Do Trans People Have “Stand Your Ground” Rights? Wyoming’s Answer May Be “No.”
Last September, Ríhanna Kelver was standing outside the Crowbar & Grill in Laramie, Wyoming, preparing to start her bartending shift, when she noticed a group of men across the street. One of them was shouting in her direction, and Kelver heard several homophobic and transphobic slurs as he began approaching her. Moments later, according to court testimony and surveillance footage, the man shoved Kelver to the ground hard enough to injure her tailbone.
Kelver responded by drawing a pistol from her bag, chambering a round, and pointing the weapon at the man who had pushed her. She kept the safety on and never fired. The man and his companions retreated.
Today, Kelver, a 28-year-old trans woman, faces two felony charges—aggravated assault and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent—which could carry up to 15 years in prison. The man who shoved Kelver and who allegedly initiated the confrontation, known only as “S. Durham,” has not been charged.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trans-people-second-amendment-wyoming-stand-your-ground.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Matthew Shepherd
October 12, 1998
Laramie, Wyoming
They tied him to a fence and beat him to death
Thursday- M. Shepard
I got to meet his mom once. Powerful woman and tireless fighter to ensure other parents don't have to experience what she did.
Who is they
THEY
That was nearly 30 years ago. Don't think it's wild to think that most random fediverse users would have never heard about it, especially since a large chunk of them weren't even born.
Emmett Till was brutally murdered in 1955, but I was still informed about it nearly 5 decades later.
I don't think it's really the length of time since a murder occurred that defines if you hear about it or not, it's more the priorities of educators and how significant they think any given murder is. It seems like this one wasn't viewed as significant.
Even today we have a couple straight up lynchings every year in the good ol US.
There's a difference between ignoring something and being too young to have heard about it.
JFC take a breath. You went from 0-100 with absolutely no justification. Nobody is defending them, in any way, nor did anyone even imply that what they did was OK.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
What do you think not hearing about something means?
Dude I'm a history nerd and have a pretty solid grasp on random abscure shit and this was an unknown to me. I'm in California and my town was having crosses burned around the same time which is more directly relevance to me, some dude getting lynched a year before I was born in fucking Wyoming is so far outside my view you may as well bring up hate crimes in Vostoc Russia, the same thing applies to damned near everyone.
Fact of the matter is that it's categorically impossible to know about every hate crime committed in the past 30 years, even folks who study this shit for a living would probably miss some things. You don't need to know about every thrice damned obscure case to know the broad trends and issues.
Your head is just a place to store your teeth, isn't it?
In 1998 most users here were either toddlers or didn't exist.
Expecting them to have heard about a specific murder is ridiculous, especially if they're from a different state or another country.
Where did I say it doesn't matter?
You're complaining that people don't know about something that happened 30 years ago, at a time when they were likely very young or didnt even exist.
Not knowing about every single terrible thing that has ever happened on a particular subject doesn't mean you don't care about it.
Without googling I bet you wouldn't know a thing about Holly Chapman and Jessica Wells in the UK, a double murder that happened over 20 years ago.
Or who Dawn Sturgess was.
Both pretty big here, the double murder led to significant changes in the law and procedures for data sharing across the UK.
The difference between us is, you not knowing about it doesnt lead me to the insane conclusion that its because you just don't care about the subject.
I'm not disagreeing it's important, but you need to chill I think. You're getting angry at someone who is trying to become aware. I'm sure you realize how many innocent people die every day in the US. There's no way to keep track of it all, let alone so long ago. I wasn't aware of this, and I was alive for it, though I was very young.
The Wyoming queerphobes who murdered him
Names, we need names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
It was pretty widely reported on when it happened.
"Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson were arrested shortly after the attack and charged with first-degree murder following Shepard's death. Henderson pleaded guilty to murder, and McKinney was tried and found guilty of murder; each of them received two consecutive life sentences."
1998, University of Wyoming.
So these dudes antagonize her, approach her, and push her down.
She pulls a gun and doesn't even shoot.
Alright I'm with it so far...
They run off...and call the cops?
And the cops arrest...her?
