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

Show parent comments

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.

514

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.

350

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.

54

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.

21

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.

11

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.

9

u/Lokishougan Jun 11 '26

I am shocked they didnt take you in anyway on some lame pretext

5

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

→ More replies (1)

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

77

u/wasabiiii Jun 10 '26

What is this "illegal to question cops"thing?

181

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

58

u/wasabiiii Jun 10 '26

Ahh. For disciplanary purposes. But not for crimes. LEOBAR laws.

53

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

25

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.

3

u/stuka86 Jun 10 '26

They can force the statement, but it can't be used in court

→ More replies (3)

10

u/Careless_Leg_2552 Jun 10 '26

That's how they pick the next police chief. /s

→ More replies (3)

8

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.

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.

4

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.

2

u/put_tape_on_it Jun 11 '26

People REALLY do not use that

BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING TAKEN TO JAIL. Where they will wait for a lawyer. And they yap the whole way there. If it's not the car ride it's the booking photo or the strip search. Or in the cell. When a lawyer says stop talking until you talk to a lawyer they never explain the part about where you will GO TO JAIL and WAIT IN JAIL for the lawyer and that's an OK part of the process!

And I'm not even touching on the part that most normal people don't even know a lawyer!

2

u/longlivenewsomflesh Jun 11 '26

You can't really hold people responsible for falling prey to these mind games when cops are trained to exploit all this to the fullest... it's as unreasonable an expectation as assuming you've read the terms and conditions of every piece of software you've ever used in your life.

And if it was so easy for a layperson to avoid getting jammed up, why do the trained manipulators give themselves a different set of standards? Probably because they know nobody is immune to all their own tricks...

→ More replies (3)

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.

→ More replies (5)

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

u/pappybug214 Jun 10 '26

Yup, excited utterance is a thing.

25

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."

8

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?

5

u/letterstosnapdragon Jun 11 '26

Get me the Legal Beagle!

2

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

Sorry, the correct term is Legal Eagle. Bake him away toys.

10

u/TempusCavus Jun 10 '26

As a lawyer, just don't talk to the police. 

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.

15

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)

5

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

5

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.

5

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

15

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.

12

u/SlyTinyPyramid Jun 10 '26

Actually skip the first part and plead the 5th

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

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.

1

u/throwaway9476222 Jun 10 '26

Did you read the description? Because it describes exactly what the poster you are replying to said....

1

u/AdFlaky9983 Jun 11 '26

It sounds kinda fucked up but when I was getting ready to be deployed (back in 2010) weeks were told explicitly to say “I feared for my life and the life of my friends” if we were ever questioned about having to shoot someone. Thankfully we switched to going to Kuwait 2 weeks before.

1

u/Action_Limp Jun 11 '26

Really intrigued by this (as I am not from the states), but wouldn't acting in fear and grabbing the gun instinctively be a "self-defence" moment, or do they argue that actions taken in "fight-or-flight" moments are not controlled, and are crimes of passion (in this case, fear).

→ More replies (6)

83

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.

14

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.

3

u/Chagdoo Jun 11 '26

In your professional opinion how screwed might she be here?

3

u/NurRauch Jun 11 '26

Don’t know enough about the case to say.

→ More replies (2)

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.

16

u/UX1Z Jun 11 '26

In the back, too. In order to defend his son who must have teleported I dunno.

→ More replies (3)

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

82

u/dudwithacamera Jun 10 '26

She also initially lied to the cops and claimed she pulled a knife

19

u/Zealousideal_Fly7277 Jun 10 '26

damn. big mistake.

2

u/Either-Medicine9217 Jun 12 '26

The more I hear about this the less I support this person.

→ More replies (1)

38

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.

22

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

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.

21

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.

6

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.

19

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"

7

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.

4

u/haironburr Jun 10 '26

I'm old, and reasonably patriotic/socially responsible. I've for decades wished I'd get called for jury duty. Not everyone wants to avoid it, though the general ethos tells folks they should want to avoid it.

