Wyoming’s “Stand Your Ground” law says you don’t have to run from a confrontation before defending yourself. That is what Rihanna Kelver and her counsel are asking a Laramie judge to consider as they seek protection from prosecution in a felony case stemming from a confrontation outside the Crowbar.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 22 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

Always good to live in a Stand Your Ground state. It's ridiculous that some states can convict you of felonies for defending your life, just because the judge believed you had the option to run from your attacker. Luckily, that is fewer and fewer states every year.

Edit: From the comments below, sounds like Stand Your Ground isn't relevant in this situation, as she was not being threatened with death or grievous bodily harm. My comment here should therefore be read as a completely standalone item, and not something that is relevant to this article at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Always good to live in a Stand Your Ground state.

    Is this policy "Stand Your Ground" or "Gay Panic Defense"? The state claims she was the aggressor because she was heckled while crossing the street. Then the "victim" was allowed to shove her, continue until he was on top of her, and only retreat when he was presented with deadly force. At no point does the DA admit she feared for her life.

    If the state rules in favor of Durham, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean shit. It remains within the domain of the prosecutor's office to choose to prosecute one class of people and abide another, entirely based on their personal prejudices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    You got the order of events wrong. She was heckled, then she crossed the street and approached them. That's why Stand Your Ground will likely not hold up.

    If they had approached her, this would be a different story. But witness statements said she had her hand on her hip like she was ready to draw as she approached.

    Plus, she drew the gun as they were leaving. The guy who shoved her was shoving her out of the way as they were walking past. Brandishing a weapon while someone is leaving isn't standing your ground.

    Then she initially said in her report that she pulled a knife, which she didn't have in her possession when the cops showed up.

    This case definitely isn't cut and dry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (2 children)

    You can retreat and still defend yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    Not in the legal sense those words are used. In a "duty to retreat" state you must attempt to retreat if one is available and reasonable before you can attempt to defend yourself. That means you can't back pedal and shoot someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    There's no duty to retreat in Wyoming. The problem is she approached them after they insulted her, which isn't protected by Stand Your Ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    And her version she claims she was trying to understand what they were saying. It's perfectly reasonable if someone is obviously yelling something towards you and you can't understand it that you get closer. Closing the distance to talk to someone isn't being the initial aggressor. If this goes to trial, that will be something for a jury to decide. We don't really get to do that here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 child)

    Her version also claims she pulled a non-existent knife instead of a gun. She hasn't done her credibility any favors here. Witnesses say she approached with her hand at her hip as if she was ready to draw a gun.

    If true, that shows that she felt like she was in danger as she approached. That's not covered by SYG.

    This is by no means a cut and dry case of clear self defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago (1 child)

    Yet here you are trying to argue a cut and dry case the other way. That's for a jury if it goes to trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Where did I argue a cut and dry case? I intentionally used indefinite qualifiers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 19 hours ago

    She didn't retreat. She approached the group with her hand on her hip where a gun would be. One guy in the group then shoved her out of the way as they were leaving. Then she pulled the gun

    This makes the Stand Your Ground defense shaky. They weren't an active threat before she intentionally put herself in a situation where they could be.

    She should have just kept walking or stated on the other side of the road at least, then pulled the gun if they approached her.

  • source
  • parent