Guns

A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means Prison Time

Authorities say Krissy Noble was justified in shooting and killing a home intruder while she was pregnant.

|

|||Screenshot via ABC News
Screenshot via ABC News

A young woman who killed an intruder may be heading to prison, even now that authorities have ruled the shooting justified.

In December, Krissy Noble shot a man named Dylan Stancoff with her husband's gun when Stancoff forced his way into her Fort Smith, Arkansas, home. Noble was 11 weeks pregnant. The case was sent to the Sebastian County Prosecutor's Office, which determined that the shooting was justified.

But Noble still faces felony gun charges because of a previous drug-related conviction. In 2017, Noble pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver as well as possession of drug paraphernalia. (She had been pulled over while riding in a vehicle with friends. Each person in the vehicle received the same charges when no one claimed the items.) She got a five-year suspended sentence, and as part of that was prohibited from either possessing or using firearms.

After Stancoff's death, the authorities filed a petition to revoke Noble's suspended sentence. She has since been charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a gun. Yesterday Noble turned herself in, was booked, and was released on a $2,500 bond.

Noble gave birth to her son earlier this year. If convicted, she tells ABC News, she could spend a maximum of 24 years in prison. "That's my baby's life," she lamented. "I won't even know my child."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

145 responses to “A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means Prison Time

  1. Ow, my balls.

    1. You need electrolytes.

    2. You talk like a fag, and your shit is all retarded.

      1. Your boyfriend taught you that.

  2. But making drugs illegal helps people.

  3. Never take the plea deal. If they had a case, they would not offer a deal.

    1. Keep telling yourself that.

      1. Really?
        How hard would it be to beat a rap where the drugs could have belonged to any one of the accused?
        Clearly the cops did not have probable cause, because it was probable that it was one of the other four.
        And it would have saved her all this stress and bother.

        1. Just like Cohen they will pile on charges even if they are bogus until you break.

        2. Prisoner’s dilemma, basically.

          Suppose there are N defendants, but the prosecutor only has resources to go to trial against K of them. Solution: Prosecutor offers deals sweet/threatening enough to convince N-K of the defendants to plead guilty. Then crucifies the remaining K as an example to future defendants (and their attorneys) that they better take the deal they’re offered.

          1. What does race have to do with it?

        3. The monstrosity of the drug laws is that according to the statute it doesn’t matter. If you are in the vehicle, the law supposes that the drugs are in your possession.

          The law is something worse than a ass.

          This happened to someone in my wife’s circle. He was _hitchhiking_. Mandatory double-digit sentence. Finished his degree inside but who’s going to hire a “felon”?

          That’s right. Literally, as a matter of cold fact and not as an irresponsible punk’s excuse, you can have the government wreck your life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    2. If you can’t afford an attorney you have no choice since the public defenders are in league with the courts.

    3. The plea deal should be rediucing the charge to something non-violent (she is not a violent offender) and a continued suspended sentence. Maybe some community service, and they get rid of the gun.

      The whole drug thing is stupid, but the above would be a reasonable result that doesn’t fuck up her life. A good prosecutor shouldn’t have a problem with that. Given the potential negative publicity, and the fact she removed a repeat violent offender from the picture. She probably saved the taxpayers at least a million bucks offing that piece of shit.

      1. The problem with getting rid of the gun is that it may have already saved her life or the life of her child. If you live in a neighborhood where these crimes happen, I think that disarming them is the worst thing we can do.

        Our whole felony/misdemeanor criteria for so many laws is a big problem. When people think felony, they usually think of murder, armed battery, etc. Those people should lose their right to bear arms. Most felonies are non-violent crimes so using the “felony” criteria for losing the right to defend yourself is stupid.

    4. Never even talk to them. Always take the 5th.

  4. O/T – They killed Wendy.

    ER Actress Shot and Killed by Police during a welfare check.

    She had mental health issues for years, and was featured on the show “Intervention” for agoraphobia.

    1. But the heroic first responders got home safe so it’s a happy ending overall.

    2. “Welfare Check”

      1) Are you ok?
      2) You’re scaring me.
      3) I’ll shoot you now.
      4) You’re dead.
      5) Welfare check finds citizen dead.

      Recommendation: We need to check on citizens more often. They are in extreme danger of being shot.

      1. She did pull what looked like a gun on them. That’s generally a very bad idea when its the police.

      2. Linked story: “She wrote on Facebook in March that she was “terminally ill.””
        Police go to do a “welfare check”.
        Terminally ill woman displays a BB gun.
        Police shoot her dead.

        Just assuming. She could have been confused about whether they were officers and was using a fake gun as a deterrent to scare them off. Or, if suicide by cop was her aim, the police obliged. In either case, police training that encourages. see gun, shoot first, ask questions later, may very well have enabled an unnecessary death.

        In the Dorner rampage in California, police opened fire on a van that vaguely matched the description of Dorner’s van, injuring two women delivering morning newspapers. That is ill disciplined use of force.

        In Tennessee, we had an armed man in a local school who pulled a gun on the principal. He was engaged by an armed school resource officer in a “Mexican stand-off”. Within minutes responding deputies entered the school, went to the science pod where the SRO and armed intruder were facing off. The man swung his gun toward them, they still demanded put the gun down. When the man swung the gun back toward the SRO, they then opened fire. That is disciplined use of force.

        1. “In either case, police training that encourages. see gun, shoot first, ask questions later, may very well have enabled an unnecessary death.”

          Not just shoot first, it seems to encourage empty your magazine spray and pray style shooting, which is tactically stupid in a situation where there may be more than one threat in the area.

          I’m not sure if I could find a link for it now, but I recall reading about a case from NYC. The NYPD was called out to an incident where a drunk pedestrian (unarmed) was in an intersection blocking traffic.

          Half a dozen officers respond. They start issuing orders to the drunk. Based on later BAC tests on the drunk, he was probably incapable of understanding what they were saying. The officers all open fire, emptied their magazines.

          Around a dozen innocent bystanders were hit, fortunately none fatally. Between them, they didn’t even manage to hit the drunk once.

        2. “The man swung his gun toward them, they still demanded put the gun down. When the man swung the gun back toward the SRO, they then opened fire. That is disciplined use of force.”

          Insufficient information to conclude that it was a disciplined use of force. Maybe the first shot was, maybe even the first shot from each officer was.

          If they all emptied their magazines, that was not disciplined use of force.

          A number of studies have shown that when multiple officers are involved, if one opens fire, they will all open fire in sympathy, even if they don’t individually perceive any threat.

          1. The SRO and the two officers fired two shots each, a grand total of six rounds.

            To me, that was classic double tap, check effect, no more force than necessary, no evidence of malice nor of depraved mind, and with careful regard to avoid collateral damage.

            And if they had had tommy guns with fifty round drum magazines and were blindfolded on roller skates, and did magazine dumps, that would not be disciplined use of force.

            Rick Wagner, “What happened to folks involved with the 2010 Sullivan Central High School shooting and its aftermath?”, Kingsport Times-News, 30 Aug 2017.

            Snopes: Did Carolyn Gudger Stop a School Shooting? In 2010, an armed school resource officer at Sullivan Central High School held a gunman at bay until officers arrived.

  5. The overfelonization of nonviolent crimes, compounded with the lazy schoolteacher’s collective punishment method of dealing with children who won’t snitch on each other.

    1. As a (felon btw) friend of mine pointed out, “Everything is a felony!”

  6. Why can’t they use some of that “prosecutorial discretion” I’m always hearing about? Why are they being dicks about this?

    1. Why does the lion eat the baby gazelle?

      1. Because it is the slowest?
        Or because the lion is on a diet?

    2. They’re using their prosecutorial discretion to be dicks.

      1. Because FYTW!

    3. She’s not rich and prosecutors are sadist.

    4. It’s reserved for cops. There’s a limited supply and they can be a wastin’ that on the common folk.

      1. And something, something protecting the public… Drugs off the street… Tough, smart prosecutor…

    5. It could be nothing more sinister than reflex. “Felon in possession” gets an automatic response every place I’ve heard of.

