United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: A Young Mom Was Justified in a Shooting, but a Past Marijuana Charge Means Prison Time
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/31/ ... as-mom-justified-shooting-weed
Published: Aug 31, 2018
Author: Zuri Davis
Post Date: 2018-09-01 19:59:40 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6250
Comments: 47
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." Authorities say Krissy Noble was justified in shooting and killing a home intruder while she was pregnant.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#13. To: Deckard (#0)
Very bad precedent, even given she was prohibited from owning firearms. Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her. Otherwise, others in a similar situation will, upon seeing a life endangering threat in the form of a home intruder will be dissuaded from using deadly force to save themselves and others. Their choice will be to suffer either death or serious bodily harm by not shooting, or going to prison if they do shoot. All because someone decided to commit a crime against them. That ain't right.
Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her. She, and other convicted felons in Arkansas, was prohibited from possessing firearms, or having a firearm readily available for her use. Her constitutional search and seizure rights were not violated by some non-governmental intrusion. The po-po arrived because there was a dead body in her house and she had made it dead. Their entry and search was lawful and all is legally admissible. They did not discover the handgun, she placed in on a table and, when they got there, she pointed it out to the police. Whether somebody was shot righteously or not, her possession of the weapon violated AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons). Her existing suspended sentence of 5 years may kick in, in addition to any prosecution for unlawful possession of firearms.
Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her. Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property. And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that felons are barred from using firearms for self-defense. The fact is - the woman was not convicted of a crime using handguns. That in itself should be taken into consideration here.
Under your logic, an American doing a 3-7 year bid in a state correctional institution, should be allowed to have a gun in his cell, because now his cell is home, to protect himself with.... and under Dicktards paultard law, the USSC would agree?
Ridiculous.
#39. To: Deckard (#29)
(Edited)
It’s not. It’s your logic. There is no difference between pre sentence agreements and incarceration time (the conviction never goes away, dumb dumb) and actual incarceration time. Many states have written law, that prohibits CONVICTED felons from POSSESSING a firearm... no Supreme Court decisions have ruled those laws unconstitutional. Many states actually make that as a pre sentence AGREEMENT as an alternative to longer incarceration times.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#13)
Very bad precedent, even given she was prohibited from owning firearms.
#23. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite, misterwhite (#21)
Very bad precedent, even given she was prohibited from owning firearms.
#26. To: Deckard (#23)
Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property.
#29. To: GrandIsland (#26)
an American doing a 3-7 year bid in a state correctional institution, should be allowed to have a gun in his cell, because now his cell is home, to protect himself with
Replies to Comment # 29.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]