Drawing the weapon was clearly defensive. There's no "malicious intent" if you're in a marginalized group and carrying a legal weapon.
Had she not drawn her weapon she probably would been raped, or worse.
I've taken a concealed carry course and the way it was explained to me was that if you do draw your gun you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have drawn it. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to draw your gun if you don't feel you have to fire.
That's bullshit, it completely ignores escalation of force. If drawing the weapon causes your attackers to back down and run away, it worked as intended and no further escalation is needed.
Any laws intended to compel one to fire is stupid beyond measure.
You are absolutely right. But you forgot a tiny detail, we are talking about the US of A. Which law there is not stupid beyond measure?
The thought behind "always shoot to kill if you draw" comes from 2 main places. One is a misunderstanding, and the other is sociopathic bullshit.
The first is that you should only draw on someone if you have already made the decision to use lethal force to defend yourself, which is absolutely correct. Drawing without intent to shoot the assailant is aggravated assault, not self-defense. And if you don't intend to kill someone you shouldn't be shooting them.
But that logic skips the part where situations can change rapidly. You can decide to use lethal force and change your mind before pulling the trigger.
The second place the mindset comes from is a legal liability standpoint. If you draw on them and don't kill them, you may be prosecuted for aggravated assault. If you kill them you can claim you feared for your life, and they won't be able to testify against you. That's the sociopath version.
Right, I understand the technicalities. I'm saying the technicalities are bullshit.
I've taken a nuclear weapons course and the way it was explained to me was that if you build nuclear weapons and place them in silos you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have built them. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to build nuclear weapons if you don't feel you have to fire.
I've heard that a million times and it's wrong.
Yes, you are only supposed to draw when you've already made the determination that you have to use lethal force to protect yourself, but things can change.
I drew my gun one time. I was hiking in New Mexico by myself when I was attacked by a homeless Native American. I shoved him away and drew my pistol, and as soon as the gun came out he started running away.
I had drawn intending to fire, but when he instantly retreated, I decided not to shoot.
If there ceases to be a threat, no. Yes, you should only draw your weapon if you intend to use it. But if the attacker runs away once you draw, you don't shoot them in the back. That would just be murder.
Just because you initially felt threatened enough to draw your weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot.
Draw because you are willing to use it. Let the other party reevaluate whether they feel it is necessary to continue.
Thank you, yes that is better phrasing.
Ah, heck, I was just looking to expand on what you were saying.
No worries, it's all good lol
I said it below and I'll say it again...
I was once told in a self-defense class that when using force to defend yourself, you were on legally better ground if you killed the other person than just injured them, because if they survived they could try to sue you for medical bills. I do not know if this is advice that an actual lawyer would back up, but either way, everything about it saddens me greatly.
I once (and perhaps more) heard the absolutely insane argument that in some US states if someone injured themselves on your property, it's better to shoot them dead and claim trespass, because then they can't sue you and you automatically win.
I don't know who told you this, but holy shit no... that's asking for a murder charge.
Told by who
One of the instructors.
Most "self defense" trainers are conservative and implicitly have no idea how the law actually works and just expect it to be out to get them, specifically.
Part of the problem with the world is all the conservatives talking confidently and authoritatively out their ass.
Entirely possible. I hope it is not legally the case, but it very saddens me that people even have and promote that mindset. If I can stop someone without killing them, then of course I'm going to do that, holy shit.
That is different state to state.
Sounds like you found the copaganda juice and took a big sip, friend.
Can't speak for other states, but in Connecticut you'd have more legal protection if you actually shot the aggressor. Here a gun should only leave it's holster if deadly force is the only way to protect yourself. If you can eliminate the threat by simply brandishing, you weren't in a position where self defense applies.
What mental gymnastics are going on that they claim "unlawful intent" if the intent to was to stop the man from assaulting her. How is intending to stop someone from continuing a hate crime unlawful?
Let me tell you of a little chasm between "lawful" and "right"... Especially in authoritarian states
Selective enforcement has always been their strategy. That's why all the POC MAGAs think they'll get a free pass.
