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.
Hmm. I could see this going either way depending on the judge.
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
It’s not worse than that. She’s not being charged with a hate crime, civil rights violations, or homicide.
She’s being charged with brandishing, and her choice of actions don’t help her legal defense. Approaching a potential threat and then acting on it isn’t standing your ground.
Note that I’m not saying she should be charged for it, but she didn’t help her situation at all.
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.
Honestly, it should be a wash. Everyone made bad decisions here, so give them differed adjudication with some community service and maybe mandatory therapy.