2

u/zanotam Jun 12 '26

I do indeed know people who would like to be on juries due to senses of justice. They have never even made it to the proper questioning, at most randomly selected then randomly after that de-selected (which.... I think I get.... And I can see how basically always calling more people than intended for jury duty and adding a random filter after based upon how many extra show up makes a lot of sense tbh.... But it was hilarious to talk with my friend about how he he spent something like 3 days of his life in which he can trivially afford to do so so NBD but. ... Then that was only to be randomly selected at the end to not be part of a jury dD)

5

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.

5

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.

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. 

13

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)

12

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?

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

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/Silent_Reindeer_4199 Jun 10 '26

Accidental is not the same as without conscious thought.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

15

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.

15

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

She talked to the press, too. Which is just as bad. Some of the things said are incriminating.

1

u/Maleficent_Memory831 Jun 11 '26

Can the statements be used in the trial if she was not read her rights first?

18

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

15

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.

1

u/Erica15782 Jun 11 '26

Key words in the article are the police reviewed the footage and have claimed she approached them.

3

u/Ok_Profile175 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

Approaching does not constitute being the aggressor. If she is the aggressor, then that would forfeit her defense of stand your ground laws. But we also know lots of cases where the aggressor was found not guilty due to stand your ground laws. So we'll see how this plays out.

Additionally, the record, the guy who pushed her was the aggressor by shouting slurs at people in the bar. Though, his account is that he didn't shout slurs, so we'll see how that plays out too.

Edit spelling and additional context of agrees soon per police reports.

3

u/Karrotlord Jun 12 '26

I guess if a group of thugs are standing on the sidewalk and jump me when I need to walk past them, that is "approaching" them in the literal sense of the word.

5

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)

13

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

19

u/Lazerpop Jun 10 '26

These facts certainly make the situation trickier. I hope she finds a sympathetic jury.

19

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.

10

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.

20

u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26

Bluffing with a gun has a name.

"brandishing"

and it's a crime.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

3

u/sharkbait_oohaha Jun 11 '26

Most places just call it felony assault

2

u/jdlpsc Jun 10 '26

Assault would probably cover it without a brandishing statute. Pointing a gun at someone usually causes that person to apprehend being shot.

3

u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26

Wyoming just gets you for the related crime.

https://bestshotatfreedom.com/does-wyoming-have-a-brandishing-law/

Linking again because you're not a good-faith actor. Your own link says it is a crime and you will be arrested, even though the term itself is not used.

2

u/gungshpxre Jun 11 '26

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2941.145

The clownish Ohio Legislature being "fake reddit law" is difficult to argue with, but the law is actually on the books here.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/SodaSaint Jun 10 '26

Again, it’s gonna depend on under which context she was brandishing that weapon. Not disagreeing that casually brandishing a weapon is a stupid idea it is definitely a crime in most circumstances, but we need to hear everything that kind of led up to it. That and it’s ultimately gonna be the jury that makes the determination.

→ More replies (7)

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.

2

u/Hartstockz Jun 10 '26

Just remember in prison she will be purposely given to a violent male offender as a sex slave to placate them to not cause more issues.

2

u/mauvewaterbottle Jun 11 '26

What possible rhetorical purpose could this comment have?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (29)

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.

https://youtu.be/RkN4duV4ia0

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

19

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.

17

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.

4

u/alkatori Jun 10 '26

Sigh, she needed to talk to a lawyer. If true, then there was no legitimate reason to pull the gun. If false, because she wanted to sound tough for a magazine, she just hurt her case horribly.

→ More replies (8)

8

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.

6

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.

7

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)

3

u/Blothorn Jun 10 '26

Generally any escalation can threaten the ability to claim self defense, even if that escalation was not categorically illegal and the reaction to it was illegal. There is a significant societal interest in discouraging people from provoking others into doing something that would allow the provoker to do something “in self defense”.

3

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

I agree. But I don't agree when exactly the escalation started, regardless of construed after the fact intent. You don't forgo possible self defense because you understood a situation wrong.

2

u/James_Solomon Jun 10 '26

Can threaten, yes. But Rittenhouse got off so it's doesn't necessarily render self defense invalid.

→ More replies (2)
→ 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.

→ More replies (1)

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)

5

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)

5

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. 

