Posted on 09/03/2018 1:19:14 PM PDT by Simon Green
In December of 2017, Dylan Stancoff forced his way into a home in Ft. Smith Arkansas where Krissy Tran lived with her husband. Tran struggled with the attacker, grabbed one of her husband’s guns and shot Stancoff, killing him. She was pregnant at the time and the shooting was eventually ruled to be justified self-defense by prosecutors.
But Tran had a previous run-in with the law. She had a felony conviction on her record from earlier that year.
In 2017, (Tran) 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.
According to Tran,
The incident occurred in June 2016, ABC Fort Smith affiliate KHBS reported. (Tran) told the station that she was in the car with other people when police found drugs inside the car, but no one claimed them so everyone in the car received the same charges.
Now, more than nine months after the shooting, Tran has been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in connection with the Stancoff shooting and authorities have petitioned the court to revoke her suspended sentence for the marijuana conviction.
She’s now facing a possible sentence of 24 years in prison.
Cut her some slack and let her do community service.
I would guess that it is a condition of her suspended sentence that she have no access to firearms including someone else's in the abode.
Curious that no one claimed the weed to keep the others from being unjustly convicted unless, of course, they were all guilty.
Also curios that they didn't mention the amount.
Nice to know there are so few crimes going on in Little Rock that the prosecutor has time to go after such important cases. /s
Obviously if righteous self-defense is the whole story, it would be outrageous to persecute her over a prior drug violation. But the article is all “according to Tran”. Home invasion robberies have a way of occurring where the perpetrators expect to find drugs/cash, or people who have screwed them in prior drug deals. The prosecutors’ zeal would make sense if they believed the woman was endangering her child by continuing to traffic drugs, and that the self-defense shooting was connected.
Prosecutors like this are why the faith in and respect for the rule of law is dying out.
Just another in the many reasons why it we are coming up on the season of raining pain.
No, I'm just someone who believes in actual Liberty, as opposed to arbitrary State power.
Do you honestly believe that any State has the right to criminalize a plant? If so, then there is no practical limit to Government—it will invariably expand into a Tyrannical, unaccountable bureaucratic monster. Sound familiar?
Hemp produces 3X the amount of paper per acre as fir or pine trees.
No fertilizer, annual harvest...paying the grower every year.
Anyman could be a profitable hemp farmer.
“Because felons have engaged in serious anti-social behavior (at least as defined by laws passed under constitutional government) and can’t be trusted to wield deadly force responsibly. Serving time in jail or prison is punishment for past crimes. It is not a factory for expiating sins or turning convicted criminals into responsible citizens.”
You’re one of those crazy assholes that think 24 years in prison for this woman is justice.
That’s why one day we will destroy your position in the civil society.
“Also curios that they didn’t mention the amount. “
It’s Arkansas.
More than a joint is intent to distribute.
“The prosecutors’ zeal would make sense if they believed the woman was endangering her child by continuing to traffic drugs, and that the self-defense shooting was connected.”
Only if you’re stupid.
Maybe, maybe not.
USSC precedent holds that self-defense allows a felon to possess a firearm when that is the only viable option. She should beat this.
Legally what was she supposed to have done? Die?
The gun was legally possessed by her husband.
It reminds me of the scene in "Aliens" when the marines have their ammo taken away.
"What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?"
“I would guess that it is a condition of her suspended sentence that she have no access to firearms including someone else’s in the abode.”
You would be wrong. She plead guilty to a felony. She is prohibited from possessing firearms for the rest of her life. Period. Stop. The suspended sentence is totally irrelevant to that.
The firearm was legally possessed by her husband, but by law she can’t touch it.
“Legally what was she supposed to have done? Die?“
Yes. Legally.
We should use this as a club against the antis to make it harder for the state to curtail 2A rights based on BS charges. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.