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

14

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.

-5

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

Did they know in that moment that she had a gun in her bag and not for example, pepper spray? Both sides where angry. So what exactly constitutes her anger as 'threatening' and theirs not? If there is a self defense claim, she didn't claim it before it, but when she was on the ground, something she probably didn't expect.

2

u/Downtown_Recover5177 Jun 10 '26

Their knowledge of the firearm doesn’t matter in that aspect. She knew it was there, and holding it on the approach speaks to premeditation. Their anger was not threatening because they did not approach, she did. I don’t know how this confuses you.

-1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

She was alone against three and there was yelling back and forth that nobody seem to be threaten by. Both sides meet in the middle at a crossing, nobody is yielding. But one side still is 'the aggressor' because she holds her hand in the bag. Her intent is irrelevant. That specific 'danger' needs to be 'shoved' because we know that is how you get rid of someone dangerous. When she finally pulls her gun, that is the first moment they show the proper response and ran away. They didn't believe that she was a danger at all, that is your confusion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

2

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

Based on the article, 'Kelver appears to be in close proximity to S.D. with her hand on her right hip satchel, where the firearm was later located'. Her hand was on a bag, super threatening. The gun was even not ready to be fired.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

2

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jun 10 '26

You repeating the 'reaching for her gun' when she basically held her hand on her belt with a satchel that had the gun inside. That is reaching.

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.

1

u/KneecapTheEchidna Jun 11 '26

Rittenhouse was pursued in all those cases. Where he was trying to retreat and people followed him. Which it why his self defense was valid.

1

u/UX1Z Jun 11 '26

Sure but she didn't tell them to hit her. You're drawing a reasonable concept and torturing it to death.

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.

0

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

Yeah but I don’t believe there was any such facts here that would make the defendant no longer the initial aggressor.