Wyoming’s “Stand Your Ground” law says you don’t have to run from a confrontation before defending yourself. That is what Rihanna Kelver and her counsel are asking a Laramie judge to consider as they seek protection from prosecution in a felony case stemming from a confrontation outside the Crowbar.
This whole thing sounds stupid to me because they’re arguing over whether deadly force was warranted or not. She never actually shot the guy so there was no deadly force! The tl;dr version is:
- Guy yelled some slurs.
- Woman crosses the street to talk to the guy.
- Guy shoves her to the ground.
- While on ground she draws and readies her pistol.
- The guy walks away. No shot is fired.
The guy physically assaulted her. Sure we can argue if a shove with no weapons is enough to warrant being shot to death, but that’s not what happened so who cares. Sounds like she did absolutely nothing wrong unless she wasn’t allowed to have the gun or something.
Hmm. I could see this going either way depending on the judge.
Kelver said she then crossed the intersection toward the man because she wanted to better understand what was happening.
This is going to be a problem for the defence. Someones aggressively yelling at you, and you close the distance putting yourself within reach and in harms way.
That’s not to say she should have been assaulted or that it’s ok in anyway; but that advance could be interpreted as aggravating the situation. Stand your ground means you’re not required to retreat, but it doesn’t mean you can/should advance into danger until you are actually harmed either.
I don’t think she should be charged, but I’m not too sure the court will agree.
Zimmerman stalked a kid before murdering him, after being told not to by authorities. Rittenhouse went looking for murder victims. Walking towards someone can’t be worse than that.
Rittenhouse was being confronted by people who just saw him murder someone and tried to stop him so he murdered more people and then ran home, past police, to a different state and he was found ‘innocent.’
Bear in mind he was really only “innocent” because he was 17. Generally you must legally be allowed to possess a gun in order to claim self defense. No matter how cut and dry a self defense claim is, if you are illegally carrying, it’s usually moot. Had he been 16, his possession would have been criminalized under one law, which would have killed his self defense claim. Had he been 18, there was a different law that would have made it illegal for him to carry. But Wisconsin fucked that up by leaving 17 for some un-fucking-explicable reason not defined.
Yeah but walking towards someone while trans? In Wyoming. The state where they killed Matt Sheppard.
Ahh yeah that’s right, trans panic is still a legal defense for murdering them
In the America’s Suicide Belt, pretty much
Yup.
I think the case comes down to: would she have crossed the street if she didn’t have a gun?
If she would have crossed the street without a gun, then legitimately not hearing what they said seems valid.
If she wouldn’t have crossed the street without a gun, kinda sounds like she wanted a reason to use it.
That was my takeaway from the article as well. This is not a clear cut case for either side.
I can’t find the actual video, but the descriptions I can find of the video will make it difficult to rely on self defense and stand your ground, per the language of the law in Wyoming.
She could be considered by a judge or jury the “initial aggressor” by approaching the three men, which negates stand your ground in WY. Or the guys could be considered the initial aggressors as they were yelling slurs at her. The video descriptions say she was walking toward them with her hand near her hip as if ready to pull a weapon, but the descriptions also say you can’t see where she was keeping the gun (it was found afterward in her bag… after she told the police she pulled a knife not a gun, and no knife was found).
The descriptions I’ve read (again, I haven’t found the video yet) say that the dude pushed her down and to the side as part of his walking forward motion and continued walking forward away from her. After she hit the ground she pulled her gun, while they were walking away from her.
Counterpoints:
It was a three on one situation while she was on the ground. That’s scary shit for anyone.
She didn’t shoot the gun at all, just pulled it to let it be known that the situation has changed and she is afraid enough to use it. She testified she pointed the gun at him briefly, so that is almost as dangerous as actually pulling the trigger.
The law protects me and binds you
If accessing from the EEA:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact caspernews@frontrangetelevision.com or call 307-577-5923.
Copy pasting from phone:
Wyoming’s “Stand Your Ground” law says you don’t have to run from a confrontation before defending yourself. That is what Rihanna Kelver and her counsel are asking a Laramie judge to consider as they seek protection from prosecution in a felony case stemming from a confrontation outside the Crowbar.
“I feel good about it now-- the actual process, the actual being there, the actual testifying,” Kelver said after the hearing. “Having to relive it all again for God knows how many times it’s been now, except this time very loudly in a courtroom. It was pretty rough.”
