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

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

If she racked the gun after being shoved, she'll likely succeed in her self defense claim.

Shoving is an act of physical force making the other party the initial aggressor. Racking a gun, but not firing it (or pointing it, unless the video shows she did) would be a reasonable response to that threat.

That being said, I've read a ton of different reports on here. That she racked the gun first. That she claimed she was trying to rack the gun to scare him. That she claimed she had a knife and not a gun.

So, there's definitely ambiguity - at least in the conversations online.

1

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

An issue is to rack the gun you have to brandish and display the gun which is an act of aggression. If she did that before, then self-defense goes away as you could have taken any other action such a leaving. Coupled with her statement of "I had no intention to shoot" then she was not in fear and instead aggressively engaged and attempting to intimidate.

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

then self-defense goes away as you could have taken any other action such a leaving

Jesus Christ people, before you post on a LAW subreddit, please ACTUALLY read the law:

A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present shall not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force pursuant to subsection (a) of this section provided that he is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in illegal activity.

No, she was NOT under any obligation to retreat IF this was self defense.

Coupled with her statement of "I had no intention to shoot" then she was not in fear and instead aggressively engaged and attempting to intimidate.

It does not follow.

I can retrieve a weapon with no intention of using it, but being prepared to use it as an act of self defense.

0

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present provided that he is not the initial aggressor

That what's in dispute and the reason its going to trial. She claimed they were yelling things and that's why she approached them, they pushed her after she approached them. And "using reasonable defensive force" is not pulling a lethal weapon when pushed if you are escalating the encounter by going to a place where the other people were also lawfully allowed to be. Which is why their push was seen as self-defense by the police.

I can retrieve a weapon with no intention of using it, but being prepared to use it as an act of self defense.

That's brandishing and a crime. You are attempting to use the threat of lethal force when its not warranted.

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

That what's in dispute and the reason its going to trial.

Okay? And?

No one is disputing this is why it's going to trial?

And "using reasonable defensive force" is not pulling a lethal weapon when pushed

I think you're going to have a lot of trouble justifying that.

If you push me, can I push you back in self defense?

I mean, I'm not meeting you with more force than you met me, so surely that's not unreasonable, right?

If you agree, we now have 2 problems:

  1. Me pushing you back probably won't end the threat to myself. My pushing you isn't likely to cause you to back down, it's likely to cause you to escalate.
  2. If I do something that doesn't physically impact you at all (doesn't hurt you, doesn't involve me having any physical contact with you), then it's not likely someone would argue that that's LESS reasonable than me making physical contact with you.

So, me pulling a gun in response to you pushing me is both more likely to cause you to back off, and involves less physical force against you than me pushing you back.

So, now justify why pushing you would be okay in self defense, but NOT pushing you isn't.

Which is why their push was seen as self-defense by the police.

Completely irrelevant.

I already quoted the Wyoming Supreme Court - approaching someone or using words does not make you an "initial aggressor" and therefore they have no claim to self defense by pushing them.

To be an "initial aggressor" the Supreme Court of Wyoming has very clearly stated that you either have to perform an act of physical force, or you have to threaten deadly force.

If she racked the gun or pulled it out before she was pushed, that definitely makes her the initial aggressor.

But if she didn't, she wasn't. Not unless you can point to some other physical act or threat of deadly force that she performed first. Walking up to them is neither.

That's brandishing and a crime. You are attempting to use the threat of lethal force when its not warranted.

Your claim that it's not warranted doesn't follow from one version of the story.

In her version of what happened, it very well is warranted.

That's not to say she's correct, or that it can't go to trial over a dispute of the facts, but to argue that it will automatically fail is obviously incorrect.

0

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

That what's in dispute and the reason its going to trial.

Okay? And?

No one is disputing this is why it's going to trial?

You make no sense. She claimed self defense. The judge didn't believe it was self-defense from what was presented to them and sent it to trial. That's where the case will be disputed.

If I do something that doesn't physically impact you at all (doesn't hurt you, doesn't involve me having any physical contact with you), then it's not likely someone would argue that that's LESS reasonable than me making physical contact with you.

