• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant woman who killed intruder in justified shooting now faces felony gun charge due to ...

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,525
Reaction score
19,318
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From ABC News

Pregnant woman who killed intruder in justified shooting now faces felony gun charge due to previous marijuana conviction
​

A pregnant woman who shot and killed an intruder who attacked her in her Arkansas home is facing felony gun possession charges -- even though authorities ruled that the shooting was justified -- due to a prior marijuana conviction.

On the afternoon of Dec. 7, Fort Smith resident Krissy Noble, 21, shot and killed Dylan Stancoff when he attacked her in her apartment, according to a press release from the Sebastian County Prosecutor's Office. Noble was 11 weeks pregnant at the time, according to a police report from the Fort Smith Police Department.

When officers arrived to the scene that day, witnesses pointed them to the living room where Stancoff lay dead on the couch, a pool of blood on the floor next to him, according to the police report.

Noble, who was standing in the dining room, pointed to the living room coffee table to show officers the gun, which was loaded with one bullet in the chamber, the police stated.

COMMENT:-

The law is the law and anyone who breaks the law deserves what they get.

Right?
​
 
Bit of a switcheroo on the story.

The charges have very little to do with her defensive shooting, except that it drew the interest of police.

Most places it's pretty hard to get a felony conviction for marijuana. Likely she was on the dealing end of things.

I'm all for making marijuana legal across the board, which would have removed the issue, but permitting felons to legally posses firearms is a whole different question.
 
WillyPete said:
Bit of a switcheroo on the story.

The charges have very little to do with her defensive shooting, except that it drew the interest of police.

Most places it's pretty hard to get a felony conviction for marijuana. Likely she was on the dealing end of things.

I'm all for making marijuana legal across the board, which would have removed the issue, but permitting felons to legally posses firearms is a whole different question.
Click to expand...

According to the story, Noble was in a vehicle with marijuana and paraphernalia present. When questioned by the police nobody took responsibility so all were charged equally. I have a hard time with constitutional rights being taken away due to non-violent crimes.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From ABC News

Pregnant woman who killed intruder in justified shooting now faces felony gun charge due to previous marijuana conviction
​

A pregnant woman who shot and killed an intruder who attacked her in her Arkansas home is facing felony gun possession charges -- even though authorities ruled that the shooting was justified -- due to a prior marijuana conviction.

On the afternoon of Dec. 7, Fort Smith resident Krissy Noble, 21, shot and killed Dylan Stancoff when he attacked her in her apartment, according to a press release from the Sebastian County Prosecutor's Office. Noble was 11 weeks pregnant at the time, according to a police report from the Fort Smith Police Department.

When officers arrived to the scene that day, witnesses pointed them to the living room where Stancoff lay dead on the couch, a pool of blood on the floor next to him, according to the police report.

Noble, who was standing in the dining room, pointed to the living room coffee table to show officers the gun, which was loaded with one bullet in the chamber, the police stated.

COMMENT:-

The law is the law and anyone who breaks the law deserves what they get.

Right?
​
Click to expand...

Couple of issues for me with this story.

#1 Marijuana should be legalized
#2 Once you have served your time, you should be entitled to your rights as a US citizen. If you can't be trusted to rejoin society you should still be in prison, once you have rejoined society for the government to say you no longer have the right to defend yourself is rather ridiculous to me.
 
If I were on that jury the word “nullification” would be dancing through my head. Once you have served your time you should get your rights back.
 
Nap said:
Couple of issues for me with this story.

#1 Marijuana should be legalized
#2 Once you have served your time, you should be entitled to your rights as a US citizen. If you can't be trusted to rejoin society you should still be in prison, once you have rejoined society for the government to say you no longer have the right to defend yourself is rather ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

1) I 100% agree, to the point that my second response is only referring to the legal situation as it is, not as it should be

2) She technically did not serve her time. A 60 month suspended imposition of sentence. This allowed her to not serve prison time but to agree to several terms. One such term was to not have firearms

(c)*If the court suspends imposition of sentence on a defendant or places him or her on probation, as a condition of its order the court may require that the defendant:
Click to expand...
(7)*Have no firearm in his or her possession
Click to expand...

Since she was still on probation (serving her time) and broke the terms of her probation (by having a firearm) I can see why she is being charged.

My argument is that since based on the text of the law, a SIS (suspended imposition of sentence) does not require terms be imposed but rather that they MAY be imposed, that the initial judgment regarding the marijuana charge was too strict in regards to gun ownership. The charge is non violent and the defendant has no previous criminal record (at least in Arkansas as an adult, according to the state circuit courts)
 
Last edited:
Midwest Lib said:
1) I 100% agree, to the point that my second response is only referring to the legal situation as it is, not as it should be

2) She technically did not serve her time. A 60 month suspended imposition of sentence. This allowed her to not serve prison time but to agree to several terms. One such term was to not have firearms




Since she was still on probation (serving her time) and broke the terms of her probation (by having a firearm) I can see why she is being charged.

My argument is that since based on the text of the law, a SIS (suspended imposition of sentence) does not require but MAY BE imposed, is that the initial judgment regarding the marijuana charge was too strict, in regards to gun ownership. The charge is non violent and the defendant has no previous criminal record (at least in Arkansas as an adult, according to the state circuit courts)
Click to expand...

I don't think it is right for the government to say you are not allowed to have a firearm in your own home even if on probation. I could understand not being allowed to carry in public, however even criminals should have the ability to defend themselves in their own home.
 
Nap said:
I don't think it is right for the government to say you are not allowed to have a firearm in your own home even if on probation. I could understand not being allowed to carry in public, however even criminals should have the ability to defend themselves in their own home.
Click to expand...

I agree without hesitation that should be the case for non violent offenses. I'm a bit more hesitant that those with a history of violence(especially domestic, where guns and disputes may mix) can be trusted.
Regardless, I am in complete agreement that any felon who has served his/her time should come out the other side viewed as a clean, reformed citizen with every opportunity
 
Midwest Lib said:
According to the story, Noble was in a vehicle with marijuana and paraphernalia present. When questioned by the police nobody took responsibility so all were charged equally. I have a hard time with constitutional rights being taken away due to non-violent crimes.
Click to expand...

Just seems odd. That doesn't add up to a felony in most places I've lived, unless it was maybe a LOT of marijuana.
 
Bit of a difference in here charges being because of a marijuana conviction and the charges being due to violating parole.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Bob said:
If I were on that jury the word “nullification” would be dancing through my head. Once you have served your time you should get your rights back.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the young woman had NOT (yet) "served her time".
 
Midwest Lib said:
1) I 100% agree, to the point that my second response is only referring to the legal situation as it is, not as it should be

2) She technically did not serve her time. A 60 month suspended imposition of sentence. This allowed her to not serve prison time but to agree to several terms. One such term was to not have firearms

Since she was still on probation (serving her time) and broke the terms of her probation (by having a firearm) I can see why she is being charged.
Click to expand...

If a person who IS NOT allowed to have firearms is married to, and living with, a person who IS allowed to have firearms, does the person who IS NOT allowed to have firearms simply because the person that they are married to, and living with, has firearms?

If it is allowable to commit an otherwise illegal act (committing violence upon another person) in self-defence, is it also allowable to commit a different illegal act (picking up and using [which pretty much defines "possessing"] firearms) in self-defence?

If you are in a tunnel that has a 50 mph speed limit and closing rapidly behind you (at 120 mph) are semi-trailers filling all of the traffic lanes that you could possibly use, is it allowable to exceed the speed limit in order to protect yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom