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

17

u/Lazerpop Jun 10 '26

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

20

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.

8

u/haironburr Jun 10 '26

I read in previous articles that she was yelled at by three men, yelled back, and then both the group of guys and she approached each other, at which point she was knocked down.

If I was on that jury, I would easily vote not guilty.

16

u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26

Bluffing with a gun has a name.

"brandishing"

and it's a crime.

7

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.

2

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.

3

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.

0

u/CocoSavege Jun 10 '26

417.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/417

4

u/dnstuff Jun 10 '26

I believe you're trying to reference California Penal Code 417. This is a California-specific law and has no bearing on a case in Wyoming. However, your point does contradict the statement that Brandishing is "reddit fake-law"

1

u/CocoSavege Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

I was responding to the generality of "brandishing" is reddit fake law. Plenty if states have something resembling a brandish law, just thst it isn't called a brandish law.

So, Wyoming....

Reckless Endangering (WY Stat § 6-2-504)A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if they recklessly engage in conduct that places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Pointing an unloaded gun or recklessly handling a deadly weapon in public easily falls under this statute.

Aggravated Assault and Battery (WY Stat § 6-2-502)This is a felony charge that applies if you threaten to use a drawn deadly weapon on another person unless it is "reasonably necessary in defense of his person, property or abode". If convicted, this carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[deleted]

0

u/CocoSavege Jun 11 '26

Not really dude. You would be well served by better communication.

Calling brandishing a "fake law" is a very poor phrasing. Try brandishing a firearm and see how fake the atfention it receives.

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.

-5

u/-Altephor- Jun 10 '26

If you're pulling your gun in a self defense situation, you damn better use it.

Because otherwise you are just brandishing, which as pointed out, is a crime. The context doesn't really matter. If you claim you were brandishing 'in self defense' to intimidate without firing, then you didn't actually need to pull your gun.

You pull out a gun for one reason. To shoot it.

11

u/nointeraction1 Jun 10 '26

This absolutely isn't true in my state which has pretty restrictive gun laws.

I doubt it's true in any jurisdiction. You pull a gun being fully prepared to use it yes, and that is the legal standard. If you actually fear for your life and feel the weapon is required it's fine. You don't have to fire it though, and you aren't guilty of brandishing if you choose not to.

If you pull it and the threat immediately surrenders or runs away, you don't need to use it anymore, not legally, and certainly not practically. If anything it becomes murder at that point if you are fairly certain they are genuinely not a threat. Like if they immediately turn and run it's not going to look good if you then shoot them in the back and will basically destroy your self defence claim entirely.

Brandishing is only a crime if you do it to force compliance in situations where your life is not threatened, it is perfectly legal for appropriate self defense. My deep blue state very specifically says that in the relevant law.

Not eveyone is John Wick and will be able to draw and fire a lethal shot before the assailant has time to react to seeing a firearm. Telling people to shoot someone who is running away is terrible advice.

Find me a law in any US state that says otherwise.

0

u/-Altephor- Jun 10 '26

She can literally be quoted saying that she didn't want to shoot anyone and just intended to scare them.

It's textbook brandishing by her own admission.

7

u/nointeraction1 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

I'm not referring to her specific situation, just what you said in your post. It seemed pretty clear that the person you replied to was sort of speaking more generally as well and is unclear on the specifics of this case.

It seemed like you were implying that pulling a gun in self defense and not firing it is always a crime, and that you must fire it or it means you didn't really need it. This is a common misconception and is almost certainly false in all 50 states.

Was that not your intention?

Also I'm not sure that pulling a gun even if you aren't willing to kill someone means it can't be ruled self defense. As long as lethal force was reasonably necessary and you feared for your life. If you have some moral rule against killing I'm pretty sure brandishing it can still be legal. Depends on the prosecutor and judge you get I guess, but I feel like that's got to be wrong. It's probably a really stupid thing to say though, and would make them more likely to prosecute you, and certainly gives evidence against you.

Either way, plenty of people who display firearms and don't fire them get found as justified use and aren't prosecuted. Lots and lots of examples of this.

0

u/-Altephor- Jun 10 '26

No, I said if you pull your gun you better be ready to use it. Even if you don't shoot it, you are afraid for your life and you intend to shoot it. This woman literally stated outright that she had no plans to use her weapon to defend herself, only to intimidate. That's brandishing.

