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.
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.
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.
The classic “rights for me, but not for thee.”
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.
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.
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.
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’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 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.
Matthew Shepherd
October 12, 1998
Laramie, Wyoming
They tied him to a fence and beat him to death
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
Six days before his death, Matthew Shepard’s assailants — Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson — picked him up at a bar, drove him to the edge of town, tied him to a fence and brutally beat him. Eighteen hours later, a passerby discovered Shepard barely alive. He was taken to a Colorado hospital where he later died on October 12. Russell and McKinney were sentenced to life in prison
THEY
It was pretty widely reported on when it happened.
October 12, 1998
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.
Even today we have a couple straight up lynchings every year in the good ol US.
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.
I guess it just depends on what’s important to you.
Does it matter to you when an innocent person is horrifyingly massacred?
Or does that mean nothing to you?
It made enough of a difference that state and federal laws were enacted. The perpetrators were given life sentences. It caused a massive cultural shift in this and every country. For decades.
But if you want to ignore it, go ahead.
Every bigot - every monster- on this planet agrees with you. Those are the allies you have chosen.
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.
So it doesn’t matter?
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.
There’s a difference between ignoring something and being too young to have heard about it.
Are you too young for death to have any meaning for you?
The only argument you are making is that your very humanity has a sell-by date. I don’t accept that. I think you’re just making an excuse for being a piece of shit. And I certainly don’t accept that.
So, tell me, why do you find it OK that this innocent gay man was horrifically massacred? Why are you arguing in support of it?
Because that is unquestionably what you are doing
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?
Your head is just a place to store your teeth, isn’t it?
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.
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.
They are literally charging her with 1 count of surviving.
This is fucking evil.
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.
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
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?
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”).
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
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.”
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.
Do trans people have rights in conservative strongholds?
Ask a Nazi if Jews have rights and you’ll get your answer.
