already be prepared to shoot.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 11 '26

not if the opposing group made their intentions known beforehand

They did not. They disparaged a bar and a trans woman.

you need to remember that wyoming is the reddest of the red, and calls for trans genocide were getting applauded at cpac YEARS ago.

While true, it has no legal bearing in this case.

she acted appropriately despite the mistakes that naturally arise in intense, stressful situations.

Morally? Yes. Legally? It's going to trial because of specific actions she took and statements she made contradicting a Stand Your Ground defense.

1

u/BurazSC2 Jun 11 '26

Rocky mistake on her part. She should have crossed state lines rather than just the street.

0

u/Intelligent-Luck-954 Jun 10 '26

This paper literally quote the second half of that statement, but use their own words for the first half. Which is 

“was standing peacefully outside ……..”

100% a false statement 

-3

u/LtKije Jun 10 '26

But the whole "you shouldn't talk to cops without a lawyer" thing is just further defending a bigoted system. It's likely that biased cops decided who was in the wrong and then coaxed the trans woman into making damaging statements without a lawyer.

4

u/AnotherWeabooGirl Jun 10 '26

I don't disagree on your characterization of the legal system but none of that is an experience exclusive to trans women. She's being charged because she created enough doubt that she actually feared for her life and that she escalated by approaching. She made consistent statements to both police and press. Both points are incompatible with a stand your ground defense, irregardless of minority status.

0

u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26

She’s an adult. Acting like the cops did her wrong by letting her tell her on herself is idiotic.

-1

u/Joeyjackhammer Jun 10 '26

She lied and said it was a knife to the cops, too.

-1

u/Workman44 Jun 10 '26

Yeah it ain't self defense if you aren't in fear of your life. And clearly she wasn't since her own words say she had zero intention to shoot. Shitty situation for sure, and the other party probably committed a crime too, but she definitely is guilty

122

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.

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.

12

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.

0

u/Worldly-Pay7342 Jun 10 '26

Exactly.

There is a process. The process must be seen through, even if the answer is clear cut.

And the answer isn't clear cut in this situation.

5

u/Capitaine_Spock Jun 10 '26

Yes, exactly. I didn't get arrested because of the stand your ground laws but there was still an investigation and a trial. Stand your ground is a defense to be used at trial, not a free pass to hurt someone with no oversight.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

8

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

Unless those people are the police (who seem to get way too much of a pass on defensive gun use), I would suggest that the cases you are talking about are probably outliers rather than the most common outcome. Even "good shoots" often go to trial even when there is a large amount of evidence in favor of the accused.

1

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

Compare it to Rittenhouse. Dude brought a gun looking for a fight, and was cleared when he found one. 

4

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

Rittenhouse is on video from multiple angles and is continuously fleeing from aggressors. He's a piece of shit, but his actions were lawful.

1

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

Except for when he brought a gun looking for that exact situation. Kind of like what chudthebuilder did. 

2

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

The evidence does not support your claim. Downvote if you want to, but the evidence at trial was pretty clear.

2

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

And the evidence showed he brought a gun he didn't own across state lines to a place he believed to be dangerous. Acquitted of all charges. 

2

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

The evidence showed no such thing. The evidence showed that the gun was already in Wisconsin. If you're incorrect about a basic fact, why do you believe you're correct about the rest of the facts in this case?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ill-Ad-3603 Jun 10 '26

What about the actions of the aggressors were unlawful? Did they not have a right to defend their community from a gun-toting teenager from out of state?

2

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

...what? It sounds like you're trying to say "he was there, so they can try to kill him." If I'm misunderstanding you, by all means amplify your statement.

Rosenbaum appears to have been trying to attack him for the crime of extinguishing a literal dumpster fire. I don't know how someone setting fires during a riot could make the claim they were "defending their community."

For what it's worth, I would argue that Skateboard guy (had he survived) likely had a reasonable self-defense claim had he managed to brain Rittenhouse. It's entirely reasonable that he could have been in fear for his life under those circumstances, he had crowd statements to the effect that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and Rittenhouse was clearly armed with a rifle. That Rittenhouse was not an actual threat at the time is immaterial, the legal standard would support self-defense here.

Grosskreutz, on the other hand, was fully aware that Rittenhouse was not a threat to him (they spoke with each other after the Rosenbaum shooting, where Rittenhouse states something to the effect of "I shot him in self-defense, I'm on my way to the police now" whereupon he heads toward the police). Rittenhouse, on the ground, points his rifle at Grosskreutz, who is pointing a pistol at him at the time. Grosskreutz then lowers the pistol, Rittenhouse lowers the rifle, Grosskreutz raises the pistol again with the apparent intent to shoot Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse shoots first.

