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: 6775
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 # 36.
#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.
She did not bring the dead body and put it in her house. The dead body walked in by itself, quite uninvited. While your other technicalities are reasonable, the end result is that a convicted felon was faced with a choice to either shoot a intruder in her home that posed an legally recognized immediate threat to herself and her family and go to jail, OR place herself and her family at the mercy of the intruder. Unlike the legal points you make, that is NOT a reasonable choice to give even a convicted felon.
She completed her parole and weapons violations before the body walked in uninvited and got dead. There is not technicality. When she picked up the gun and transported it to the living room, she violated her parole and AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons). The parole violation and the unlawful possession had been committed even if the guy had never come back to the door just to find himself dead on the floor. The investigation indicated that she was in possession of multiple weapons during the previous month. She broke the law, got convicted, got a five year suspended sentence, ignored the terms of her suspension, broke the law again, and got caught again. Why did she move the gun from the bedroom to the living room? Why did she fear for her life? Why did she open the door for the second time? Unlike the points you make, mine are the actual law, cited and quoted. When people present their imaginary law to a court, it does not usually work too well. The simple fact is that Arkansas law prohibits convicted felons from possessing a gun. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms only applies to lawful possession. Her possession was unlawful. Had she no felony conviction, but she had picked up an M-16 machine gun and used it to protect herself, she would have the same problem of being in unlawful possession of a weapon, in this case an unlawful M-16 machine gun, no matter how righteous the shoot. There is no 2nd Amendment right to unlawful possession of a weapon.
You argue what the law is. Fine. I argue how that law fails to serve the people. If you don't want to argue about whether a law is beneficial or detrimental to society, then there's nothing for us to debate here.
#40. To: Pinguinite (#36)
There is nothing to debate here. I am arguing the actual law as it applies in an actual, specific case. There is the actual law and a few million personal opinions about whether it is good, bad, beneficial or detrimental. It is still the law and you violate it at your peril.
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.
#22. To: nolu chan (#21)
The po-po arrived because there was a dead body in her house and she had made it dead.
#31. To: Pinguinite (#22)
She did not bring the dead body and put it in her house. The dead body walked in by itself, quite uninvited.
While your other technicalities are reasonable, the end result is that a convicted felon was faced with a choice to either shoot a intruder in her home that posed an legally recognized immediate threat to herself and her family and go to jail, OR place herself and her family at the mercy of the intruder.
Unlike the legal points you make, that is NOT a reasonable choice to give even a convicted felon.
#36. To: nolu chan (#31)
Unlike the points you make, mine are the actual law, cited and quoted. When people present their imaginary law to a court, it does not usually work too well.
Replies to Comment # 36. I argue how that law fails to serve the people. If you don't want to argue about whether a law is beneficial or detrimental to society, then there's nothing for us to debate here.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]