    6. Why are Prosecutors being dicks? The answer is in the question.

  7. In retrospect, having the organization which profits off bad people and the organization which determines who is bad be the same organization might not have been a good idea.

  8. Those prison cells don’t fill themselves. As libertarians we should be grateful.

  9. >>>Each person in the vehicle received the same charges when no one claimed the items.

    I guess ‘reasonable doubt’ also requires a reasonable legal system. Christ.

    1. If you can’t do the time, don’t live in a country where literally everything is a crime.

    2. didn’t some cops get off on killing a driver because they couldn’t tell which of the 7 fired the fatal shot?

      1. Michael Brelo, Cleveland Ohio. Approximately 1/3 of all cops in that jurisdiction that were on duty that night participated in the chase. The chase was called off at least 3 times by dispatch and the ranking officer on duty at dispatch during that shift. At least 135 shots were fired. Brelo fired at least 45 of them at point blank range, standing on the hood of the car that had stalled out in a ditch. The judge at the bench trial found him not guilty because he couldn’t determine if any of Brelo’s 45 shots were fatal. The prosecutor, the same prosecutor that refused to prosecute Tamir Rice’s murderer, was not re-elected in 2016. He is still alive. Tamir Rice is not.

        1. Oh, yeah. No gun was found, even after retracing the path of the chase. An even larger portion of the force went out looking for said gun.

        2. But forensics against the average Joe can determine based on a single paint chip and a bruise exactly which hammer at home depot killed someone.

          Forensics is half junk science.

            1. Well, yes, but, unfortunately forensics has been unable to determine which half.

          1. “Forensics is half junk science.”

            The only forensic discipline that isn’t 100% junk science is DNA, and even that, in a criminal context, tends to be used in ways not supported by the real science.

        3. No need to gild the lily here. Brelo stood on the hood of the car and did a magazine dump (~15 rounds) after the other cops stopped firing. That brought his total round count up to 49 shots fired in this incident. The other cops fired 88 rounds, for a total of 137.

      2. Michael Brelo redirect at Wikipedia
        “137 shots”

        “Five police supervisors were also charged with dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor. . . . .
        “The families of Russell and Williams filed a lawsuit against the city of Cleveland, and received a settlement of $3 million in November 2014.
        “On January 26, 2016, it was reported that six Cleveland police officers were fired due to their connection with the car chase. They were identified as Brelo, Wilfredo Diaz, Brian Sabolik, Erin O’Donnell, Michael Farley, and Chris Ereg”

        The fatalities were named Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams.

  10. The real question is whether she’ll be separated from her child?

    1. You beat me to the rhetorical question.

      So I’ll answer.

      Yes. They will separate mother and child. She’s not a member of a favored identity group.

      1. And she is a citizen, but without rights.

        1. She is a citizen, *therefore* without rights.

          Illegals First!

          1. More like cops first, last and only.

    2. I’m sure all those faggots like Tony, and Jeffy, and Sara and so on will cry about her plight. Or maybe not, since she’s just some piece of shit American, and not some noble foreigner with rights to everything we have,

  11. Is there ever a condition where a pregnant woman would not be justified in shooting a home intruder?

    1. Apparently if you’ve been busted for ANY felonious crime. Driving without license? Certain tax violations? Removing those damn tags from your mattress?

      1. You can’t have people removing the tags from their mattresses willy nilly. That would be like wild west.

        1. But that guy will be trusted to help you find your bike at the Alamo.

      2. Yep. Kristallnacht gun laws infringe the Second Amendment and every other part of the Bill of Rights.

      3. It is only a felony to remove furniture material tags IF you are a seller of mattresses.

        Hate to rain on parades, but consumers are free to remove them.

        And I thought I was striking a blow against Big Brother when I removed mine.

        I was so disappointed when the law was explained to me.

    2. She was justified in shooting him. She is not facing felony manslaughter, she was not charged because police determined 8 Dec 2017 it appeared to be self-defense and the prosecutor agreed. No charges filed.