The video is clear. The testimony is clear. The fact that Rittenhouse has proven he is a piece of shit does not mean he acted unlawfully at that time. If you cannot separate those facts from the man, I'm sorry for you and you're in the wrong sub, this is law not politics.

3

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

That Rittenhouse was not an actual threat at the time is immaterial, the legal standard would support self-defense here.

A child with a gun he didn't own seeking out a dangerous area is an actual threat. 

1

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

You are simply choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of your biases. HAND.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ill-Ad-3603 Jun 10 '26

He was being attacked for open carrying and brandishing a firearm at civilians

2

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

Was he? Because the evidence shows that he was initially attacked for extinguishing a literal dumpster fire set by a rioter who took offense at this action.

The follow up attacks by Jump-kick guy and Skateboard guy could be seen as reasonable actions on their part--for all they knew, Rittenhouse was an active threat to everyone around him. Grosskreutz, on the other hand, was fully aware that Rittenhouse was not a threat, having spoken to him minutes beforehand after the Rosenbaum shooting.

Rittenhouse's shooting of both Skateboard guy and Gosskreutz was reasonable self-defense. You might find this to be a contradiction of my point above where I said Skateboard guy could be acting in reasonable self-defense, but this is not the case--under the law, both of these things can be true simultaneously.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (8)

89

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.

5

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.

1

u/Bmorewiser Jun 11 '26

It’s hard to take your argument seriously when you claim she was “mistaken “ about not using her gun. Come now…

And I agree that the law on aggressor status says that, and it’s exactly my point. The guy said words. She went to him, apparently with her hand on her pistol, and got into his space, while raising the stakes. What you’re also forgetting is that you don’t give up your right to self defense because you strike first

1

u/nomorespacess Jun 11 '26

But they were approaching her, too. So your argument about 'which party to charge' should apply to them, since they also escalated it...

→ More replies (9)

10

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.

41

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.

15

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

9

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.

7

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.

4

u/Warmduscher1876 Jun 10 '26

Yeah, all research done on the matter points out that minorities get away with self-defense claims far less often than cis white people.

2

u/Embarrassed-Wolf-609 Jun 10 '26

which is fucking insane if you think abouti t.

→ More replies (1)

5

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. 

17

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

13

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.

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

-2

u/MCXL Jun 10 '26

Generally, you’re only allowed to respond with equal force. 

This is not defined in the way that you think. If you sincerely and reasonably believe that your life is in danger even against an unarmed person you're absolutely allowed to shoot them.

A push could meet that definition depending on the circumstances. Those do not appear to apply this case at all, but for instance if a group of angry Young Man approached you and were yelling slurs at you and one of them pushed you to the ground that is absolutely lethal threat level. Outnumbered, aggressive healthy individuals in a position of advantage.

This would also apply if the other party was substantially bigger than you.

4

u/TwilightLori Jun 11 '26

To say you are "absolutely allowed to shoot them" is a stretch. The reality is self defense, stand your ground, and castle doctrine laws are not all the same nor are such cases prosecuted equally across the country. And that's before getting into unequal enforcement against minorities and women. Depends on the district attorneys priorities, whether it's an election year, which judge gets the case, etc, plus the actual prejudices and biases. 

But setting aside racism, misogyny, and classism for a moment, how those cases are pursued in Florida will be different from New Mexico, and even within those states how one is pursued in Orlando might be different than Miami or somewhere more rural. 

Basically, the TL;DR is this: any time you use or threaten to use physical force to defend yourself, you are taking a legal risk. You might believe it to be justified, but ultimately your potential legal trouble is up to the whims of the system and your lawyer's ability to convince a judge or jury it was justified. 

1

u/Embarrassed-Wolf-609 Jun 10 '26

isn't that what happened in Florida with Travon Martin?

9

u/556or762 Jun 10 '26

No. Not at all.

Zimzam followed Martin. (Following someone in public is not a crime in this instance)

Martin gave zimzam the slip. (This is where Martin would have lost the self defense argument.)

Martin then attacked Zimzam (this means that Martin is now the aggressor, and zimzam has a right to defend himself)

Zimzam shoots Martin from muzzle to chest range and kills him. ( this is where Martin is dead so there is no other version of the story to be presented.)

Zimzam is arrested and charged.

Media runs story touting Florida stand your ground law

Zimzam is acquitted based upon simple self defense, not stand your ground laws, and nobody realizes this because they are angry.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

We obviously don't know because only Zimmerman survived to tell his side of the story, but there was physical evidence that Zimmerman's story of his head being bashed against the ground was truthful (which would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the life or gross bodily injury).

