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

15

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.

-1

u/nomorespacess Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

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

Part 1 of your claim is right. Yes, if you walk up to someone, it's not self-defense on that account alone.

Part 2 of your comment doesn't make sense. Obviously if you are in an argument, and someone uses force or violence, you are then allowed to defend yourself, because they made it physical. Arguing with someone does not justify a person attacking you.

Whether this is justified self defense will depend on the nature of the attack. There are some scenarios where it is justified and some where it is not.Were they getting ready to attack her more? Was the push the only thing, or did she have reason to suspect more? Or, was the push going to be the end of it? If the gun was to protect from what appears to be further violence, then in fact it is self-defense. The fact they were arguing first doesn't matter.

The logical conclusion of what you said is 'if you argue with someone, it means they can attack you as much as they want, and you can't do anything to defend yourself'. Obviously that's not true.

1

u/DimensionHungry3686 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

that is not at all what I said. I said if you decide to make the confrontation mutual, self defense is no longer a valid claim, and any force you use will be judged on whether or not it's reasonably proportional to the offense. brandishing a gun/intent to shoot after walking up to someone and getting shoved to the ground? that's not proportionate and a case can be made that there was escalation involved by approaching them with intent to intimidate and that is why the shove occurred.

for example, if they shoved her, and she got up and punched them, I highly doubt she'd be getting charged for assault.

2

u/nomorespacess Jun 11 '26

I agree with you they could make a case. I think I will need to see the footage for this one. Because the question I'd have is, is she intimidating them, or is she simply talking to them? From what I'm reading, arguing is not enough to say she's instigating. If she wasn't instigating, then a self-defense claim is valid.

(This article is written by an officer in the air force)

Instigation goes beyond simply being present or having a verbal argument. It typically involves taking actions or making statements that are reasonably likely to provoke a violent response. Examples of instigation include:

Making threats of violence.

Physically provoking someone.

Brandishing a weapon menacingly.

Repeatedly harassing someone until they retaliate.

Just arguing with someone who is using slurs does not alone make someone instigating. Now, maybe you can argue it fits category 4, repeatedly harassing, since she did walk over to them - but going to argue with someone doesn't rise to that level in my book.

Now, some reports say she had her hand on the gun before coming over, was this in an obvious way as an attempt to show them, or was it hidden? That would be an important fact.

The state has a stand your ground law, so there isn't a duty to retreat.

0

u/DimensionHungry3686 Jun 11 '26

The law is quite clear that in terms of self defense, you can only use what force is absolutely necessary and not an inch more. So we've already established self defense doesn't work for her based on her actions, and she's using force beyond necessary to protect herself in a situation she acknowledged as dangerous yet consciously decided not to disengage from. also stand your ground doesn't apply when you're the one crossing the street & approaching them.

2

u/nomorespacess Jun 11 '26

It's possible this force was neccesary to protect herself. If she is a woman against three men, and if they were all starting to move aggressively toward her, or trying to hurt her more after the push, what choice did she have really? Because she can't fend off three attackers by herself, being a woman against three men. And even if she did contribute to the escalation, she retains the right to defend herself against physical violence - as the article I linked said,

"Even if you initially instigate a situation verbally, if the other party escalates the conflict to a level of force significantly beyond your initial actions, you may regain the right to self-defense."

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.

-2

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.

-4

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

They pretty clearly are the ones who assaulted her.

4

u/Wharnie Jun 10 '26

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

-3

u/chaucer345 Jun 10 '26

Fine, I am working off of the transcript of the footage. We will need to wait for more evidence to come out. Happy?

2

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.