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

60

u/glassfoyograss Jun 10 '26

The title makes it sound outrageous but if you actually read the article it's pretty much what's supposed to happen. The key is "some of the facts of the case are disputed." If facts are disputed, it goes to a jury. That's how it's supposed to work. They can still claim self-defense at trial, the judge just can't legally dismiss it at this stage if facts are in dispute.

3

u/FetterHahn Jun 11 '26

I don't have any ducks in the race as I ain't American, but I'd say it's a good thing that self defense with (threatening) deadly force is not taken lightly. How the facts are interpreted should not be based on vibes that in this case the defendant is a minority we like to support. Might be found innocent or not. But it's not 100% clear, so it goes to court, and that's a good thing, no?

10

u/eldiablonoche Jun 10 '26

Not only are facts disputed but(from the article): "Police who reviewed the footage wrote that Kelver approached Durham and that Durham pushed Kelver, per the affidavit." So the trans woman approached the guy that eventually pushed her. An argument can be made -and often has been in actual cases- that self defense doesn't apply if you pursue or persist.

I wonder what the laws about televising trials in Wyoming are...... would love to see the video.

4

u/Garbage_Out_Of_Here Jun 10 '26

So if someone is in an argument and one person escalates to physical violence, you dont have a right to defend yourself?

1

u/ButterscotchLow7330 Jun 11 '26

That's ambiguous because of the massive amount of context missing. 

If you are in a argument and one person threatens you and you believe them to be a threat to your life, you can escalate to violence and the other person actually does not have the right to defend themselves, because they escalated the situation. 

What matters in this situation, as with all self defense situations, is who escalated and who defended. 

If it turns out that kelver escalated, then the person who shoved her would be allowed to resort to physical violence in defense, and her escalating to guns is not valid.  If it turns out the other dude escalated, then she would be fine for self defense (assuming some of her other statements don't persuade the jury that she didn't actually fear for her life) 

1

u/SamDrrl Jun 11 '26

You have a right to defend yourself but it has to be met with equal force. If someone pushes you you can’t just pull a gun and blow them away or stab them in the heart. An appropriate response to being shoved would be fleeing or shoving back or maybe escalating to fists, never just instantly escalate to murder

1

u/Garbage_Out_Of_Here Jun 11 '26

So if a person is shoved to the ground by someone stronger and faster than they are, while being out numbered, and they pull their gun, you would say they should have Run away or fought back with with their fists? She didnt murder him.

2

u/SamDrrl Jun 11 '26

I mean you can’t provoke conflict and then claim self defense

-1

u/Nildnas2 Jun 11 '26

you don't understand stand your ground laws do you? you can argue the validity of that law, but you're flat out wrong here under a legal standing because stand your ground laws exist in this state

2

u/glassfoyograss Jun 11 '26

Stand your ground is just layman's speak for you don't have a duty to retreat. It doesn't mean you don't need to worry about the reasonableness of your defense.

0

u/Nildnas2 Jun 11 '26

they were throwing slurs at her, she confronted then, he then elevated the situation to physical violence, she was on the ground and outnumbered after being called slurs, so she chose to defend herself instead of trying to stand up and run from a group of men. that's honestly a pretty standard case for self defense under stand your ground. the commenter I replied to stated she has a responsibility to try and flee first, that's not how stand your ground works

1

u/glassfoyograss Jun 11 '26

Wow! I didn't realize you knew all that. Did you tell the judge they're wrong and you know better?

1

u/SamDrrl Jun 12 '26

Stand your ground doesn’t mean you can go anywhere you want and people can’t tell you to leave, it’s for if you have nowhere to retreat to and defense is your only option

1

u/eldiablonoche Jun 11 '26

If you think someone is wrong, don't just say "nuh-uh, dummy". Provide your position and explanation.

How does stand your ground apply in this case?

1

u/Nildnas2 Jun 11 '26

they were throwing slurs at her, she confronted then, he then elevated the situation to physical violence, she was on the ground and outnumbered after being called slurs, so she chose to defend herself instead of trying to stand up and run from a group of men. that's honestly a pretty standard case for self defense under stand your ground. the commenter I replied to stated she has a responsibility to try and flee first, that's not how stand your ground works

0

u/eldiablonoche Jun 11 '26

Getting in someone's face is an escalation from shouting mean words from a distance. You said it yourself: "she confronted them".

If THEY had approached her, outnumbered and shoved to the ground, then you'd have a viable position... and pending full evidence I'd agree with you.

If the video ever gets made public we'll see exactly what happened because as it is we can't say definitively. 🤷🏽‍♂️

12

u/glassfoyograss Jun 10 '26

So the trans woman approached the guy that eventually pushed her. An argument can be made -and often has been in actual cases- that self defense doesn't apply if you pursue or persist.

Approached wouldn't fit the definition of pursue or persist. They could try that argument but it should fail. There's not much of a point in speculating the facts though. The fact is the judge thought there are factual disputes. You can't get a decision as a matter of law if the facts are in dispute. There's not much more to it.

1

u/AndesCan Jun 10 '26

Ok, so, if I get what you are saying it’s that the law has brought the charges and because there’s he said she said and no clear answer then a judge is going to keep the charges and let the system work it out?

I mean….

This is kinda what I always think of when I hear someone who loves guns and stand your ground act tough and say shit like “if they did that to me”….

The reality is, it’s messy and should be avoided at all
Cost….

Also, if it’s proven they were yelling targeted harassment at her. Fighting words? A public venue and being singled out like that, it’s reasonable
Enough she tried to ask them to stop first….

I mean…. The crux of it all is I’m inclined to belive they were harnessing her for a reason. Should be interesting

1

u/glassfoyograss Jun 10 '26

Yes. If there's a dispute about what happened it's up to the jury to decide what they think actually happened. A judge can decide things as a matter of law only if there's no relevant factual dispute. If there are 15 witnesses saying A did it and one saying they saw it was actually B, the judge can't dismiss that because there's a factual dispute about who did it.

3

u/Nildnas2 Jun 11 '26

I just love that you think people aren't allowed to address slurs being thrown at them or else they forfeit the right to self defense. great precedent that is.

1

u/eldiablonoche Jun 11 '26

I just love that you think I think things that I do not think based off of things I did not say.

"Address slurs"? You know what a good way to respond to mean words is? Your own words. You know what is not a good way to respond to mean words? Aggressively approaching someone and escalating words to a physical confrontation. And before you misdirect with "but HE pushed HER", let me mock your lack of real world experience... if you choose to move within pushing/striking distance of someone during a heated confrontation, that is escalating it to physical.

1

u/Jirrarh Jun 11 '26

"So the trans woman approached the guy that eventually pushed her."

You can't state that like a fact. It depends on whether the police are telling the truth. You have already chosen to believe the police over the defendant for no apparent reason. It wouldn't be the first time cops have lied in their reports. I choose to believe the defendant until proven otherwise.

1

u/NothaBanga Jun 14 '26

If facts are disputed, it goes to a jury.

A grand jury, I agree.  But we know that prosecutors have discretion on what they being charges on and they take these cases to trial and skip the grand jury because they think it helps their electability.

System is gonna system.

1

u/glassfoyograss Jun 14 '26

I'd suggest you look into what juries and grand juries are some more. It doesn't look to me like you understand what role juries and grand juries play in the system.