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: 8655
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 # 34.
#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?
Well, of course. It's a God-given inalienable right! It's natural law! He has the right to defend himself with the weapon of his choice! So do little children. And illegals. And the insane. And terrorists. It's a God-given right and protected by the second amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The part about the right including the right to possess a weapon which is unlawful to possess. The right that is protected has never included guns unlawful to possess. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals Felon and doper possession is also a Federal crime. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec.-922/ [...] (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. [...]
#44. To: nolu chan (#34)
100% correct and she is 100% guilty. But if I'm on the jury I'd be inclined to cut her a little slack given that a) the gun wasn't hers, b) she was young (21) and 11 weeks pregnant, c) was alone in her own home, and d) was defending herself from a stranger who broke in. That is assuming the story is true and they didn't leave anything out. But since the article lied about the gun belonging to her "husband" (he was her boyfriend at the time) and never mentioned the arsenal in the closet, I'm thinking there may be other surprises.
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.
#28. 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,
#34. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#28)
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
§922. Unlawful acts
Replies to Comment # 34. Felon and doper possession is also a Federal crime.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]