150
Laramie transgender woman awaits ruling on Wyoming 'Stand Your Ground' claim
(www.yourwyominglink.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
150 points (98.1% liked)
News
39029 readers
2795 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But she's not being charged with use of deadly force. She's being charged with aggravated assault, which is threatening the use of deadly force, i.e. brandishing.
The stand your ground defense might not hold up because she approached him, then drew the gun after he pushed her. He wasn't a threat until she put herself in a situation where he could be.
I'm sure a jury would return not guilty, but she didn't do her defense any favors. If someone is shouting insults from a distance, you should walk away or at least not approach. If they follow you, then brandishing is more justified.
Except, from the description above, the use of slurs in public has long been held to be "Fighting Words" under 1st amendment law. His initial actions were not protected speech and are considered an act of violence.
Also, her walking over to confront him was not an invitation for assault. He provoked her, assaulted her, and she threatened to defend herself if he continued his assault. This is how these sorts of cases have been adjudicated for a long time. We will see if this one is, but it is how it should be.
If an insult is a violent act, then confrontation is escalating things. She wasn't in danger when they were just being assholes from the other side of the street.
Kinda. Fighting words have been so narrowed as to be functionally meaningless. Cohen v Californa (I think?) basically said "emotions alone aren't enough."
Practically, fighting words have to rise to the level of being reasonably interpreted as an imminent threat to get outside of First Amendment protection.
In this case, sounds like the assholes yelled their slurs and kept moving, so that wouldn't justify the use of force.
Ah I missed that detail, thanks for the clarification. I disagree about the approaching part, anyone can approach anyone in public. Approaching isn't an aggressive action, especially not like pushing someone is. He said words, she got closer and said words, he got physical, she almost got physical back. I hope she beats the rap.
Witnesses say she had her hand at her hip like she was ready to draw a weapon as she approached. She also drew as they were leaving (the push was pushing her out of the way).
And while approaching someone isn't inherently an aggressive action, insulting someone is. Approaching a stranger who is insulting you is escalating things by confronting them.
She also didn't do herself any favors by claiming she pulled a non-existent knife.
But let's swap the genders here, like someone else in the thread said. If a group of black women started calling a white guy a racist, then he went out of his way to confront them about it and got shoved, would we be cool with him pulling a gun? Would we be saying he was just standing his ground?
I didn't see anything saying that she had her hand on her hip ready to draw, but even if true, so what.
I don't live in a state with these kind of gun laws, but in her state them's the rules. Personally I think getting physical with someone in any way is a big escalation, it's literally a use of force. Force should be reasonably appropriate and somewhat equal, i.e. you don't get to shoot someone for bumping into you at the store (or shoot someone who is not or is no longer a threat, possibly like this situation). You might say the guy had no weapons and simply pushed her, but the fact remains that she returned his force with none. It could have been the case that she got pushed over and then the guy goes to kick or stomp her in which case I think shooting is appropriate. I think the brandishing charge is probably bullshit, because it doesn't seem like she was waving around the gun to intimidate or threaten someone. It sounds like she took out the gun to use it during a physical altercation and then didn't when she realized it was not necessary.
No need to swap genders or substitute ideologically different people, I'm cool with a legally-carried gun being pulled during a defensive physical fight every time. You said that insulting someone is an inherently aggressive action, and sure I'll mostly agree, but the big difference is that it's legal. Insults are fist amendment protected speech most of the time, pushing someone is battery.
And it appears that Wyoming considers approaching someone who has had words with you is an escalation.
Brandishing a weapon is... I don't konw if it's a use of force or some other classification, but there are laws against that.
It sounds to me that the court will consider all the arguments and come to whatever conclusion the law specifies. Or maybe it won't and the law should be changed, or....... dunno. Just responding to two minor things you said that I thought required minor replies. :)
Yeah it's all good man, I appreciate the banter. Now I wish there was an easy way to follow up on this and find out the conclusion.
Yeah, that's the main problem with this stuff (lemmy/reddit/etc).
The Freedom Fuel thing just popped up again, for example, and until it did I'd forgotten about it. We know more about it now, and if it hadn't popped up again, I'd've never thought about it again. heh.
She can't know ahead of time that he would escalate by assaulting her. That's all on him.
That's why you don't engage.
You can't shoot someone because they pushed you after you came up to them.
Yeah, this is a real good point. She is almost certainly going to be found at fault here. Heckling does not justify a reply with a threat of deadly force. She was not in fear of her life or grievous bodily harm, which is what you need to justify threats of deadly force.
Except the threat of deadly force was not in reply to the heckling, but the actual assault of him pushing her onto the ground. Assuming these were anti trans insults I fully understand being fearful for your life after that.
Battery*
In most jurisdictions assault is the threat of violence and battery is the actions.
But witnesses say she approached with her hand at her hip, as if ready to draw a gun. If true, that means she had already determined she was in danger by approaching.
In that case, assuming the guy who shoved her saw the hand position, it could be argued by the prosecutors that the push was in self defense. She was allegedly pushed out of the way as they were leaving, then pulled a gun.
She also lied and said she pulled a knife, which seriously danages the credibility of her version.