      But 30 Aug 2018 the state decided that her being on probation for felony “riding in a car where someone had pot” made her access to her husband’s gun into felony possession by felony drug offender. Six year minimum, up to 24 possible.

  12. Can’t wait for lc1789 to come along and say that’s how laws work, too bad, so sad.

    1. She was on a suspended sentence for a crime. She agreed to not have a gun. If it werent for suspended sentence, she would be in custody where she cannot have a gun.

      With that being said, she should go to trial and throw herself at the mercy of a jury. She was defending herself and would likely be dead now.

      2nd Amendment protects even ex-cons and their right to keep and bear Arms.

      1. Additionally, all drug crimes are unconstitutional.

        Even the Prohibitionists knew they needed the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol.

        1. Like i said upthread, the prosecutor should let her plead to a non violent offense and giver her little to no jail time. Worst case scenario, six months work release and some community service. This chick is no threat to anyone not trying to kill her.

          1. I *want* people to be a threat to criminal intruders.

            1. Ideally, yes.

        2. Except this is apparently a state charge, sorry but I see nothing constitutionally infirm about state level drug prohibition (still a stupid idea but states are free to do lots of stupid things the feds shouldn’t be able to touch).

          1. States have had their own gun laws within their jurisdictions despite the constitution.

            That is why since 1924 the rest of the country has had to put up with New York crusaders (including the New York Times editorial board) trying to impose the New York Sullivan Act of 1911 on the rest of the country, federal and other states’ constitutions’ protection of the right to keep and bear arms be damned in their eyes. The Empire State over all others.

      2. Hopefully her lawyer will find a way to argue that she wasn’t in possession of he gun until exigent circumstances arose. It depends what their definition of “possession” is (i.e. does knowing where the key to the gun locker is kept count?). In general, preservation of life is a valid defense to various criminal charges.

        1. I hope you’re right about the state of the law. That seems a surprisingly sane state of affairs.

          If that is the state of the law, a real journalist would have included that in the article.

        2. That’s kinda what I was thinking. I mean let’s say you’re an innocent guy walking down the street, but have a felony charge of some sort. A guy walks up and threatens to kill everybody there, a good guy pulls out a gun to shoot him but gets shot first… The bad guy looks away to yell at somebody the other direction, you grab the gun and take him down…

          How is that not reasonable? You didn’t HAVE a gun on you. You didn’t intentionally pack heat. But in a life and death circumstance one happened to present itself. Seems insane to prosecute in a situation like that.

          It’s marginally different since husband lived there etc, but there has to be case law on multiple people inhabiting a residence. I can’t imagine everybody that is barred from owning a gun can’t have a roommate that has one, don’t see how this is substantially different.

          Seems like a decent lawyer could fight this shit.

          1. It depends on how limiting the no firearms provision of probation is written. In WA, that means nothing at all in the person’s residence. Period. In Arkansas I have no idea.

        3. “Constructive” possession just means “you could get at it if you wanted to”; Obviously she could, so it does apply. Unfortunately.

      3. I can see taking the right of ex-cons convicted of violent crimes to have guns.

        But I see no sense in taking the right of ex-cons to have guns if they weren’t convicted of a violent crime.

        And certainly pot users should never have been prosecuted in the first place, and should all receive amnesty for possession or drug paraphenalia convictions.

        1. The 2nd amendment does not allow taking anyones right to keep and bear arms.

          She was in state custody, which is the only way the state can deprive you of rights temporarily.

          Either way, she still has a right to defend herself.

          1. Yup. Barring known, violent criminals from having guns is one of those things that DOES kinda make sense… But it’s also unconstitutional IMO, and a slippery slope.

            At best I think one could argue that there is a probationary period that lasts as long as your regular probation, then even violent criminals should have their rights restored. It sounds stupid, but anybody who wants to commit violent acts will just get an illegal gun anyway, and all the people who learn their lesson won’t cause future problems and deserve their rights back.

            AFAIK it’s lifetime bans for most violent crimes, but can usually be restored for non violent felonies. I know that’s the case in Washington state, as with voting rights. The rub in Washington is you get voting restored automatically, but have to waste a day in court and filing a ton of paperwork to get gun rights back. So it’s available, but they make it hard on purpose. Dicks.