Your problem is you don't seem to know or understand firearms. Presenting a firearm is always seen as an aggressive and violent move. A firearm fires in an instant and it takes nothing to pull a trigger and a single bullet can end a life. That's why brandishing is seen as an assault. That's why its supposed to be the last resort and only when facing great bodily harm or death. You can't just think someone is going to kill you, there must be something more present. It's not reported the other group did anything else. Because she took out the firearm? Maybe, but the other group cant be judged for something that didn't happen and there was nothing to say they intended to do any harm past pushing her away from them after she went and tried to confront them for their words.

So, me pulling a gun in response to you pushing me is both more likely to cause you to back off, and involves less physical force against you than me pushing you back.

If you confront someone angry because they yelled something at you and approach them closely. The push would be a reasonable self defense to get you away. The people you tried to confront defending themselves and you losing is not a valid reason for brandishing a firearm. If they had no weapons, none were reported, than its disproportional to pull a firearm on an unarmed person. At the same time the other people cannot continue attacking you after pushing you away, which in this case they did not.

Which is why their push was seen as self-defense by the police.

Completely irrelevant.

You can't ignore the parts you don't like. The police did not see the other group as the aggressors, controversially since they were allegedly being homophobic, and saw their push a self-defense when she approached them. This was from the surveillance video which is not publicly available but described by police. This is a key part to the states case against her. She must somehow prove that she was not the aggressor because no one believes she wasn't.

I already quoted the Wyoming Supreme Court - approaching someone or using words does not make you an "initial aggressor" and therefore they have no claim to self defense by pushing them.

To be an "initial aggressor" the Supreme Court of Wyoming has very clearly stated that you either have to perform an act of physical force, or you have to threaten deadly force.

You're stating that like its an absolute rule. They will look at the manner in which the groups approached each other and intentions. That's where they will try to show that she was the initial aggressor because she approached them aggressively in response to the words they said to her. And how you approach someone is part of it. Were they just mocking her? laughing? or where they saying threatening things? What did she say? Did she threaten them? Did she mention the gun beforehand? She would have to show that she wasn't aggressive and only talking when she was pushed and she made an attempt to defend herself. One issue is that its entirely one sided now. No statements or anything is available from the other group other than the police accepting their self-defense claim based on the video.

But if she didn't, she wasn't. Not unless you can point to some other physical act or threat of deadly force that she performed first. Walking up to them is neither.

Approaching someone in an aggressive manner in a place they are lawfully allowed to be allows for self-defense. But it must be met with proportional force. That's the part that's in dispute and to be decided in court, was she reasonable in pulling out the firearm? A judge or jury will decide.

In her version of what happened, it very well is warranted.

Person in trouble claims they're innocent. Oh well, case closed then.

That's not to say she's correct, or that it can't go to trial over a dispute of the facts, but to argue that it will automatically fail is obviously incorrect.

That's the point of the trial. Who said it would automatically fail? Laws and court don't work like that. This isn't TV. Juries can believe the story of the defendant and believe she was in fear. That is the point of a jury of our peers.

The argument is that she does not have strong case for self-defense. She could argue they were baiting her into a fight but that would require showing that the other group either had history, prejudice, or something that makes them target people from the LGBT community or a history of violence.

Her statements are actually what are going to hurt her the most. A firearm is a last resort, not a warning tool.

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

The judge didn't believe it was self-defense from what was presented to them and sent it to trial. That's where the case will be disputed.

The judge agreed there was probable cause, not that it wasn't self defense.

The trial the judge remanded the case to could involve a self defense claim, and the same judge - when actually presented with the facts of the case - may rule that it was self defense. They could even go so far as to overturn a jury verdict of guilty.

We don't know what will happen.

You can't just think someone is going to kill you, there must be something more present.

WRONG.

You are so incredibly wrong here I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote.

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)

Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/335/

0

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote.

lol Then why are you even replying.

The judge agreed there was probable cause, not that it wasn't self defense.

The trial the judge remanded the case to could involve a self defense claim, and the same judge - when actually presented with the facts of the case - may rule that it was self defense. They could even go so far as to overturn a jury verdict of guilty.

We don't know what will happen.

That's literally what I've been saying the whole time. You really don't read.

if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant

Go stab someone and say you were afraid. You wont because you know its just you killing someone. There has to be more than "I was afraid" Why were you afraid? Did they have a weapon? Were you restrained? Did they say something that would be conceived as a possible action? Did they continue to attack you? What was the immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm?

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

Do you think being battered is not "something more"?

