Susan's Place Transgender Resources

3 men assaulted a trans bartender. Now she's facing felonies for defending herself.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/06/3-men-assaulted-a-trans-bartender-now-shes-facing-felonies-for-defending-herself/

Greg Owen (5 June 2026)

A transgender bartender in Laramie, Wyoming, who pointed her gun at a man she says hurled gay slurs at her and threw her to the ground, is headed to trial on felony assault and gun charges. If convicted, she could face up to 15 years in prison.

Ríhanna Kelver says she was acting in self-defense after the man, accompanied by two companions, taunted her and knocked her to the crosswalk where the confrontation took place on a downtown street in Laramie. Video evidence shows Kelver pulling a handgun from her satchel and pointing it at the man after the attack.

While her assailant wasn't charged, she's facing felonies for aggravated assault and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent.

Kelver's lawyer argued in a preliminary hearing last week that his client's action pulling the gun is protected under Wyoming's "Stand Your Ground" law, and that the case should be dismissed. The judge disagreed, and sent the case to trial in district court.

What?

That is the very reason for a Stand Your Ground Law. They have one in South Dakota too.

Wyoming Statutes
Title 6 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 2 - Offenses Against the Person
Article 6 - Justification
Section 6-2-602 - Use of Force in Self Defense; No Duty to Retreat.

(a) The use of defensive force whether actual or threatened, is reasonable when it is the defensive force that a reasonable person in like circumstances would judge necessary to prevent an injury or loss, and no more, including deadly force if necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the person employing the deadly force or to another person. As used in this subsection, "necessary to prevent" includes a necessity that arises from an honest belief that the danger exists whether the danger is real or apparent.

(e) A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present shall not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force pursuant to subsection (a) of this section provided that he is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in illegal activity.

(f) A person who uses reasonable defensive force as defined by subsection (a) of this section shall not be criminally prosecuted for that use of reasonable defensive force.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-6/chapter-2/article-6/section-6-2-602/

That judge is crazy. I suppose they first expect the victim to get beat half unconscious before they can pull out the gun in self defence?

I would think being verbally attacked and then physically thrown to the ground is more than enough actions to show that the trans person was under a real threat and in danger. That is what stand your ground is for.

I'm just waiting on trans people being charged with aggravated assault with a biological weapon for bleeding on their attackers.

Self defense is typically required to be proportional. If you're yelled at, you can yell back. If you're punched, you can punch back.

I didn't see in the article how the situation changed from insults being traded across a street to a physical altercation.

Seems like there were no adults in the room.

Quote from: Jessica_Rose on June 05, 2026, 08:57:21 PMRíhanna Kelver says she was acting in self-defense after the man, accompanied by two companions, taunted her and knocked her to the crosswalk where the confrontation took place on a downtown street in Laramie.

Being knocked to the ground is an assault. Being outnumbered 3 to 1 constitutes a reasonable cause to suspect bodily injury will result. The weapon was not fired, it was only brandished to stave off the attack.

That is my non-lawyer interpretation of the events. Whether they were transgender or not is irrelevant.

This is troubling:

Police who reviewed the footage wrote that Kelver approached Durham and that Durham pushed Kelver, per the affidavit.

Look, I like trans people. But a single woman takes on three men, gets pushed over and pulls a gun. You have to know that is going to probably going to lead to legal issues. Bad decisions were made here, from all sides.

As a student of self-defense for decades, my understanding has always been any display of a firearm carries legal ramifications.  It is hard to get all the facts from the article but this sentence stood out:  "Video evidence shows Kelver pulling a handgun from her satchel and pointing it at the man after the attack."  I bolded the after as the time frame between any confrontation and escalation can be the determining element especially when there are words going back and forth.  De-escalation has long been a key element in quality self-defense training. 

We do not know what words were said where and when to the police.  Ray Shoesmith in Mr. In-Between said it most clearly in this clip from a great show:
 https://youtu.be/ul5oC-F-IF0?si=-fkCcHEo_it9CRPu

What was said at the scene or nearly anytime after can impact outcomes especially with any underlying bias.

Quote from: MistressStevie on June 06, 2026, 11:27:19 PMAs a student of self-defense for decades, my understanding has always been any display of a firearm carries legal ramifications.  It is hard to get all the facts from the article but this sentence stood out:  "Video evidence shows Kelver pulling a handgun from her satchel and pointing it at the man after the attack."  I bolded the after as the time frame between any confrontation and escalation can be the determining element especially when there are words going back and forth.  De-escalation has long been a key element in quality self-defense training. 

We do not know what words were said where and when to the police.  Ray Shoesmith in Mr. In-Between said it most clearly in this clip from a great show:
 https://youtu.be/ul5oC-F-IF0?si=-fkCcHEo_it9CRPu

What was said at the scene or nearly anytime after can impact outcomes especially with any underlying bias.

You raise a very good question - what was the timing on when the gun was pulled out. I was automatically assuming she pulled the gun out immediately as she was pushed to the ground with 3 men around her. That's a self defence action. But if she was pushed down and verbally attacked. Then she gets up and perhaps the verbal altercation continues for a few minutes and after all that she pulls out the gun to get them to back off... then she could be in legal trouble.

I'm sorry but as a white Canadian transwoman I see the stand your ground laws in the U.S. as just legalized bigotry. I see it as a hunting license for straight cis white men to target minorities including the lgbtq2+ community. George Zimmerman free to go, Marissa Alexander who fired a warning shot got 20 years (though it later got reduced but she still had to plead guilty). Both in Florida but very different outcomes.

The intent of the Stand Your Ground Law is to protect your human right to self-defense. So the laws as written are a good thing.

If a judge decides that the law does not apply to a given situation, that is on the judge. And they do make those kinds of decisions, and not just in self-defense cases. Our civil rights are under attack because of judges making political decisions instead of legal decisions. It is sickening.

She will have her day in court. That's a good thing, because could you imagine the outrage you would be seeing if this thread was about a cisgender man who pulled a gun on a transgender woman but was just allowed to walk because of a stand your ground law? She raised the stakes by introducing the firearm. Let's see what happens at trial.

Side note, it's really easy to find the police transcript and eyewitness reports that they received on the scene. But we still need to leave it to the jury.

Quote from: Lori Dee on June 08, 2026, 09:46:44 AMThe intent of the Stand Your Ground Law is to protect your human right to self-defense. So the laws as written are a good thing.

If a judge decides that the law does not apply to a given situation, that is on the judge. And they do make those kinds of decisions, and not just in self-defense cases. Our civil rights are under attack because of judges making political decisions instead of legal decisions. It is sickening.

Even without stand your ground laws there are laws in place for self defense. The self defense laws require you to try to get out of the situation before using lethal force. Stand your ground is an expansion of the castle doctrine allowing people to use lethal force without the need to de escalate. This allows people to be major jerks without fear of consequences. With standard self defense laws if you are surrounded and fear for your life then yes you can defend yourself but if you can leave then just leave.

As a Canadian I tend more towards the America self defense laws as in Canada you can only carry a personal alarm for self defense, nothing able to cause harm. Though if something can be used as a tool or dog spray to ward off dogs you can get away with. Though I must admit I am happy that Canada doesn't allow personal carry for fire arms.