    2. Scarecrow is new here.

    3. Can’t wait for lc1789 to come along and say that’s how laws work, too bad, so sad.

      She hasn’t been sentenced yet. Extenuating circumstances are for courts to decide. Why do you have a problem with that?

  13. was booked, and was released on a $2,500 bond.

    Noble gave birth to her son earlier this year. If convicted, she tells ABC News, she could spend a maximum of 24 years in prison.

    Hey lawyers, is a 24 year sentence a possibility compared to the $2,500 bond?

    1. She will most likely get probation or another suspended sentence. I’d hate to be the prosecutor that has to try to sell this to the voters come next election.

      1. The prosecutor probably has some political consultant telling them it’ll look good on his resume. A real tough on crime candidate.

      2. I would think that the prosecutor would have some discretion here and could drop the case. But again, I’m no lawyer.

        1. I think the proper institution to exercise discretion and mercy is the court, not the prosecutor.

          1. I would love to be on that jury.

  14. She sold the marijuanas, so she ain’t got no right to self defense.

    This prosecutor will go far in his career.

    1. I think her drug charge was “riding in a car with three other people with marijuana and no one claimed the marijuana or snitched on the other.”

      He self defense use of the gun was not questioned. Her “being in possession” of a firearm was questioned.

      If she had stabbed the intruder with her kitchen knife, no foul. If she had clubbed him with hubby’s baseball bat, no foul. But she shot him with her hubby’s pistol, and that makes all the difference in the world.

      What constitutes “possession of firearm” under the law can be weird: where I live, “illegal possession” usually implies having personal control with intent to use as a weapon of offense (from following newspaper reports).

      1. Since the DA seems determined to exercise his persecutorial indiscretion, hopefully the defendant can get some of that jury nuttification.

        And please, spare me your pedantry. I am perfectly aware of my terrible offense against linguistic correctness. Besides, I’m pretty sure I’m out of your jurisdiction.

  15. She definitely needs a better lawyer.

  16. Sounds like a really good opportunity for jury nullification.

    1. If not, then prosecutor nullification via woodchipper.

    2. If the prosecutor want s to brand her a violent felon and put her away for a bunch of years, then absolutely. The prosecutor will hopefully have the good sense to plead this easy and fast so it can go away.

  17. Can any experts give their view on the defense of justification – proving that you had to commit a legal violation to avoid a greater evil?

    Because to my unlearned eyes, this looks like a classic case of justification.

    If the judge graciously deigns to instruct the jury on justification, what are the chances a jury would convict?

    1. There’s no trial they want to revoke her probation.

      1. It sounds like both:

        “After Stancoff’s death, the authorities filed a petition to revoke Noble’s suspended sentence. She has since been charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a gun.”

        1. Even that should yield minimum penalties for her under the circumstances. The prosecutor’s office should make this go away quietly. No one wins if this thing goes to trial and she does serious time.

          If she does, the DA will look like a monster, not a tough law and order guy.

  18. Hooray!! Another victory in the War on Drugs.

    Sarcasm, in case you couldn’t figure it out.

  19. Fucking DAs are as bad as the fucking cops. Fucking fucks.

  20. This case ought to wake up others branded as felons by christianofascist prohibition laws. Every libertarian vote they cast is worth at the very least half a dozen 2A-affirming votes that would otherwise be wasted on the shrinking and senile looter kleptocracy.

    1. Fuck you, you goddamn bigoted anti-christ retard. You know good and well that pot prohibition was largely a result of the textile lobby shutting out hemp as a competing product. You just like murdering babies, and people with actual values object to infanticide.

      You are not a decent person, you are not more sophisticated, or enlightened. Your just a half witted jackass who uses bizarre phrasing, obscure (questionable) facts, and gets off on baby murder.

  21. This case ought to wake up others branded as felons by christianofascist prohibition laws. Every libertarian vote they cast is worth at the very least half a dozen 2A-affirming votes that would otherwise be wasted on the shrinking and senile looter kleptocracy.