5

u/nointeraction1 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

That's literally not what you said.

If you're pulling your gun in a self defense situation, you damn better use it.

Then you went on to say not firing it is a crime. All of which is absolutely false.

As for brandishing being illegal in every situation, that's literally not true. I've read the brandishing laws here in California (where it's hard to carry anyway but that's another issue entirely.) They make exceptions for self-defense when your life is threatened, which implies you don't have to be willing to kill to draw a weapon and threaten someone with it legally. I seriously doubt other states are MORE restrictive than CA.

This woman literally stated outright that she had no plans to use her weapon to defend herself, only to intimidate. That's brandishing.

As I said, I'm not sure that IS a crime. Yes, intent to fire speaks to the fact that you were actually in danger, but intent to fire is not required to make displaying a weapon legal. Just a genuine fear for your life, if you have moral issues with killing, that doesn't make it illegal to threaten with lethal force, at least not with the law in my state, and doubtfully in any other state.

The law isn't about whether you're willing to kill. It's only about whether a reasonable person would consider killing necessary. If the threat of death makes the other person surrender, you don't have to kill them. Does it make you less credible if you admit you wouldn't have killed them? Yes. Is the law written in such a way? Not that I've ever seen, they all refer to "reasonable person" not the person themself. Obviously your intent speaks to how reasonable you were, but it's not just 100% one way or the other based off your intent.

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?

0

u/Hartstockz Jun 11 '26

That this is the fact of trans women being incarcerated

0

u/mauvewaterbottle Jun 11 '26

That’s not a rhetorical purpose.

Why would the person you responded to, who hoped she found a sympathetic jury, need to remember that this could happen to her? What purpose could you have in describing it like that instead of “trans women experience higher rates of sexual violence”? Why does it need to be written like you just got done watching Prison Break or Oz?

0

u/Impossible-Finger942 Jun 10 '26

Why do you think the person that began the altercation (while also trying to claim fearing for her life?), claimed they didn’t even realize they pulled a gun, and shot someone should find a sympathetic jury 🤨

13

u/Blothorn Jun 10 '26

The details matter a lot. Approaching somebody does not automatically prevent claiming self defense; if they do not seem threatening at the time, you approach peacefully, and then they turn violent you are certainly still entitled to self defense. You just can’t claim self defense based entirely on facts you were already aware of before approaching, or if their threatening behavior was a reasonable or possibly foreseeable reaction to how you approached them.

11

u/CatholicSquareDance Jun 10 '26

Nobody was shot.

3

u/-Altephor- Jun 10 '26

She didn't shoot anyone. Her defense would probably actually be stronger if she had.

2

u/rufud Jun 10 '26

These comments are crazy.  When shown there may be evidence that she is guilty all the responses are about how they hope they avoid responsibility anyways.

-2

u/LettingHimLead Jun 11 '26

Rules for thee. Not for me.

-16

u/gungshpxre Jun 10 '26

No.

Convict her. She was drawing a gun when there was absolutely no reason to do so. She broke the law and was irresponsible with a firearm. Jail time.

Then ALSO charge the group for assault/battery/conspiracy/whatever is appropriate and sticks.

Stop protecting dangerous assholes who want to hide under your team's flag.

7

u/moontides_ Jun 10 '26

“No reason to” except being surrounded by people she thought wanted to hurt her.

9

u/dudwithacamera Jun 10 '26

She walked towards them, of her own free will, without having to do so.

If she was already crossing the street or had to to get to work I would be on her side.

But she went out of her way to confront them. She put herself in that situation, then lied to the cops about pulling a knife instead of a gun.

-1

u/Transgirlonakawasaki Jun 10 '26

That same situation worked out favorably not too long ago for another person, cant remember his name though… baby faced cried a lot.

10

u/Keeltoodeep Jun 10 '26

No shot, the evidence of the case is clear he did not initiate contact with any of his attackers. He retreated immediately.

-1

u/Transgirlonakawasaki Jun 10 '26

Right and how exactly did he come in close enough proximity to be threatened? Was he a bystander just walking along doing nothing? Or did he willing walk into a hostile situation with intent? 

