Do Trans People Have “Stand Your Ground” Rights? Wyoming’s Answer May Be “No.”
Albany County Circuit Court Judge Robert Sanford agreed with the prosecutor that there was probable cause that Kelver committed assault.
Lots of inaccuracies here.
Article Link! Do Trans People Have “Stand Your Ground” Rights? Wyoming’s Answer May Be “No.”
- Thread starter Racer88
- Start date
Lots of inaccuracies here.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2022
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 2,113
- Points
- 168
I could only read till it pulled its gun and pointed it at the people, but you cannot walk into a situation and then claim you were standing your ground.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2023
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 1,046
- Points
- 108
First of all, he is not "she", thus the entire article is invalidated by the writer's propensity to lie. Secondly, an insane person (gender dysphoria) shouldn't be armed with a gun, he should be in an asylum. Thirdly, I call bullshit on the whole scenario.
I think you're misreading the situation. The reporter is using "she" as the victim and "he" as the aggressor.
"She" didn't walk into the situation and "She" was, IMHO, well within "her" rights to defend "herself".
I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind charging "her".
Maybe you know more about the incident than what's reported in the article?
I didn't study it really well, but I don't see any inaccuracies.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2022
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 2,113
- Points
- 168
Ok, the part I saw, IT ws across the street. Some punks started harassing IT. It went across the street to confront the punks.
We can clearly infer that the punk may have been assholes but IT dd not need to confront tem. None of the punks had a rifle or handgun or even a knife visible from what I could read.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2022
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 2,113
- Points
- 168
OK, I re-read the paragraph. Apparently punk one pushed IT, which is still a man, let's face it. IT felt threatened and pulled a gun. 10000% unjustified. IT is lucky that IT did not pull the trigger, or IT would be facing a murder charge. Remember, PROPORTINAL response.
If someone smacks me in the face I cannot shoot him. Nor can I threaten him (or her, or IT) with my CCW.
If someone smacks me in the face I cannot shoot him. Nor can I threaten him (or her, or IT) with my CCW.
Patriot6789T4Ever
New member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2026
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 3
Y’all are a bunch of hypocrites without respect. If I’d have been pushed as was seen in this case, I would have every damn right to pull my weapon and defend myself. That is my right, and that was this individuals right.
The inaccuracies are that this is a 2nd Amendment case. The entire premise of the article is incorrect. Self-defense law is entirely separate from the 2nd Amendment.
This case has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. There is no suggestion that the victim's Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in question. Nobody has suggested that he / she should not be allowed to or should not have been carrying a gun. The legal question here is not about the fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment does not stipulate when / where / how you can USE your arms. It only stipulates you have a Right to KEEP and BEAR Arms. Self-defense law is an ENTIRELY separate matter.
The question in THIS CASE is whether it was lawful to use it in self-defense (in this case brandished). Based on the article, I would agree that it WAS a judicious use of a firearm in self-defense.
All the other cases cited in the article were the same.... NOT about 2nd Amendment Rights, but rather whether the use of deadly force was LEGALLY justified. Did those uses of lethal force satisfy the LEGAL CRITERIA known as "AOJ" (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy) or the "5 Elements" (Innocence, Imminence, Avoidance, Proportionality, Reasonableness)? That's the ONLY question here.... and in ANY case of self-defense involving lethal force.
If we distill this case down to the essence of the question: Was what the victim did REASONABLE? It would appear so.
Furthermore, this is not a "SYG" case. If the victim is on his / her ass and surrounded by a number of attackers, retreat isn't even possible. So there is no question about that. SYG simply removes the LEGAL requirement to retreat when possible.
The cases cited in the article HAPPENED to involve a group of people with assumed "cultural and prejudicial victimhood status." I don't give a crap about which "group" they belong to. The question here is whether the use of lethal force met the legal requirements. It's got NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited:
I think you're making some assumptions. Some of us agree that the victim properly and justifiably drew the weapon.... myself included.
Thanks for joining the forum and participating by posting! When you get a chance, please write up a quick “introduction” (or RE-introduction if you were a former MGB forum member) of yourself over in the Introduce Yourself! section. Tell us about yourself, your building experience, and how you found the forum.
Jump into other threads, too! Come on in... the water's fine!
I disagree. The victim was reportedly shoved hard to the ground. The victim was outnumbered and in a very vulnerable position. Next step is possible kicks to the head or just a "ground & pound." VERY dangerous and serious threats.
Head injuries from a fall to the ground or kicks to the head can be fatal or cause grievous injury. That is WELL-established. Just two days ago, I met someone who was "sucker-punched" and ended up with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) that almost killed him and changed his life forever. I had a local colleague who was attacked similarly (in a restaurant bathroom) and ended up with a TBI that changed his life and forced him to retire.
I believe it can be EASILY argued that the victim's response in this case was not only proportional but showed significant and admirable RESTRAINT. Of course, depending entirely on a news report to get the facts straight is generally folly. But if this one is accurate, I'm siding with the victim.
For those questioning the victim's use of a firearm... What would you say is the REASONABLE response after being shoved to the ground while facing multiple assailants? Should he / she wait for a kick to the head and THEN draw the gun?
Last edited:
The 2nd Amendment is only mentioned once and only questions whether it pertains to everyone equally.
While the overwhelming reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment was to keep the Government in check. It's also been ruled and upheld as a right to defend one's self, as in this case.
That said, what I took from the article, is that it was questioning the application of "Stand your ground" laws.
Like I said, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the victim being charged with anything.
It's the only article I've seen and haven't tried to find out more information, but I am well aware that this reporter may be slanting the article based on their own personal beliefs and that the Judge may have some crucial information that the article does not contain.
IMHO, based on the information in the article, there's no way yhe victim should have been charged.
1st
No matter what gender the reporter chose to identify the victim, it isn't a lie. You are free to call yourself whatever you want.
2nd
Gender dysphoria, doesn't qualify as insane.
And as far as we know, no "court, board, or other lawful authority has formally determined" the victim was a danger to himself or others, or lacks the capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
3rd
It may well be a bunch of bullshit fed to us by some idiot reporter, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2023
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 467
- Points
- 63
The cowboystatedaily.com article a couple days ago lead me to think Kelver
will be exonerated once the John's hearing is wrung out. If it had been me I
would have used the affirmative southern defence on Durham, " He needed
killin." after shoving me to the ground. If you're on the ground you're really
at a disadvantage.
will be exonerated once the John's hearing is wrung out. If it had been me I
would have used the affirmative southern defence on Durham, " He needed
killin." after shoving me to the ground. If you're on the ground you're really
at a disadvantage.
- Joined
- May 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 1,730
- Points
- 128
As I read it, a person defended him/her self and is now being put through the legal ringer and law fare ringer. Just like many others that defend themselves.
Welcome to the party, your trans privilege doesn't work, much like the white privilege card doesn't do nearly what it is said to do.
Welcome to the party, your trans privilege doesn't work, much like the white privilege card doesn't do nearly what it is said to do.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2023
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 1,046
- Points
- 108
FWIW, this is "Rihanna" Kelver:
Apparently, he staged a "protest" by using the women's restroom in the state capital building after Wyoming had passed a law banning mentally ill men from doing just that.
This article paints a very different picture of the incident. It sounds like the sicko responded to a yelled taunt by purposely trying to escalate. He even admitted to pulling a knife, which he dropped when he was pushed to the ground, at which point he pulled the handgun.
cowboystatedaily.com
Apparently, he staged a "protest" by using the women's restroom in the state capital building after Wyoming had passed a law banning mentally ill men from doing just that.
This article paints a very different picture of the incident. It sounds like the sicko responded to a yelled taunt by purposely trying to escalate. He even admitted to pulling a knife, which he dropped when he was pushed to the ground, at which point he pulled the handgun.
Transgender Bathroom Protestor Faces Felony Assault Charge, Claims Self-Defense
The transgender Laramie resident who protested Wyoming’s cross-sex access ban for public bathrooms at the Capitol last summer is now waging a self-defense…
cowboystatedaily.com
FWIW, this is "Rihanna" Kelver:
Apparently, he staged a "protest" by using the women's restroom in the state capital building after Wyoming had passed a law banning mentally ill men from doing just that.
This article paints a very different picture of the incident. It sounds like the sicko responded to a yelled taunt by purposely trying to escalate. He even admitted to pulling a knife, which he dropped when he was pushed to the ground, at which point he pulled the handgun.
Transgender Bathroom Protestor Faces Felony Assault Charge, Claims Self-Defense
The transgender Laramie resident who protested Wyoming’s cross-sex access ban for public bathrooms at the Capitol last summer is now waging a self-defense…
The transgender aspect is irrelevant.
But if the following is true... It changes EVERYTHING.
It means Kelver was the aggressor. Kelver INITIATED the physical confrontation. If that's the case, then self-defense CANNOT be claimed.
Yes, this is a much better sourced and investigated article.
It no longer looks like self defense. Now it's just another FAFO.
- Joined
- May 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 1,730
- Points
- 128
Same theme, different lesson. Just because you have a permit to carry/constitutional carry doesn't mean you can go anywhere, do anything, say anything, because you have a gun.
If you pack, its best that not a soul knows you are packing unless and until they need to know.
If you pack, its best that not a soul knows you are packing unless and until they need to know.