  22. This case ought to wake up others branded as felons by christianofascist prohibition laws. Every libertarian vote they cast is worth at the very least half a dozen 2A-affirming votes that would otherwise be wasted on the shrinking and senile looter kleptocracy.

  23. Why was gun ownership prohibited for a drug offence?

    That’s the only part of this story that doesn’t make sense.

    At least she wasn’t killed by the intruder.

    1. Felony convictions usually result in the loss of 2A rights. Some states allow their restoration at a later time, but it’s usually a hassle.

      1. Should only apply to convictions for violent crime.

    2. IANAL but this is my understanding:

      There are both federal and state laws denying gun rights to people convicted of felonies, Accepting a plea is a felony conviction for all purposes.

      I believe that this woman, at the end of her probation, would have been able to petition the state for restoration of state right to keep and bear arms.

      Technically, you could petition the federal government for restoration of federal RKBA after a federal felony conviction, but Congress refuses to fund the office that would do so. You can get federal RKBA restored if you can get a presidential pardon. I don’t believe that overrides a state RKBA revocation though.

      1. Generally correct. Most states for non violent charges will let you get gun rights back. Some make it hard to do though, cuz they’re dicks.

        It’s definitely a bunk thing. As if non violent stuff like white collar felonies or having a little too much weed on you make you likely to shoot people. Nonsense.

  24. I remember getting off of a possession of alcohol charge – okay, misdemeanor & $30 fine – back in the 60’s. I used the new Miranda law, they had no confession, and showed up in court with no evidence. It was a similar situation where a group of us were all corralled and charged. My mantra when asked to “tell us your story” was “I don’t need to tell you anything. Arrest me or don’t”. While I could have gotten the crap beaten out of me I did prevail. All my friends hated me and I lost drinking buddies.

  25. In most States, the governor could short-circuit this travesty with a pardon. Would that work in Arkansas? Has anyone approached the governor?

    1. Can you pardon prior to conviction?

    2. If she gets found guilty, the governor 110% should do this. It would be a great bit of PR AND is the right thing to do.

  26. “A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means Prison Time”

    Simply *not* what happened.

    Zuri has a real problem with the accurately representing facts.

    The woman has not been sent to prison, and has not even had a trial yet. She *may* end up in prison. She may not.

    Reason Magazine: All Narrative, All The Time

    1. You’re right. The way journalists tell false stories in headlines is despicable. To be clear, you’d have been OK with —

      “A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means POSSIBLE Prison Time”?

      Better headline would have been —

      “Woman Justified in Shooting; Past Pot Charge Means Possible Prison Time”

    2. The first line is: A young woman who killed an intruder may be heading to prison, even now that authorities have ruled the shooting justified.

      The shooting was 7 Dec 2017
      The police were quoted as saying it appeared to be self defense in the 8 Dec 2017 report.
      Bail on the illegal possession of a gun charge was 30 Aug 2018.

    3. How about:

      Immoral Scumbag Prosecutor: “A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means Prison Time”

      FIFY

  27. Google doesn’t know of a legal defense fund for her. Does anyone know how to set one up?

    1. Right? Most of those things that go big on the interwebs are for dirt bags and people who had it coming, but this chick is pretty damn innocent in this situation.

  28. And they need her in prison more then some of the folks they let go?…..I hope they figure it out, this is ridiculous as it gets….I don’t even necessarily agree with the no guns being tied to her previous conviction….and certainly legitimate self defense should conquer all in all situations…The local prosecutor should have the right to not pursue this and the local people should have the right to get rid of the prosecutor if he does….there is no service of justice in this case…but a lot of legal folks are complete idiots….I hope we get closure on this with her walking (can she plea and get nothing added or does the judge have leeway to correct what some over zealous prosecutor is trying to do?)

  29. The American Injustice System in action? Someone takes apparently appropriate action to defend one’s self, the action was found justifiable, but then goes to jail for it? This country deserves the Comey’s, Mueller’s, Rosenstein’s, the rich, rich, rich Clinton’s and their many. many compadres in our Banana Republic government. Hillary and staff committed a huge crime, grossly illegal, grossly negligent and they walk.

