this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
269 points (98.9% liked)

politics

29969 readers
2364 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
269
3 men assaulted a trans bartender. Now she's facing felonies for defending herself. (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 6 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/politics@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

Kelver’s self-defense claims would have to wait for trial. “Of course, that defense is perfectly available in district court,” the judge told prosecutors and Kelver’s lawyer. “And we’ll see where that goes with a different standard of proof.”

I'll happily give 4:1 odds to anyone interested that she gets off fine. The judge simply ruled that the evidence as presented wasn't enough to get the case thrown out.

It's Wyoming. You're not gonna see anyone sent to jail for brandishing during an assault, regardless of their orientation.

[–] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

She had no intention of shooting, she said.

jesus christ I hope her lawyer approved this statement.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 28 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Okay so you can't legally own a gun to defend yourself? I thought this was America?

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You can legally own a gun to defend yourself, but only if you are part of the in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, not the out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

No no no. You can own a gun to defend yourself, but you can't use the gun to defend yourself if you're not part of the in-group.

Otherwise, you're withholding profits from the corporations that sell the guns.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

Rules for thee...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defense is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, where a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a same-sex attracted individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.

[–] MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man and retaliated by assaulting or killing him? No? Then it sounds like we're applying laws differently based on sex/gender. Either mitigate this for women or don't permit it for men, preferably the second one.

If a gay man hits on you and you're a straight man, take it as a compliment and be upfront that you're flattered but not interested in men. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man

YMMV. If the woman is white and the man is black, probably. The other way around? I wouldn't bank on it.

If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment

As a legal defense, the most nefarious thing about it is that you'll often have two assailants giving testimony that the now-dead victim can't refute. So it very well could be the "straight" man aggressing on an out-gay man, the gay man rebuffing the advance, and the "straight" man plus friend killing him in reprisal. If you look into the rash of night club shootings during the '10s, it was not uncommon for closeted or sexually repressed individuals to be involved, after feeling the need to prove their straightness by killing their peers.

Also very common for abortion clinic bombers and snipers to come out of communities that convince young men they're being robbed of future spouses and children by insidious far-left feminist institutions.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 51 points 5 hours ago

Well, yeah? I mean, this is magastan we're talking about. A country where only people* can defend themselves from an attack and claim self defense.

*Terms and conditions apply. The definition of "person" and therefore of "people" varies from state to state. Please check your local laws to confirm if you can claim you're legally a person enjoying human rights. Examples of potentially excluded individuals from the definition of person depending on the state include:

  • Black/brown/whatever colour is not "american white"
  • Gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/whatever sexuality not considered heterosexual
  • Any kind of minority deemed "not acceptable" under maga's principles, such as transexual, furry, autistic, or, in general anything that's considered woke.
[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 17 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Waste of taxpayer money. The attackers should have been charged, too, for a hate crime.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Too? Bartender shouldn't face criminal charges for exercising her self defense right.

[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It’s normal to face charges when you have to defend yourself. I had a guy threatening me with a chunk of rebar and I pulled my gun. I had to talk a lot with the police about it. “Self defense “ is what you argue in court. You might still get arrested and charged.

That being said I’m confident this person will beat the charge because it’s clearly self defense.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, exactly. Self Defense is a legal defense in court, but you’ll still need to go to court to make the argument. Oftentimes, police won’t bother making an arrest in the moment. They’ll just get your info and you’ll receive a court summons a few days later. But you’ll need to go to court regardless.

[–] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Too????

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 2 hours ago

I should have used "instead"