When really one needs look no further than the disparity within cannabis possession sentencing to see that it's by design.
Let's say they get what they want and put her away for 15 years. That's right about the same amount of time as a manslaughter charge. They seem to be actively arguing for just shooting the aggressor since the charge is the same.
The lives of homophobes are worth less by the day.
Good, the market is starting to realize the true value of a homophobe's life: nothing.
And this is why you don't want a "mental illness" check for owning a firearm. They would absolutely label all LGBTQ+ people "mentally ill" and bar them from owning a firearm. It's also why a national registry is how you allow criminals to keep their firearms and make a list of all LGBTQ+ people who would own firearms...that list should never exist.
An armed minority is harder to oppress.
And if you don't think they've already set the stage for the same maneuver with Democrats in general you're living under a rock. They don't want civil war two, they want another Rwanda.
Yep, disarming the populous is step one.
That's such a silly argument. You want to stop good legislation just because someone might use it wrong. Let me point out the entirety of government to you I guess?
That's not good legislation, not even close. You're logic is saying your ok with the current regime to dictate who is labeled mentally ill or not.
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter what the law says the current regime will twist it to their will. Not putting out gun restrictions just because you think that they will use it poorly is denying the fact that they use any law poorly.
And putting in terrible laws doesn't make a terrible law good because it's got "gun control" stamped on it.
If George Zimmerman can successfully claim self defense, anyone should be able to. What, do you need to kill the other person for it to count?
You have to be a straight, white, cisgender, conservative man.
Zimmerman was Hispanic for what it's worth.
Seems as longs as your crime is against another minority straight, cisgender, and conservative man is adequate
If Kyle Rittenhouse can travel state lines with an assault rifle and shoot at protesters and claim self defense, anyone should be able to.
But remember the conservative axiom:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
And that's why you don't stop at fascism. Conservatism will inadequately reinvent fascism for a new age, all while its sycophants want you to thank it for eighties punk (context: some naïve, usually younger conservatives unironically think Reagan legalized self-expression, because "individualism").
I mean, dead men tell no tales. 😐
But seriously, the prosecution will probably say the situation wasn't dire or else the defendant would've fired.
The really shitty thing is you’re probably right. Here was an actual responsible gun owner, who didn’t just wildly open fire, and Wyoming’s like, “not like that.”
The law is not equal. It's that protect the in crowd and bind the outsiders that is mentioned all the time.
That's why the wealthy never really seem to face consequences even when convicted of felonies. They just brush it off and get elected president and pardon anybody willing to bribe them or undertake illegal actions against our constitution on their behest.
That's justice today. I wonder who has been manipulating the judicial branch decisions and warping justice even further? Must be some society starting with F...
Sometimes when justice fails the people, one must appeal to Madame la Guillotine. She accepts no bribe, pardon, nor appeal.
Friendly reminder that SCOTUS, in an opinion authored by none other than Neil Gorsuch, ruled that discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently discrimination by sex. If a set of behaviors is allowed by a cisgender person, but their biological sex does not match their gender, you are discriminating by sex.
Likewise, if Alex's husband comes to the company Christmas party and that is only acceptable if Alex is short for Alexandra, a woman, your discrimination by sexual orientation is also discrimination by sex.
A surprisingly brilliant ruling that has yet to be Constitutionally Calvinballed.
They are literally charging her with 1 count of surviving.
This is fucking evil.
I really think we need to revoke Wyoming status as a state. They don't have enough of a population to justify statehood.
In America people don't vote, land votes
Let's just use George Carlin's advice, put up a fence and send all the like minded people there.
Extract the few good people to nicer places.
Shoot first, deal with consequences later
Absolutely!
It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Yep. Even dealing with this bullshit law enforcement, she might be better off than what those guys were going to do to her.
Open his mind, so to speak.
Two in the chest one in the head.
Do trans people have rights in conservative strongholds?
Ask a Nazi if Jews have rights and you'll get your answer.
The classic "rights for me, but not for thee."
What fuckwad prosecutor would even take this case?