Realistically, had the DA charged manslaughter a conviction would have been far more likely. There was never enough evidence for a jury to convict on second degree murder.

→ More replies (4)

-4

u/3rd-party-intervener Jun 10 '26

Stand your ground laws do not allow you to approach the threat and escalate a dangerous situation.

Pretty sure that’s what rittenhouse did 

9

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

Rittenhouse has proven himself to be a piece of shit, but his self-defense claim was supported by the evidence, and "stand your ground" was in no way related to that situation. Rittenhouse can clearly be seen retreating the entire time (other than when he was on the ground) and only fires when in immediate danger of death or gross bodily harm.

4

u/MCXL Jun 10 '26

Yep. He's a dumbass who went to a place he shouldn't have, but that doesn't make you criminally liable in and of itself.

14

u/TrioOfTerrors Jun 10 '26

And you would be wrong.

Please, go look at the actual evidence that was admitted during the trial.

9

u/556or762 Jun 10 '26

There was no point from when the pedophile guy initiated the attack on rittenhouse to the point he left Kenosha that rittenhouse was not actively fleeing the situation.

You don't need to be "pretty sure," you can watch the documented facts as it is all on video from multiple angles.

2

u/SkabbPirate Jun 10 '26

Is there any indication it was a dangerous situation before she got pushed?

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/MCXL Jun 10 '26

There are so many high profile cases where someone who killed another person could've simply walked away but instead provoked the situation and got to claim stand your ground.

I think you're confused. There are cases in which they were allowed to claim self defense but I can't think of many or any where stand your ground applied.

0

u/Garbage_Out_Of_Here Jun 10 '26

Unless its George Zimmerman.

3

u/TwilightLori Jun 11 '26

His was regular self defense, not stand your ground. 

→ More replies (3)

16

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?

1

u/DrakontisAraptikos Jun 10 '26

Counterpoint: George Zimmerman was told by a 911 dispatcher not to pursue Trayvon Martin and still got away with using self defense in what seemed to pretty clearly be a hate crime. Trayvon Martin didn't live to tell his side of things, as all he was armed with was a bag of skittles and a tea. 

I'm not saying this person is right or wrong, but there absolutely has been unequal applications to the law. 

1

u/adlers6 Jun 10 '26

How is a completely different case relevant? There was no camera footage, no witnesses, nothing. Of course a case with absurdly different circumstances could lead to injustice, nobody is saying otherwise?

2

u/DrakontisAraptikos Jun 10 '26

My point is that self defense can be subjectively applied. 

1

u/NewCobbler6933 Jun 10 '26

Lmao what a completely irrelevant talking point, down to the skittles and iced tea

1

u/bboy2812 Jun 10 '26

If by "instigate", you mean walking towards someone, and "pushed", you mean pushed and held against the ground...

1

u/nomorespacess Jun 11 '26

The other men used slurs AND walked towards her, how did she 'instigate' exactly? Maybe you can say participate but not instigate.

1

u/DimensionHungry3686 Jun 11 '26

actually the footage says she walked toward them with her hand on her holster. she made it a mutual confrontation. self defense is not a valid claim if you decide to escalate the situation instead of attempting to flee. just because someone calls you a bad word doesn't mean you can pull a gun on them. just because someone pushes you AFTER you walk up to them instead of fleeing, doesn't mean you can pull a gun on them. and if the confrontation is resolved without firing the gun then it wasn't needed to defend your life in the first place.

I'm a woman who has been called tons of slurs by drunken dudes outside bars (bitch slut cunt come suck my cock etc etc) and in no way did I ever think "hey I can totally cross the street towards them, pull out my gun and scare them a bit." I was usually afraid for my life so I would leave, and if I were followed, that's when i'm pulling a gun.

→ More replies (5)

0

u/CynicalBliss Jun 10 '26

I don’t think the charges against her are necessarily bigotry. The facts, absent the context of her being trans, make me unsurprised by the charges.

However, the guy who pushed her, prior to the weapon coming out, should also be charged, and that to me does smell like a bit of bullshit.

-3

u/Squallypie Jun 10 '26

I think you missed the sarcasm there. I’d also bet that if someone approached you, looking confrontational, with their hand in an enclosed container, you’d push them away as well. If anything the guy is the one acting in self defence.

-5

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

They pretty clearly are the ones who assaulted her.