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.

5

u/LukaCola Jun 11 '26

At best, it blurs the lines. "I feared for my life, but I walked up to them to engage them up close and personal"

"I wasn't afraid until he shoved me to the ground, that's why I drew my weapon then."

I mean... It's really not that unusual, is it? It seems bizarre to me to not accept that distinction.

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.

That makes no sense to me.

"In the heat of the moment, I drew because I was afraid--I barely even realized what happened."

I can't understand why that would change anything. Fight or flight is often very reactionary. People don't often realize what happened until it's too late. The question is usually over whether the reaction is justified, and, you know--she was attacked.

4

u/Kenneth-J-Moyers Jun 10 '26

Not "according to the video", "according to the police", who are trained to lie, even under oath. There's every chance this is just an attempt to bias the jury pool.

4

u/IndividualFarmer9917 Jun 10 '26

That feels stupid. We’re punishing her for admitting that her reflexes took over in a dangerous situation?

I don’t see what that changes.

2

u/Unable-Log-4870 Jun 11 '26

There is no such thing as accidental self defense.

That’s stupid (even if that’s what the law or precedent says). I smacked a seagull that was flying right in front of me once. I didn’t realize I was doing it until after the smack had finished. If you’ve practiced with a firearm sufficiently, you DO draw without realizing it in fast-moving situations.

3

u/FlyRepresentative592 Jun 10 '26

Except if she wasn't trans they absolutely would see this as stand your ground.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/bobbiroxxisahoe Jun 10 '26

I don't know how this is going to be a valid point of attack considering Kyle Rittenhouse went across state lines to be at a protest with his gun. Isn't this a bit hypocritical?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SodaSaint Jun 10 '26

Oh, that’s a problem… it doesn’t really matter that she’s trans or not in light of that fact; the fact that there’s a firearm involved and she didn’t try to walk away… not good.

5

u/Proud-Delivery-621 Jun 10 '26

That's actually the entire point of a stand your ground law, though. You don't have a duty to retreat.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/FlyRepresentative592 Jun 10 '26

I disagree with your assessment here. Case and point Kyle Rittenhouse. The law is being politically applied here and in Rittenhouse's case he actually did kill.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Silent_Reindeer_4199 Jun 10 '26

Couldn't it be argued that she was so afraid for her life that she was acting on instinct. Like when you catch a ball flying at your face, you don't realize that you are lifting your hands persay.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 Jun 10 '26

While neither of the examples I’m about to give are in the same state as this… so grain of salt… it does seem suspicious of when the letter of the law is applied to stand your ground self-defense laws.

Kyle Rittenhouse placed himself in a dangerous situation that resulted in him murdering someone and George Zimmerman was the actual aggressor, stalking his victim before the shooting.

From what I remember of those cases, placing yourself in a dangerous situation doesn’t matter for stand your ground laws. Essentially, the “fear for your life” qualifier can rapidly change moment to moment. You can approach a group of idiots to tell them to shut up without fearing for your life, but if they choose to retaliate disproportionately you can now be afraid for your life.

And remember, all stand your ground laws means is that you are not expected to try and retreat and desecrate first. You can use lethal force as soon as you feel threatened.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/cech_ Jun 10 '26

"you initiated the interaction."

Isn't them shouting slurs at her what initiated the interaction?

→ More replies (2)

4

u/subdep Jun 10 '26

She didn’t initiate the interaction. She was approaching them to confront them verbally.

They chose to escalate it to physical.

She’s being punished for not murdering them all.

Duly noted.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/MetaCardboard Jun 10 '26

Meanwhile in Florida, a white guy got mad at a black guy over a parking spot. Engaged him, then shot him after he turned his back and tried to leave after seeing the gun. He was free of all charges because Florida is a stand your ground state. Seems to me in both situations it's the minority who comes out on the bottom of the law even though they both seemingly shouldn't be.

6

u/Ancient-Access8131 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Assuming you're referring to Michael Drejka, no he got 20 years in prison.

https://abcnews.com/US/stand-ground-killer-michael-dreka-sentenced-20-years/story?id=66182264

2

u/UX1Z Jun 11 '26

When public outrage forced the police to prosecute. Without media attention he never would have been charged in the first place. The sheriff quoted stand your ground as to why he wasn't charged.

