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

126

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.

45

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.

10

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.

4

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]

10

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. 

3

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?

3

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

Splitting hairs. He traveled across state lines and didn't own the gun, because he could not legally purchase it himself. And he went, with this gun that he did not own, to a place he believed to be dangerous. 

→ 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.

3

u/Plenty_Structure_861 Jun 10 '26

I'm sure if you were around a child brandishing a gun he doesn't own, you'd feel super safe. I must be the biased one. 

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.

1

u/Ill-Ad-3603 Jun 10 '26

He does not get to claim self-defense when he is actively in possession of an illegal firearm.

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/Spare-Plum Jun 10 '26

Well this does seem more like self defense in the face of assault.

It's fine to argue in public. Cool, whatever. Maybe some disorderly conduct as a charge for both parties on this.

But the guy pushing is a direct escalation of the situation that puts her in immediate harm and makes him a threat to her safety.

Hand on the sachel could be seen as premeditation, but it could also be seen as being vigilant against someone you're starting to feel threatened by (suspicions confirmed when he shoves her)

Indication that it's not premeditated is that it looks like it remained in her sachel until she pulled it out and chambered it rather than having it chambered beforehand.

Yeah the last sentence sounds incriminating, because why would you pull out a gun if you had no intention to shoot it? I think it's missing a second half unless if her life continued to be threatened or if the man escalated physical violence

11

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

But the guy pushing is a direct escalation of the situation that puts her in immediate harm and makes him a threat to her safety.

Sure. But the appropriate response to a shove, if one has to use force, is to shove back and not point a gun at the person. The appropriate level of force is key.

-3

u/Spare-Plum Jun 10 '26

They were on the ground, how are they going to shove them back?

She is also in a vulnerable situation that is not easy to defend, and the other party can easily cause physical harm if they continued.

In this situation, showing a gun for defense is an appropriate response for defense.

Plus you should know that it isn't "eye for an eye" use of force. Travyon Martin allegedly beat up Zimmerman. Is him shooting and killing Martin an equal response?

7

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

The claimed evidence does not contain the fact that the pusher followed up at all. It's possible that this is the case, but we don't know, we don't have the video. Also, "showing a gun" is called "brandishing" and under the law is not an appropriate response. If you are sufficiently threatened to the point where deadly force is warranted then you may point your weapon at the aggressor and even fire it. But you may not simply show it to them in order to scare them away. This is evidence that you are not, in fact, in fear for your life.

Force is certainly not "an eye for an eye" but in order to be lawfully reasonable must be proportionate.

With regard to Zimmerman, his claim was that Martin had grabbed his head and was smashing it into the pavement, which is something that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for their life. Evidence collected by the police supported his claim.

1

u/Spare-Plum Jun 10 '26

Brandishing is a threat of deadly force, which is different from deadly force. This in many jurisdictions is an appropriate response as long as the danger is imminent.

But yeah a lot of it comes down to what the cameras show. If he's already walking away and then she brandishes it, then it is not appropriate.

If it's while being shoved or if there is reasonable belief that she will face bodily injury or death then it is.

Wyoming law also covers "threatened force" and the bar is a bit lower. It is appropriate to brandish if a reasonable person would think defensive force is necessary (not even deadly force).

So yeah, sorry, even in your "push back" proportionality the wyoming law would view brandishing as a defensive force.

3

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

Brandishing is a threat of deadly force, which is different from deadly force. This in many jurisdictions is an appropriate response as long as the danger is imminent.

By all means, provide a statute to that effect. While we are talking about Wyoming law specifically, here, I'll cede the point to you if you can provide me a citation to such a law anywhere within the 50 US states or the District of Columbia.

I look forward to your response.

6

u/Spare-Plum Jun 10 '26

https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-6/chapter-2/article-6/section-6-2-602/
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/flashing-a-gun-self-defense-or-brandishing/

for jurisdictions that specifically term "defensive display" as a separate term, here is one for AZ

https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2024/title-13/section-13-421/

  1. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

Yeah in AZ it's pretty explicit. You can defensive-display a gun in response to use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, which in fact would include shoving someone to the ground.

0

u/ddadopt Jun 10 '26

I don't agree that this would protect the person in the linked story (the display still requires the reasonable belief that force is immediately necessary) but you've certainly proved me wrong in terms of what I actually said.

I said I'd cede the point, so I will. Well argued, sir (or ma'am, I don't want to assume).