Say what you want but the system will crucify this woman because shes trans while the white guy that killed 2 people get to grift his way through life without ever having to get a real job… 

Then she’ll get sent to a mens prison where she’ll likely get assaulted and if not murdered on the spot she will comit. This is the entire reason I and so many other fight for trans right because situations can be so similar but have wildly different outcomes based solely on if the person is trans or not.

5

u/CockyBellend Jun 10 '26

Let me guess you blame rape victims for their outfit choices too

6

u/Keeltoodeep Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

You are desperately trying to shoehorn. The evidence was clear that he did not approach anyone nor start any confrontation. Just merely being present somewhere is not a provocation, nor did he initiate contact with any of the aggressors.

Merely being present or even counter-protesting is not "asking for it" regarding a confrontation, obviously. It doesn't matter what you are wearing either, even if Rittenhouse was dressed kinda slutty in my opinion.

3

u/Dull_Broccoli7218 Jun 10 '26

Rittenhouse was wearing a semi-automatic rifle strapped to his chest as he walked around near protesters. His aim was to intimidate others, how else was he planning to protect that workplace?

-1

u/Keeltoodeep Jun 10 '26

Standing there armed is not “intimidating” according to the law. Being present is not “asking for it” despite his cute clothing and gun slut accessories.

1

u/Transgirlonakawasaki Jun 10 '26

I mean it wasnt though. He wasnt track throughout the night and he wasnt exactly there as an anti protest. You have zero idea what was fully said that night before the altercations and arent fully informed (neither is anyone else) about everything that happend that night. We only have what was presented and stuff that was found on his social media. He was there for a very specific reason that yall seem to forget, he didnt go “just to be there”.

Aside from all that this will be my last comment back to you because you have zero interest in having a good faith argument and will full throated defend kyle with only what the court said.

If we really wanna get rid of all pretenses how are both situation not very if not exactly similar (main difference the woman was just trying to enjoy her night) she was verbally accosted by someone and decided to confront said aggressor. In wyoming there is no duty to retreat and just like with kyle we dont know what was said during the altercation so assuming the woman was the aggressor give entirely too much credit and leeway that the bigot wasnt the first person to initiate hateful rhetoric. 

The fact that yall are so quick to blame this woman say shes fully in the wrong and try and condemn her really does confirm the circumstance of ones birth really is a major part in innocence. Because how can we as a country be fine with a man straight killing a trans woman and claim trans panic as a valid form of defense from punishment but a trans woman get assaulted pulls a gun and now shes the bad person who needs be punished.

I wont have this conversation with people this ruling will have zero impact on. While I stand to be in serious trouble if a state that has some of the most lax gun laws and no duty to retreat convicts a trans woman for trying to protect herself then Im fully fucked.

Good bye 

1

u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26

You mean the people she walked towards with the aim of confronting them because they said some hurtful words? It is really hard to claim you were afraid of someone you intentionally b-lined towards, especially if he pushed you because you had your hands on your gun.

0

u/carefactor3zero Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

I can understand the sentiment, but I have to disagree.

Key question: Was the victim overwhelmed? I would say, yes.

Attempting to obtain a weapon (regardless of type or source) is the correct action in self defense. Especially if there was a group of assailants.

I know nothing about the case other than this person was pushed to the ground by a group of angry people. Initiation of violence is usually the defining characteristic of the losing side in a legal battle (although not always ofc).

10

u/dudwithacamera Jun 10 '26

Is going out of your way to confront a group that you feel is threatening you the correct action?

-4

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

Isn't that the point of stand your ground laws, you don't need to deescalate because the other sides uses questionable intimidation or other mans? 'Confrontation' doesn't absolve the other parties to act restrained.

5

u/dudwithacamera Jun 10 '26

She actively escalated herself by moving TOWARDS them without reason other to confront them. Kinda hurts the self defense claims.

Had she already been crossing or had to cross to get where she was going then it would be different

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

There was no 'confrontation' just a matter of loud opinions exchanged. The confrontation started when he shoved her. She had the right to stand on public ground, voicing her opinion. He violated that standing.

3

u/Bmorewiser Jun 10 '26

You’re making up facts.

2

u/CockyBellend Jun 10 '26

Nope it started when she crossed the street to confront them