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.
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)
This is why judges and the judicial system do not deserve the automatic and unconditional respect they demand.
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
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.
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 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.
The classic “rights for me, but not for thee.”
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.
The lives of homophobes are worth less by the day.
Good, the market is starting to realize the value of a homophobe’s life: nothing.
This story is going to be repeated more abd more often, thanks to Nov 2024.
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.
What fuckwad prosecutor would even take this case?
Wyoming
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.
They are literally charging her with 1 count of surviving.
This is fucking evil.
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.
She pulls a gun and doesn’t even shoot.
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.
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.
I said it below and I’ll say it again…
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.
Sounds like you found the copaganda juice and took a big sip, friend.
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 drawn it. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
That is different state to state.
If the courts don’t bring justice the public needs to
Do trans people have rights in conservative strongholds?
Ask a Nazi if Jews have rights and you’ll get your answer.
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.
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.
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.
It’s probably something like “I wish I could get out of this shithole”.
It’s like a black person moving to a sundown town.
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.
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.