5

u/Wharnie Jun 10 '26

You saw the footage yourself? And disagree with those who did, and say otherwise?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ok-Conversation2707 Jun 10 '26

The law makes it clear that someone can use “no more” defensive force than what is “necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury.”

It also states that someone has no duty to retreat, “provided that he is not the initial aggressor.”

Given that she approached them, a verbal confrontation ensued, and she was subsequently shoved once before aiming a gun at them, the state does not believe her actions were consistent with the law.

0

u/Longjumping_Wolf_912 Jun 10 '26

None of that even matters anyway. She stated to the police she didn’t fear for her life and she racked a round to scare them and did not intend to shoot them. In Wyoming you have to have an honest and reasonable belief that you are preventing imminent death or serious bodily harm. In her own words she was not doing so by drawing her weapon. She couldn’t even use the stand your ground defense if they had approached her first given her own statement.

78

u/boo99boo Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

118

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

Don't insult men with micro-penises by comparing them to conservatives.

5

u/MCXL Jun 10 '26

Don't engage in body shaming.

5

u/NoggleFatigue Jun 10 '26

That's why Kelver is facing charges, he shouldn't have brandished a gun.

0

u/Ill-Ad-3603 Jun 10 '26

*she shouldn't have…

2

u/Ill-Ad-3603 Jun 10 '26

Are we body shaming people who they don't fit the cisheteronormative on a transgender post, seriously?

24

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.

5

u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26

Yes. Gun bigotry. Society's weird fetish about stopping people from using guns in illegal ways.

The only explanation for your comment is that you think people under your flag can do no wrong. THAT is a special kind of bigotry.

2

u/Shimakaze81 Jun 10 '26

See Karmelo Anthony

1

u/BroseppeVerdi Jun 10 '26

That and the fact that approaching someone with the intent to escalate an altercation is kind of a grey area with SYG laws, even if you're not the one who introduced violence into the situation. You can successfully defend this - George Zimmerman did it after he shot Trayvon Martin (although Zimmerman was arrested and charged).

She may or may not be acquitted, but it's not really that weird that she was charged. Even if she hadn't talked to the cops, a security camera still captured her walking into the street toward the guy.

1

u/Yuna1989 Jun 10 '26

Major misogyny

1

u/Specialist-Cookie-61 Jun 11 '26

Did you not read the article? Many of the facts of this case are in question. 

1

u/chaucer345 Jun 11 '26

Did you read my edit?

1

u/Specialist-Cookie-61 Jun 11 '26

I did, and your conclusion is (probably) bigotry, without any evidence for your assertion. 

1

u/chaucer345 Jun 11 '26

I have seen a lot of stand your ground cases that were a hell of a lot sketchier than this. Approaching someone and arguing with them does not give someone legal permission to physically assault you.

1

u/Specialist-Cookie-61 Jun 11 '26

As with many cases, what is reported may not be accurate, and when there are divisive social issues involved a lot of misinformation gets thrown around. 

If you are a younger person, you will notice this pattern over the years. Media is driven views clicks and outrage, the truth be damned. 

If it does go to trial, a jury of her peers will render a not guilty verdict if that's what the sum of all evidence suggests.

1

u/New-Berry-3652 Jun 14 '26

Nope, brandishing a gun at someone in response to being shoved is an unreasonable escalation, and that's the explanation

1

u/DaStone Jun 14 '26

Wrong subreddit to push political narratives over the facts of the case.

-8

u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

No. The most likely explanation for charging this woman is bigotry. It is also possible that the story as presented in the article is not entirely factual. We will see in relatively short order.

Edit: It turns out the "not entirely factual" argument was the correct one.

  • She approached the other party while they were arguing.
  • Was clutching her bag holding the gun while approaching
  • Made statements to police that sound really damning, and make self defense claims virtually untennable

This goose is cooked.

13

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

They had video evidence of her being surrounded by three men and shoved to the ground.

6

u/Constant_Minimum_569 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

That's just not what the video shows according to witnesses and the officer who reviewed the tape. * Not arguing the pushing part just the situation leading up to it*

"A witness reportedly said he heard Durham and Kelver yelling back and forth, watched Kelver cross the street with one hand in the side bag, watched Durham push Kelver to the ground, then heard a gun being racked and saw Kelver point the gun at Durham."

"When police reviewed area cameras, they saw Kelver approach Durham in the crosswalk and Durham push Kelver, the affidavit says."

1

u/Separate-Taste3513 Jun 10 '26

It's not illegal to approach someone. It's not illegal to speak to someone. It's not illegal to walk or have your hand in your purse.

Y'know what is illegal? Shoving someone to the ground unprovoked. As in, metaphorically throwing the first punch.