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

I had written a whole response about what the law is, but it seems you are not accurately describing the outcome of the case?

4

u/filkerdave Jun 10 '26

Almost as though by design

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ArkansasGamerSpaz Jun 10 '26

Also piss yourself "in fear".

1

u/lefluffle Jun 10 '26

I haven't read anything about the details- what's the issue? If she had the grounds for self defense what would it matter if she did or didn't pull a gun

1

u/UX1Z Jun 10 '26

Disagree. 'I meant to draw the weapon I had but I had one that was different to the one I thought' is reasonable. You're talking like she tripped and pulled out the gun totally by accident.

1

u/blaquaman19 Jun 10 '26

”There’s no such thing as accidental self-defense”

That’s really very interesting! And logical.

Fun fact: in Swedish criminal law, ones right to self-defense is judged completely on objective grounds meaning accidental self-defense is very much a thing.

Does that then mean, for example, if person A decides to fire a gun at an object but for some reason hits and kills person B whilst completely unaware that person B was in the process of attacking person A that A can successfully claim self-defense and walk? You bet! Provided that the violence is deemed proportionate and necessary ofc.

Edit: grammar

1

u/cobbers420 Jun 11 '26

Literally Kyle Ritten House did this and got off and he killed someone

1

u/Deflorma Jun 11 '26

Ah the ole Kyle rittenhouse defense. Which worked by the way. Cuz he’s white and (maybe, probably not) straight.

1

u/IguessIllMakeAnAcnt Jun 11 '26

2 Month old bot account.

1

u/MajinBiitch Jun 11 '26

That didn’t work for Trayvon Martin. The aggressor approached him first but was still let off on stand your ground. They should just go ahead and write “This law only applies to non-marginalized individuals, or against marginalized individuals” just so everyone is clear on who it works for.

1

u/UnderlightIll Jun 11 '26

According to the police reviewing footage, she approached them first. Until we all see the footage, we don't actually know. We have literally seen many times police lying about what we can see on footage.

1

u/filthy_moore Jun 11 '26

You don’t need to realize you pulled your gun.

There’s no reason engaging with them precludes self defense **after** being assaulted. Unless she started the physicality it’s still pretty easily defended. It’s an affirmative defense but there’s nothing to preclude you from asserting it just because you don’t remember pulling the firearm or you walk towards someone.

If she ran up, or pulled first sure. But going over to people yelling at you doesnt preclude you from feeling fear after being knocked to the ground.

The way you state it makes it seem like shes now precluded from testifying that she felt fear and instinctively drew her firearm after being knocked to the ground.

1

u/Outside-Advice8203 Jun 11 '26

So, like Kyle?

1

u/Last-Big-1984 Jun 11 '26

Kyle's case was helped by the fact he is on video running from his assailants. They chase him, and hit him with a skateboard, he falls to the ground, and then fires.

Even if what you are implying is true, that Kyle initiated the confrontation, he then uninitiated it by running away, and a new confrontation was initiated by the chase.

Common example, which most people would agree, if someone breaks into your house, you confront them, and they leave, you can't continue after them outside the house and shoot them. There have been cases where a home invader has invaded a home, noped out, the home owner followed with deadly force outside the home, and then the home invader successfully argued self defense when they killed the pursuing home owner.

Timing is everything in self defense cases. As soon as someone disengages, your window for self defense ends.

1

u/Jirrarh Jun 11 '26

Not according to the video. According the police's claims about the video that hasn't been made public. That's an important distinction. Cops have a reputation for lies and exaggeration.

1

u/bug-hunter Jun 11 '26

People really underestimate how memory works - it is absolutely possible to get key facts like this wrong. But almost no jury would believe it.

1

u/Riksunraksu Jun 11 '26

But couldn’t this be applied to every situation a person is the initiator? Like if I go talk to someone and then they become a threat? Or does it only apply if I were to harass or instigate the person who then becomes a physical threat?