  30. Slightly edited from above:

    Seems like a legit legal argument could be made she didn’t have possession until extenuation circumstances.

    I mean let’s say you’re an innocent guy walking down the street, but have a felony charge of some sort. A guy walks up and threatens to kill everybody there, a good guy pulls out a gun to shoot him but gets shot first… The bad guy looks away to yell at somebody the other direction, you grab the gun and take him down…

    How is that not reasonable? You didn’t HAVE a gun on you. You didn’t intentionally pack heat. But in a life and death circumstance one happened to present itself. Seems insane to prosecute in a situation like that.

    It’s marginally different since husband lived there etc, but there has to be case law on multiple people inhabiting a residence. I can’t imagine everybody that is barred from owning a gun can’t have a roommate that has one, don’t see how this is substantially different.

    Seems like a decent lawyer could fight this shit.

    1. Actually, I read there is a New York law that if you take a criminal attacker’s gun and defend yourself with it, New York won’t charge you with illegal possession of a firearm even though you don’t have a New York permit listing that make, model, caliber, serial number as being in your legal possession. Since illegal possession of a handgun without a New York permit is an automatic 3.5 year felony sentence on conviction, I must say that is mighty white of them. That is a non-felon temporarily in possession of a firearm under exigent circumstances.

      Here is a felon who had control of her husband’s gun to defend against an intruder. There was a long discussion at one of the gun boards in the legal forum (moderated by lawyers) discussing the problems of being a legal gun owner in a household with a convicted non-violent felon. What constitutes the felon being “in possession” varies a lot by jurisdiction.

      1. I’m amazed NY is sane about something for once. Overall interesting post though. It’s pretty typical that stuff varies widely by state, so not surprising if that is the case with this type of situation.

  31. Definitely needs a pardon for both offences from whichever set of executives are the right ones.

    Ideally, in a perfect legal code, these sorts of things wouldn’t happen; however, no system is perfect, so hat’s why the executives get the power of the pardon.

  32. All the commentary is predicated on the same premise?an utterly innocent person caught up in serial government stupidity. Taking the case description at face value, that’s certainly justified. But does the uniformity of acceptance here also suggest incautious cheer leading for an interpretation which the Reason audience prefers?an interpretation biased in favor of drug freedom and gun freedom, and against government (especially against criminal enforcement of drug laws)?

    Consider different premises, supposing (purely hypothetical) facts which the above description of the case does not exclude. Common sense and ordinary experience teach us that the justice system?with commendable dedication to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?may omit relevant backstory in cases where possibly incriminating facts are strongly suspected, but can’t be proved?or where an omission to prove them helps an especially sympathetic defendant.

    So I am curious to hear libertarian comments in response to the following what-ifs (please consider this an entirely different and hypothetical case, but one in which the facts are as presented above, except):

    1. She had actually been dealing drugs when arrested. She and her husband were drug dealers, and the gun was kept as a tool of that trade.

    2. The intruder she killed was someone known to her?either a drug dealing associate, an erstwhile personal friend, or a paramour.

    1. 1. Even if she was a drug dealer, while not an honorable profession, it still shouldn’t be illegal. Therefore she and her husband should be able to have guns, whatever their reason.

      2. If the person was known to them, but still illegally breaking into the house, she would be justified in shooting them if it seemed warranted.

      I’d obviously feel less sympathetic, but it wouldn’t change what I think the legal outcome of this situation should be.

    2. arguing points not in evidence can get silly, if not stuck on stupid.

      3. What if she had found the space/time worm hole described in Stephen King’s 11.22.63 and went back and aided and abetted Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

      4. Or, what if she had been in collusion with the Roswell Grays who kidnapped Elvis Presley between Memphis and Los Vegas and replaced him with a space alien impersonator?

  33. I am a major fanatic of your site. Much thanks to you for simply valuable article. I concur that peruser should need to recognize what will occur in the book. The activity of the author is to encourage peruser’s advantage. Keep it up.I am awed by your site and considerations they astonishing. I got such a decent data, That your gave the best and incredible clarification I like it.