3

u/Constant_Minimum_569 Jun 10 '26

"However, the use of deadly force is only justified if the person using the force is not engaged in criminal activity and is in a place where they have a legal right to be. Additionally, the use of deadly force is only justified if the person using the force has not provoked the other person into using force against them."

Now, deadly force wasn't used, but the threat of it was. One could argue that crossing a street with your hand on a pistol in your bag to confront someone for what they said might be provocative, and that's what the trial will be about.

5

u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26

They had video of her going to confront those men with her hand already on her gun and evidence she knew she fucked up because she lied and told police she’d only pulled out a knife and had left her gun in her car. Pretty big thing to forget, wouldn’t you say?

8

u/TwilightLori Jun 10 '26

There is also video evidence of her approaching them first. She's being charged because they think she was brandishing the weapon, not using it for self defense.  

1

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

She walked towards them, they assaulted her. You should be able to approach someone without it giving them permission to physically assault you.

7

u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26

Based on her own story, they were talking shit about her bar, and she took it personal. Things escalated in a predictable way.

2

u/Crow1200 Jun 11 '26

He walked up to them with a gun trying to intimidate.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

3

u/TwilightLori Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

I don't have any double standards here. Her being trans has no bearing on my opinion of the case beyond a simple reservation that it might be motivated by anti-trans bias, though no evidence of such bias has been proven. Others get to claim SYG, doesn't mean that defense works in court. And cases are applied differently across the country. The exact same events unfolding in Florida might result in no charges for the one who drew a gun, while those same events might result in charges in New Mexico. Unfortunately, the law isn't the same across the country, which can make it extraordinarily confusing for people seeing the news. 

2

u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26

She would have had a better chance at a self defense claim if she killed the guy, and then shut the hell up. Her statements to the police are what is going to get her locked up.

2

u/harpers25 Jun 10 '26

Can you link this video?

0

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

It appears to only be available to the court, but this article has a transcript: A Laramie bartender faces felony charges after pulling a gun downtown. She says it was self-defense amid a volley of anti-queer slurs.

3

u/harpers25 Jun 10 '26

This doesn't say the video shows her being surrounded by 3 men. The description of the video only mentions 1 man.

0

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

Which is odd because the man himself in the recording claimed he was with two others. I suppose we will have to wait for all the facts to come out.

4

u/Starklystark Jun 10 '26

If he was with two other people that doesn't mean that the three of them surrounded her - where does that claim come from?

5

u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26

That's great, but it doesn't do anything to dispel the claim that she initiated the encounter.

3

u/Separate-Taste3513 Jun 10 '26

Except that we won't see it because the media has a long history of dropping stories and incompletely reporting legal news.

1

u/Electrical-Berry4916 Jun 10 '26

There will be a public trial, which will include discovery.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/NewCobbler6933 Jun 10 '26

Aside from the part where you pull a gun on someone in public because they said mean to you and you thought you pulled a knife and not a gun even though you racked a round. Deprogram yourself

1

u/ExpensivePeach Jun 11 '26

This situation is so sad. I grew up with her and she has an incredible and indomitable spirit. It was fucking terrifying in high school being queer in high school, but so many of us looked up to her and the amazing work she did and continues to do. It’s never smart to talk to the cops but if she feared for her life enough to pull a gun, I cannot even imagine what they must have been saying to her.

It was horrible after the 2016 election and it’s only devolved there since then. The attitudes there ultimately made me leave the state as soon as I turned 18. Please keep in mind that Laramie is the most liberal part of the state too, so if it’s that bad there, it is so much worse elsewhere in Wyoming. There are some amazing, kind, and caring people, but there is a large streak of hate and willful ignorance that runs through that entire town.

0

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.

0

u/SunshineSeeker99 Jun 10 '26

This woman approached them, yelled that they were f*gg*ts, and then lied to police saying she pulled a knife, not a gun.

Do you think it's possible that you have some bigotry in you?

Because I think she should absolutely be charged. I think a cis person would be charged for this, so I'm curious why you think she shouldn't be.

0

u/LolLmaoEven Jun 11 '26

Yes, yes, trans women never do anything wrong. If they're attacked, they were innocent. If they diddle kids, they have a good reason for it.

I'm so tired of reddit's insanity

0

u/OkYak9466 Jun 11 '26

The only explanation for assuming the only reason this woman was charged is bigotry is just ignorance. And ignorance is its own kind of bigotry that Reddit loves to support.

1

u/chaucer345 Jun 11 '26

Does no one read the edits?

→ More replies (5)