Rihanna Kelver is charged with aggravated assault and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent following a Sept. 13, 2025, confrontation outside the Crowbar in Laramie.
Her defense is asking a judge to dismiss the charges under Wyoming’s “stand your ground” law, which says a person who is attacked while lawfully present does not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force, as long as the person was not the initial aggressor and was not engaged in illegal activity.
Under Wyoming Statute 6-2-602, defensive force is considered reasonable when a reasonable person in similar circumstances would consider it necessary to prevent an injury or loss, including deadly force when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. The statute also says a person who uses reasonable defensive force under that provision cannot be criminally prosecuted for that use of force.
The law is at the center of Kelver’s effort to obtain immunity before the case proceeds to trial.
What Kelver says happened
Kelver testified that she was outside the Crowbar before starting her shift on Sept. 13, 2025, when she heard a group of three men across the street.
She said one of the men yelled a derogatory slur directed at the Crowbar, prompting her to stand up and ask what he had said.
According to Kelver, the man responded with additional derogatory language directed at the LGBTQ community.
Kelver said she then crossed the intersection toward the man because she wanted to better understand what was happening.
She testified that, as she approached, the man, identified in the case as Scott Durham, threatened her, including making a threat of death.
Kelver said she was about 2 to 3 feet away from Durham when he turned toward her and pushed her in the chest with both hands.
She said the shove knocked her onto her back and caused an injury.
Kelver testified that Durham appeared above her while another friend stood nearby. She then pulled a .380-caliber subcompact pistol from her satchel and racked the slide to chamber a round.
She said she briefly pointed the gun at Durham before moving it away as he passed.
After her belongings were knocked loose during the confrontation, Kelver said she gathered them from the intersection and returned to the front of the Crowbar, where she sat down and tried to process what had happened.
Police then arrived, she said.
The state’s argument
The state disputes Kelver’s characterization of the confrontation and is asking the court to reject her request for immunity.
According to the state’s written argument provided in the court documents, Kelver was the initial aggressor because she crossed the street and approached Durham after he allegedly made a verbal comment about her workplace.
The state also argues Kelver was carrying a concealed, loaded firearm as she approached the group.
According to the state’s filing, Durham was not armed with a firearm, knife or another object that could reasonably be considered a deadly weapon. The state characterizes the physical contact as Durham using mild force to create distance after Kelver entered his personal space.
The state argues Kelver’s response was unreasonable because, in its view, she was not facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury when she pointed the gun.
The filing also says Durham walked away after the shove and argues that his actions did not create circumstances in which Kelver could reasonably believe deadly force was necessary.
The state therefore contends Kelver cannot make the required initial showing for immunity under the statute and has asked the court to deny her motion and allow the case to proceed to trial.
What the law requires
The Wyoming statute does not simply provide blanket protection for anyone who claims self-defense.
Under the law provided in the court documents, a person attacked while lawfully present has no duty to retreat if the person was not the initial aggressor and was not engaged in illegal activity.
The statute also requires the defensive force to be reasonable under the circumstances.
For deadly force, the law says it must be necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury.
The court documents cite a Wyoming Supreme Court case, State v. John, which described the statute as a judicially enforceable immunity provision. The case also addressed what a defendant must establish to receive immunity under the statute.
The state’s filing argues that only the statutory requirements should be considered when deciding Kelver’s immunity motion.
A case that has followed Kelver for nearly a year
Kelver said Thursday’s hearing was another chapter in what has been nearly a year of uncertainty.
She said she looked up the number before the hearing and realized it had been 347 days since the Sept. 13 confrontation.
“I’ve felt pretty much the same the entire way,” Kelver said. “It’s been a giant looming unknown over my head, with plenty of days of more anxiety and terror than others.”
She said community support has also helped her through the process.
Kelver said she grew up in Laramie and came out as queer at 16. She connected the experience to the broader history of violence against LGBTQ people in the community, including the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard.
She said the local support she has received since the confrontation has been particularly meaningful.
“What matters to me the most is the local support I’ve received, because those are the people I live in this community with,” Kelver said. “The fact that I have received nothing but an overwhelming amount of support has been really heartening.”
Her wife remembers the uncertainty
For Kelver’s wife, Kylara Little, the events of Sept. 13 came as a shock.
Little said she was working a late-night kitchen shift at the time. She knew Kelver was preparing for work but did not immediately know what had happened.