Personal bias? Maybe the prosecutor has a deep loathing of the LGBT population and thinks that Leviticus 20:13 ( If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death – their bloodguilt is upon them) overrides that.
Isn't that 18:22?Edit: It's both.
Wyoming
This is why judges and the judicial system do not deserve the automatic and unconditional respect they demand.
On this planet or in this country?
Planet
"Just need an astrology girl to tell me what planet is making me sad"
"It's earth"
It's always been earth.
What the fuck?
If the courts don't bring justice the public needs to
I guess it's complete victim blaming but what goes through a queer person's head living in fucking Laramie "tie a gay kid to a fence and abandon him" fucking Wyoming? It's like a black person moving to a sundown town.
Edit: I suppose I should have said "Why would you expect any other outcome in Laramie 'tie a gay kid to a fence, beat him and abandon him' fucking Wyoming." Because yea, I don't know if they were born there or what. It's just surprising like the sun coming up in the morning.
It's probably something like "I wish I could get out of this shithole".
I guess I missed the part in the article where they moved there willingly. So unless you have information otherwise; Yeah, it's 100% victim blaming. And a stupid take.
Yea why wouldn't they pick a better place to be born and have their family live and grow up. What were they thinking.
Yup, a completely garbage and victim blaming take.
Have you been to Laramie? It has quite a large queer population these days.
My guess is it's due to the state university being there. Honestly Laramie and Cheyenne are the best places to live if you are queer in the state.
Obviously this post is evidence that the issue is it's still Wyoming, but I generally don't hop on the victim blame train. Queer people deserve to live where they want. They shouldn't fear violence, and we shouldn't judge them for living where they choose.
That story is batshit insane
Why already would you assault a random woman who isn't even in your way? They literally had to walk up to her to assault her. Bred hatred.
Then in the country where everyone has the right to defend themselves, uh huh uh huh....
All trans people should leave the US. Not because they don't have a right to live there, but because it's about to become Taliban territory where they will murder you legally for being different. It's like Germany, say, 1933. Do you really want tos tixk around? Save yourselves, please
Inbred hatred, more like it.
Even a generous read of this article fails to prove that Ríhanna's case was influenced by the fact she is trans. The article gives many anecdotes of minorities, and claims they are disproportionately negatively impacted in the courts, but 1/ doesn't provide the data to support that, and 2/ doesn't go into details on the judgement in this case (and the omission leads me to believe they probably aren't in Ríhanna's favor)
I also don’t see anything about continued threats. Sure this seems textbook “stand your ground”, but maybe it’s a better argument for gun control.
While no one should be threatened or assaulted, was this a potentially deadly encounter, or was it the presence of a firearm escalating an attack into something potentially deadly. Being assaulted doesn’t justify deadly force
This story is going to be repeated more abd more often, thanks to Nov 2024.
What is this headline?
There was a fight, a gun was drawn, now there is a court case to see whether that was lawful.
Sounds like it works as intended.
Also I like how articles don't cite sources apparently. No link to the court case/indictment and I can't find it online. So no idea if this is even real.
There's an obvious, easy assault charge here and they are not pursuing it. This is persecution of a trans person. Stfu.
The evidence is such that no reason reasonable jury could find the facts of the case represent anything other than self defense:
Thus, the victim would be entitled to having the case dismissed as a matter of law by the evidence on hand since no reasonable jury could look at such evidence and find otherwise when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Hell, the prosecutor could just drop the case.
OK, but where is that evidence? I haven't seen it, and for some reason they don't give a source on that. This may be an insane case, but this article is slop.
Article:
Found a second article with more sides of the story.
This would make who escalated a bit less clear. If you have a weapon you can't escalate a situation and then use it.
I still expect this to end in not guilty, but it should get reviewed by a court. I mean, a gun was pulled.
Also the charges were moved down to misdemeanors, but back up to felonies after "negotiations broke down", can you do that??
The article itself mentions other comparable cases where it was never brought to trial. Prosecutors do not just automatically indict everyone who fires a gun at someone else. In cases where a clear case of self-defense exists, the norm is to not bring charges at all.
Plus she didn't even fire!