Kelver’s self-defense claims would have to wait for trial. “Of course, that defense is perfectly available in district court,” the judge told prosecutors and Kelver’s lawyer. “And we’ll see where that goes with a different standard of proof.”
I’ll happily give 4:1 odds to anyone interested that she gets off fine. The judge simply ruled that the evidence as presented wasn’t enough to get the case thrown out.
It’s Wyoming. You’re not gonna see anyone sent to jail for brandishing during an assault, regardless of their orientation.
The issue is if a cis person was approached aggressively and assaulted by 3 men before drawing their weapon there would be no trial. No charges would have been filed.
I’m also confident the case against her will not be successful, but the fact that the case exists at all is an issue
Agreed to an extent. I think if a cis-het male was in her position, they probably would have still been charged. A cis-het female probably wouldn’t have been.
There’s definitely an element of a “trans women aren’t women” to this, which I agree is problematic.
And apart from that, the law should be equally applied in these scenarios, and the gender of those in involved shouldn’t weigh in to those decisions.
Absolutely no way a cis-het male would have been charged.
It’s 100% legal stand your ground/self defense in Wyoming. The cops absolutely know this, they’re just bigots
She had no intention of shooting, she said.
jesus christ I hope her lawyer approved this statement.
Okay so you can’t legally own a gun to defend yourself? I thought this was America?
You can legally own a gun to defend yourself, but only if you are part of the in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, not the out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.
No no no. You can own a gun to defend yourself, but you can’t use the gun to defend yourself if you’re not part of the in-group.
Otherwise, you’re withholding profits from the corporations that sell the guns.
Rules for thee…
The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defense is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, where a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a same-sex attracted individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.
Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man and retaliated by assaulting or killing him? No? Then it sounds like we’re applying laws differently based on sex/gender. Either mitigate this for women or don’t permit it for men, preferably the second one.
If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment and be upfront that you’re flattered but not interested in men. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
the bit you don’t understand is the “fun” in legally being able to beat up gay guys and then claim this as a defence and go home for dinner.
Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man
YMMV. If the woman is white and the man is black, probably. The other way around? I wouldn’t bank on it.
If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment
As a legal defense, the most nefarious thing about it is that you’ll often have two assailants giving testimony that the now-dead victim can’t refute. So it very well could be the “straight” man aggressing on an out-gay man, the gay man rebuffing the advance, and the “straight” man plus friend killing him in reprisal. If you look into the rash of night club shootings during the '10s, it was not uncommon for closeted or sexually repressed individuals to be involved, after feeling the need to prove their straightness by killing their peers.
Also very common for abortion clinic bombers and snipers to come out of communities that convince young men they’re being robbed of future spouses and children by insidious far-left feminist institutions.
Waste of taxpayer money. The attackers should have been charged, too, for a hate crime.
Too???
I should have used “instead”
Too? Bartender shouldn’t face criminal charges for exercising her self defense right.
It’s normal to face charges when you have to defend yourself. I had a guy threatening me with a chunk of rebar and I pulled my gun. I had to talk a lot with the police about it. “Self defense “ is what you argue in court. You might still get arrested and charged.
That being said I’m confident this person will beat the charge because it’s clearly self defense.
Yeah, exactly. Self Defense is a legal defense in court, but you’ll still need to go to court to make the argument. Oftentimes, police won’t bother making an arrest in the moment. They’ll just get your info and you’ll receive a court summons a few days later. But you’ll need to go to court regardless.
Well, yeah? I mean, this is magastan we’re talking about. A country where only people* can defend themselves from an attack and claim self defense.
*Terms and conditions apply. The definition of “person” and therefore of “people” varies from state to state. Please check your local laws to confirm if you can claim you’re legally a person enjoying human rights. Examples of potentially excluded individuals from the definition of person depending on the state include:
- Black/brown/whatever colour is not “american white”
- Gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/whatever sexuality not considered heterosexual
- Any kind of minority deemed “not acceptable” under maga’s principles, such as transexual, furry, autistic, or, in general anything that’s considered woke.
it’s amazing the knots they’ll wind themselves into justifying a free fire state for them, but OH NO, not THOSE people being able to defend themselves… 2a absolutists my hairy ass.