    Ref : best essay writing service

  34. Seriously? Consider this more proof that the war of drugs has reached deep into society.

    Public views and attitudes continue to shift concerning the cost of America’s decades-long war on drugs. The program has garnered a great deal of criticism over the years because funding for law enforcement is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized.

    President Carter’s fear voiced in 1977 that penalties for drugs are doing more damage than drugs themselves continue to ring true. The article below explores how we are spending over $500 a second yet drug related deaths are still on the rise.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com…..ostly.html

    1. @B Wilds

      “Consider this more proof that the war of drugs has reached deep into society.”

      It goes far deeper than that. The foundation of natural and common law on which society was built is now gone and fools in the prosecutors’ offices across the nation choose to support laws that should never have been passed in the first place. There are too many laws in all Western nations and too many good people commit acts that are morally acceptable but legally considered to be criminally. It is time to get rid of all those laws and start to consider the ones that are left more seriously.

  35. Here is Trump’s chance to correct an injustice and pardon her. The prosecution should go to jail for wasting taxpayer dollars and lose any right to practice law for being not just stupid but evil. If anyone wants to see what kind of person would have gone along with the Nazi ‘final solution’ look no further than the prosecutor’s office.

  36. It would have interesting to learn how violations during prohibition impacted the violators after it was repealed.

  37. As a decades-long criminal justice professional and former warden I can tell you with high confidence how this booshwah comes about. Prosecutors at every level throw as much cr?p at the wall as they can to get the accused to plead out to something, anything, so the Stasi State doesn’t have to go to trial – where they may likely lose. That is why fully 95% of all cases are adjudicated via a “plea agreement”. Only those most staunch among us will challenge the Stasi State to prove their case in Court. When faced with a ludicrous “life in prison sentence if you don’t sign off on this, we will see to it you die in prison”. That’s how it work, ladies ‘n gents. It’s despicable, abominable.

  38. It is time to recognize that firearms possession WITHIN the home is ABSOLUTE.

    Even for felons.

    Beyond that, if you can’t be trusted with a gun, then you can’t be trusted out of jail.

    Enough with silly lifetime bars on possession of arms.

  39. Someone should pardon her. The only other option she had was to die.

  40. We’re hoping to get Governor Asa Hutchinson to pardon her. Who is willing to sign a petition?

    Petition.org

    https://goo.gl/Pr8DGL

  41. Masih Bingung Nyari Situs Agen Poker Online Terpercaya ?
    Sekarang Kalian Tidak Perlu Bingung untuk mencari situs website terpercaya & Proses Deposit Withdrawnya cepat.
    Hanya Di TerbaikQQ Anda bisa Dapatkan Super MEGABONUS Hadia Utama 1 unit CBR 150R dan Hadia Ratusan juta tanpa di undi…
    Masih ada bonus Di terbaikQQ Seperti..
    New member 20%
    Deposit harian 5%
    Bonus Cashback 0.5%
    Bonus Referral 15%
    Segera Daftarkan Diri Anda hanya di http://terbaikqq.com
    1 User All Games:
    #Poker Online
    #Ceme Keliling
    #DOMINO QQ
    #Bandar Ceme
    #Bandar Capsa
    #Super 10
    #OMAHA new
    PROSES DEPO dan WD TERCEPAT, AMAN, TERPERCAYA
    WITHDRAW TANPA ADA BATASAN.
    SUPPORT BANK : BCA , BNI , MANDIRI dan BRI
    100% GUARANTEED FAIR PLAY NO ROBOT NO ADMIN
    (PLAYER X PLAYER)
    Masih banyak Promo – Promo Yang Lainnya
    Untuk Info Lebih Lanjut :
    CS 24 JAM RESPONSIVE SIAP MELAYANI ANDA MELALUI
    * LIVECHAT https://bit.ly/2uzqsWD
    * BBM : DBE11131
    * WA +6281387018979
    * LINE : terbaikqq
    Link web : https://bit.ly/2uzqsWD
    SITUS JUDI GAME POKER ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.