Little said she eventually learned about the confrontation but was left trying to piece together what had happened while Kelver was being held.
“It was frightening and just a lot of confusion and uncertainty,” Little said.
Little said her biggest concern was Kelver’s well-being while she was in custody and that she was frustrated by how little information she had.
Little said she knows Kelver well enough to believe that, given the circumstances, what she was hearing at the time did not seem consistent with Kelver, especially because much of the information was based on hearsay.
Kelver says the hearing gave her confidence
Despite not receiving a ruling Thursday, Kelver said she left the courtroom feeling more confident about her defense.
She said testifying and revisiting the confrontation in a courtroom was difficult, but she believes her attorney presented the case effectively.
She also said she felt good about the evidence and testimony presented by the defense, including testimony from expert witnesses.
“I feel good about how my counsel represented me,” Kelver said. “I feel good about what we were able to provide as far as our evidence and my testimony, as well as our expert witnesses testimony.”
Little said she also believed the defense presented a strong case.
Still, she said she and others involved in Kelver’s case remained cautious because the judge had not yet made a decision.
A separate Colorado police report appears in the court record
The court materials provided for the case also include a 2023 University of Colorado Boulder Police Department report involving Durham, who is identified in that report as a student living at Williams Village North in Boulder.
According to the report, officers responded to the residence on Jan. 26, 2023, after a roommate, Andrew Perper, called 911 because he was afraid of Durham.
The report says Perper had become uncomfortable after learning about Durham’s views toward different ethnicities. According to the report, Perper did not tell officers that Durham had threatened him but said he was afraid to confront him because Durham had a box of knives locked in his room.
Officers spoke with Perper and two friends, according to the report, before going to Durham’s room.
The report says officers found Durham intoxicated and that officers observed slurred speech and difficulty answering questions.
According to the report, Durham was eventually transported by American Medical Response to a hospital for evaluation. He was issued a written warning for being intoxicated.
A supplemental report included in the court materials says Perper later told police he had seen concerning material on Durham’s laptop, including what he described as group chats involving activist groups. The report says Perper and his friend told police they did not observe threatening messages that would cause alarm for the public, but they were concerned about Durham’s alleged affiliations and comments they said they had heard while he was intoxicated.
The report is from 2023 and describes a separate incident in Colorado. It does not establish what happened during the 2025 confrontation in Laramie.
Waiting for the decision
After roughly three hours in court, the hearing ended without an immediate ruling.
Little said she had expected to know the outcome Thursday and was disappointed to learn the judge would issue the decision later.
“I had hoped that we were going to have an answer by today,” Little said. “So, a little sad about having to sit and wait in anticipation.”
Kelver said the waiting itself has become familiar. She said she has experienced periods of anxiety and fear throughout the case, along with moments of hope and support from the community.
Now, she said, she plans to focus on getting through the next few days while waiting for the judge’s decision.
“Honestly, myself and my wife and my family, we have a lovely dog at home,” Kelver said. “And I think I’m just going to spend some nights at home, maybe some movie nights and some cuddles and call that some much-needed self-care.”
The judge is expected to issue a ruling in the next few days. Until then, Kelver remains charged and the case has not been resolved.
Tl; dr: extremely reasonable self defence, but you’re trans so we’re gonna throw the whole Nazi book at you.
This shit is all on CCTV btw. If they weren’t using it to try and persecute a trans woman, there wouldnt be any charges at all.
The state characterizes the physical contact as Durham using mild force to create distance after Kelver entered his personal space.
Cop-ass Copypasta response.
“If we can’t collect and sell your data, you can’t visit our site.”
Thanks for the warning not to click.
Always good to live in a Stand Your Ground state. It’s ridiculous that some states can convict you of felonies for defending your life, just because the judge believed you had the option to run from your attacker. Luckily, that is fewer and fewer states every year.
Always good to live in a Stand Your Ground state.
Is this policy “Stand Your Ground” or “Gay Panic Defense”? The state claims she was the aggressor because she was heckled while crossing the street. Then the “victim” was allowed to shove her, continue until he was on top of her, and only retreat when he was presented with deadly force. At no point does the DA admit she feared for her life.
If the state rules in favor of Durham, “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t mean shit. It remains within the domain of the prosecutor’s office to choose to prosecute one class of people and abide another, entirely based on their personal prejudices.
You can retreat and still defend yourself.