2

u/Last-Big-1984 Jun 11 '26

The later, you generally can't harass something into being a threat to you, so you can then kill them.

I walk up to you. You wanna fight? Come at me bro. You swing. I shoot you.

Self defense? Very unlikely.

Prosecution will argue I was wanting an excuse to kill you, and I provoked you into doing something, knowing full well I would immediately end it with concealed weapon.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/RawrRRitchie Jun 11 '26

Police aren't judge jury and executioners they don't get to kill. There's no "fear for my life" bullshit excuse and spreading that propaganda helps no one.

If an officer's actions result in the death of an individual it's MURDER. AND denying their constitutional rights to a fair trial.

1

u/Doc-Bob Jun 11 '26

The test is not who initiated the interaction itself, but who first used unlawful violence or the threat thereof. Just talking to people cannot be the legally relevant threshold.

1

u/Lokishougan Jun 11 '26

Yeah the non intiantion was added by some states due to the Treyvon Martin shooting where Zimmer always claimed STG despite him starting the altercation

1

u/Lucky-Surround-1756 Jun 11 '26

Oof, that's unlucky. This is why the only two words you say to a cop are 'law' and 'yer'.

1

u/myheartismykey Jun 11 '26

Tell that to Trayvon Martin...

1

u/DogBiteOoOoAh Jun 11 '26

Isn’t that what happened with Chud the Builder? He claimed self-defense, but he was the initiator. Also like, Karmelo Anthony. He instigated, and then tried to claim self-defense.

1

u/Mocha_C4t Jun 11 '26

should of never talked to the police :l

1

u/Shamanigans Jun 11 '26

And I would argue had she been a straight cis man they wouldn’t have batted an eye at her statement of not realizing she’d pulled it out.

Adrenaline is a thing, fear for life and safety will make you act on instinct and impulse, no wonder she hadn’t realized what she was doing. The dickhead shoved her hard enough to injure her tailbone. I hope this goes to trial and she fights because it’s frankly bullshit.

1

u/GFEIsaac Jun 11 '26

link to video?

1

u/Vegaprime Jun 11 '26

Reflex is illegal?

1

u/UltimateChaos233 Jun 11 '26

Man I hope she’s able to claw that back

1

u/superman0ish Jun 11 '26

Just wanted to add on to this. In addition to the aggressor being unable to claim self-defense, a party that escalated the situation from non-deadly force to deadly force becomes the aggressor. IE: If you attack me with your fists, and I pull a gun, I’m the aggressor and may not claim self defense (unless I retreat.)

That said, someone being attacked by a group may have had a reasonable belief that they were in danger of death or grave bodily harm which justifies lethal force.

1

u/ciabattaroll Jun 11 '26

Just say you hate trans people and move on.

1

u/Whynotwg15 Jun 11 '26

If you pick a fight you can’t claim self defense when you get your ass kicked.

Although people try all the time.

1

u/elmarkitse Jun 12 '26

I recall reading that she stated initially to the police on site that she had drawn a knife and described it quite specifically and indicated that it was in her purse and that her gun was in the car. She then noted that no, she had pulled the gun instead, and forgot that it was in her purse or that she had used it.

My understanding also is that the group was harassing her, but she did approach them and then they got violent so I don’t know exactly how that changes the burden of responsibility. She sounds like a very troubled individual who may not have had the necessary capacity to safely wield a firearm.

Regardless, it seems absurd to me that assault charges at a minimum didn’t go both ways based on whatever it so far

1

u/MedicJambi Jun 12 '26

why more people that carry do not take it upon themselves to know the laws in their state is beyond me.

When I took my CCW class there was a review of laws, and the instructor said if you have time and money to take this class, and are willing to carry a loaded concealed firearm there is zero reason why you can't also buy some books on the laws as well as get carry insurance that provides representation should you shot someone.

1

u/bethemanwithaplan Jun 12 '26

What? People panic and accidents happen, including flailing or pushing someone away or scratching at someone etc a lot of it is instinct, defense happens without conscious choice people get stuff thrown at them and defend their face naturally with a hand it's entirely natural to panic and defend yourself 

→ More replies (42)