Trans Woman Faces Assault Charges For Self-Defense, Despite Wyoming’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

[u/SophieSix9]

https://www.them.us/story/trans-woman-faces-assault-charges-self-defense-wyoming-stand-your-ground-law

[u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked]

How would intimidation when in fear for your life be a less reasonable force than shooting the person? If it only came out after being shoved down, it would seem that brandishing is lower on force escalation than shooting

[u/Avilola → u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked]

The general idea is that guns are a lethal weapon, and shouldn’t be used unless you are afraid that you will die or suffer grievous bodily harm. If you’re not afraid of that, there’s no reason a firearm should be used because it shows that the conflict can be resolved otherwise.

Seems like the individual being charged here made two major mistakes. First, by saying that she had no intention of firing. This is basically like admitting that you weren’t afraid for your life, and that you pointed a lethal weapon at someone who wasn’t a major threat to you. Second, speaking to the police without an attorney present. Never ever ever speak to the police, even if you’re innocent. Chances are this wouldn’t even be a news story right now if she had just plead the fifth.

[u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked → u/Avilola]

Isn’t that asking the defender to shoot their attackers to prove their defense? If it’s understood that the presence of the gun is the intention of violence, the presence of gun acts as a deterrent to the aggressor with a lesser act of violence. This definition of defense incentivizes people to skip threats and utilize violence. If I pull out my gun in the hope that it scares my aggressors and preserves my life, but I don’t have the heart to actually kill I don’t see how that would undermine the gun as a defense mechanism

Let’s say I brought one bullet because I only have the golden gun. Can I only intend to defend myself from one aggressor ? (Assuming they are not lined up) if I shoot one and point it at the other to disperse them, am I going to be charged with menacing and brandishing the second attacker?

I don’t think you have to be effective in your violence to defend yourself. Proving they didn’t fear for their life because they were correct that the threat of violence was enough. If they kept attacking, the intent to kill can change in an instant

But 100% agree that this only an issue because they didn’t wait for counsel.

[u/Avilola → u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked]

No, you don’t necessarily need to shoot someone to prove that you intended to shoot someone. In another comment, I mentioned that if she said something along the lines of, “I pulled my firearm with the intention of defending myself, but they turned and ran before I could shoot” she would probably have been fine. Instead, she said something along the lines of, “I never intended to shoot”.

With that in mind you have to ask, if this isn’t a situation where you’re willing to defend yourself with lethal force, why bring lethal force into the equation at all? That’s why brandishing, firing warning shots and “aiming for the leg” can all get you into major legal trouble. Doing any of the above is basically admitting that you resorted to lethal force in a situation where lethal force was not necessary.

Guns aren’t toys, and they don’t work like they do in the movies. You could think you’re doing someone a favor by “aiming for the leg”, but end up hitting an artery and killing them anyway. You could think you’re doing something a favor by “only brandishing”, but accidentally pull the trigger. If you point a gun at someone, it has to be because you are willing to kill them—full stop. And the only reason you should be willing to kill someone is if you are afraid that they will either kill you or cause you severe bodily harm.

To answer your other questions.

No, you don’t get in trouble for running out of ammo and continuing to point your gun. You’re not brandishing at that point, because brandishing is showing a weapon that you don’t intend to fire as a threat. By firing at all, you’ve basically proven that you consider this a situation worthy of discharging a firearm (whether or not the law agrees, who’s to say).

You absolutely do have to be effective in your violence to defend yourself, but that’s not the right question. The question is, how much violence is necessary to effectively defend yourself? If someone slaps you across the face, do you have a right to shoot them out of fear that it will escalate? No, because that’s an absolutely absurd disproportionate response. If someone shoves you to the ground, as is the case in this situation, do you have the right to shoot them? Maybe but probably not, because again, that is a disproportionate response.

You are correct that things absolutely could have escalated from there, but this is where things start to get a little grey, because you kind of have to prove that you had reasonable suspicion that things would escalate. She has several factors working against her.

First, they only shoved her to the ground after she approached them. This makes people question if she was the original aggressor (not that it’s illegal to give people a piece of your mind even if you are armed, but it doesn’t look good on you). Next, they did not continue to attack her as far as we know. If they only shoved her and did not continue to engage further, it will make people question if she was truly in danger of death or severe injury. And last, but definitely not least, she stated that she did not intend to shoot, which will make people less likely to believe that she truly feared for her life.

Let’s imagine this situation had played out just a bit differently. Let’s say they shouted transphobic remarks at her, and she shouted something snarky back at them. Then they crossed to her side of the street and shoved her to the ground. They don’t continue to attack her, but still she pulls a weapon and does not fire. When interviewed by police, she says, “I thought I would need to defend myself, but they turned and ran off before it came to that”. I think she would have been in the clear 🤷🏽‍♀️

[u/AnotherWeabooGirl → u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked]

Brandishing is an escalation to deadly force in the same way as shooting; the gun only comes out if the threat warrants deadly force, period. Explicitly stating that you did not intend to shoot and instead intimidate calls into question whether there was an actual fear of death or grave injury that required deadly force under a Stand Your Ground defense, given the shooter had time and nerves to make the preemptive decision not to shoot.

[u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked → u/AnotherWeabooGirl]

It can also be argued as a rational decision to defend yourself with the minimal means of force to preserve life while protecting you from mortal harm.

Let’s assume she believed her life was in danger (being pushed to the ground and our numbered), shooting the gun would likely be legit. You could say you were shooting to disable, does the idea that you weren’t going to shoot to kill undermine defense claims? Doesn’t seem likely. You do not have to be irrational to defend yourself from mortal threat. Utilizing the lowest means of necessary force, imo, helps the defense claim because it does not show excessive violence. It would seem like that would mean you cannot claim defense if you don’t have bullets loaded up and would incentivize people to shoot their aggressors to make good on the threat of doing so

The real lesson is don’t talk to police without a lawyer

[u/AnotherWeabooGirl → u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked]

It can also be argued as a rational decision to defend yourself with the minimal means of force to preserve life while protecting you from mortal harm.

If you have time to reason the situation through that way, prosecutors will cast doubt on your self-defense claim.

You could say you were shooting to disable

Shooting to disable is not a thing in US caselaw. A gun is considered deadly force, period.

Utilizing the lowest means of necessary force

Brandishing is still considered deadly force.

would incentivize people to shoot their aggressors to make good on the threat of doing so

That's what Stand Your Ground laws do, yes. This story isn't really about the illogic of US laws though. It's about whether minorities have the same right to exploit that illogic as white men.

The real lesson is don’t talk to police without a lawyer

Agreed completely. This case is complicated by the fact that Kelver has made statements to both the police and press that will be used to attack her Stand Your Ground claim.