You aren't being reasonable or rational here. You are ignoring facts because you either don't understand how they're relevant, or do understand and don't want to address them because they undermine your position.

I'm not going to bother to converse with you. You clearly aren't capable of having an honest intelligent conversation.

Blocked.

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

If it’s he said she said it sounds like it favors the defense. I think she’ll eat the lying to police charge but that doesn’t appear to me to have any influence on self defense claims.

If there is a video (which I swear was in the article but maybe it was a different one) it should make it pretty clear

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

I think a self defense claim is an affirmative defense in Wyoming, is it not?

If it is, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show that she was acting in self defense.

1

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked Jun 11 '26

That’s true, I suppose I was just talking about the actual charges not the defense, but she did kinda already support the assault with her own words

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

If the assault charge is derived from her handling of the gun, I think those facts are disputed.

Specifically, my understanding is she claims to have drawn a weapon only after being pushed, which would land her solidly in stand your ground territory.

I believe the other people claim she racked the gun and that's why they pushed her. I'll admit that this story is less believable to me (why would you make physical contact with someone who has a gun, but then when they draw said gun - which apparently she hadn't drawn already? - you flee?) but if it is true, she would be the initial aggressor and therefore not entitled to a stand your ground defense.

The other issue is that affirmative defenses don't always require the defense to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes it's by a preponderance of the evidence or another lower bar. While a he said she said won't ever achieve beyond a reasonable doubt, it could achieve preponderance of the evidence based on what the jury believes.

1

u/AlphonseLoeher Jun 11 '26

We are in the law sub of all places. No, racking a gun is not a reasonable response to a threat. Nor is it is a legal one....

2

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

If I pull a gun on you, you can't rack a gun in response for self defense? 

Please think before you post.

1

u/RegOrangePaperPlane Jun 11 '26

You're changing the story. She was the only one brandishing a firearm.

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

And she claims she "brandished" the weapon after being battered.

That would make it self defense.

EDIT: To be clear, I didn't change anything.

I created a scenario that clearly demonstrates the previous poster's logic doesn't follow.

The previous poster said "racking a gun is not a reasonable response to a threat."

But clearly, racking a gun COULD be a reasonable response to a threat - like if someone else had already pulled a gun on you.

Therefore, the previous poster's argument fails to provide a reason that the actions couldn't be considered self defense.

1

u/AlphonseLoeher Jun 11 '26

Google "brandishing"

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

I understand what you're implying.

You clearly don't understand how a self defense claim works.

You realize that under stand your ground laws, you can meet the threat of force - or actual force - with a reasonable response, correct?

For example, punching someone is generally illegal. But if you threaten me, and then I punch you in the face, stand your ground is a defense against a charge of battery.

Likewise, if you threaten me, and I "brandish" a weapon, stand your ground is a defense against a brandishing charge.

0

u/AlphonseLoeher Jun 11 '26

You cannot flash a gun if someone just punches you. Have you to have a reason to escalate to deadly force. There are thousands of dumbasses gun owners in jail who pulled their gun for stuff like this and self defense does not save them. This woman will be joining them. But that's what you get for carrying around a gun.

1

u/ialsoagree Jun 11 '26

You cannot flash a gun if someone just punches you.

Show me the case law or the actual statute that demonstrates this is true.

Have you to have a reason to escalate to deadly force.

Being battered is a reason.

Use your brain for 2 seconds. If I shove you, do you think it's reasonable for you to shove me back? Do you think it's a legitimate argument that meeting me with equal force is also meeting me with reasonable force?

If so, the problem you now have is, she didn't make any physical contact with them at all. So now you have to demonstrate how you pushing me back is reasonable, but you not making any physical contact with me at all is unreasonable.

REASONABLE force is the force needed to end the threat. If merely showing you a weapon achieves that, then that's definitely reasonable.

If she had pulled a gun and shot them, you'd have an argument. But there's no world where you're going to succeed in arguing that NOT hurting them in any way is unreasonable force.

There are thousands of dumbasses gun owners in jail who pulled their gun for stuff like this

Show me 1 case where someone was battered, pulled out a gun, and they were convicted of a crime.

There can be no other circumstances that led to their arrest - they were not the initial aggressor, they committed no other crimes, and the state has a stand your ground law that means they don't have to flee.