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.
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…
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.
Right, I understand the technicalities. I’m saying the technicalities are bullshit.
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.