Mother Going To Jail For Shooting Invader To Protect Her Family

44
1821

This may be one of the most frustrating stories to report because it deals with a situation in which a person, in doing the thing that she needed to do to protect herself, may end up going to jail because her previous life choices made it illegal for her to use a firearm to protect herself.

Now, from that opening paragraph, you may already know the basics of the story, but, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, Jack Noble has the details for us:

[krissy] Noble [of arkansas] was cleared of all wrongdoing in the Dec. 7th shooting death of Dylan Stancoff, who attacked her in her own home. Noble was pregnant at the time of the shooting when Stancoff, calling himself Cameron White, stopped by her home and asked to speak to Noble’s husband who was not home at the time. Saying he was a friend from the military, Stancoff left but returned later, pushed himself into Noble’s home, attempted to cover her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and began to struggle with the mother-to-be.

Noble escaped briefly and retrieved a .40 caliber handgun, fired three shots, and killed her attacker. But because Noble pleaded guilty (before the shooting in 2017) to felony possession of marijuana, she now faces six years in prison, all for the crime of using her husband’s handgun, a gun she successfully used to defend herself and the life of her unborn baby.

Now, maybe you are someone who fully supports the war on drugs, but, whatever your position on marijuana, you have to ask yourself whether possession of marijuana is a reason that someone can’t protect herself from what appeared to be a violent crime about to happen.

This may be a situation in which even ardent anti-drug people may want to take a more nuanced approach. It’s hard to justify putting a new mother in jail for protecting herself and her child when the law would have potentially left her helpless. It may be time for a review of the law and judicial leniency.

44 COMMENTS

  1. The Constitution does not mention that an individual loses their rights for the rest of their life when found guilty of a crime. If the individual pays their debt to society then their slate should be clean because they have paid their debt. This is something I have thought about many times. Individuals do not lose any of their other rights for the rest of their life, so why only the Second Amendment?

    • Very Correct, John. The Constitution does NOT say: ‘Shall NOT Be Infringed’ …except if you are an ex-con, or if you are mentally ill or smoking pot! Which are Not crimes, in and of themselves. There are no qualifications to the 2nd/A. If you do the crime, you do the time, and that’s it! You paid your penalty and all your rights must be restored, just as it was before leftist totalitarians figured out they could bullshit and brainwash everybody to facilitate their gun confiscation agenda by making illegal laws for the specious fraud of ‘public safety and extreme crime prevention’.
      Lets turn this around folks if you want to preserve your precious rights and liberties. Before it really is…too fucking late!

      The ’68 GCA of banning possession of firearms for ex cons was the biggest gun confiscation fraud in history!

      • Exactly Right. The ‘68 GCA is nothing butt BS & Brain Washed people into thinking a felon can NEVER be “equal” in society even after they have paid their debts to society. It’s gun confiscation legislation at its best, or Worse.

    • i also BELIEVE THIS as well John.
      it’s just more COMMUNIST DEMORAT AND SOME RINO BS TO DISARM a person for life.
      GOD through our parents GAVE US LIFE, AND NO DAMN GOVT CAN STOP ONE FROM DEFENDING THAT LIFE BECAUSE THEY MADE A MISTAKE.

  2. Wow, and this was in Arkansas? I’ve heard some stupid things before, but this takes the cake! Governor Hutchinson should pardon this woman immediately!!!

    • Billy Clinton Started his Drug Trafficking and Suicide trade while he was the AG in Arkansas I can’t believe this is happening there. Pot Possession is not a crime large enough to warrant a Felony, Maybe being a Drug dealer of Pounds of the stuff but simple possession should never be a Felony.

  3. She will be found not guilty. First of all, she had a right to defend herself by whatever means necessary against an attacker in her own home. Felons are prohibited from owning or purchasing guns, but the gun did not belong to her. It was her husband’s weapon. She MIGHT be convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but if the judge is honorable and follows the law, he will sentence her to time served or a minimum sentence for the gun charge only.
    A good lawyer or PD will get her charges pled down.

    • LDM, hile your comment was supportive for the woman and well intended the way you approached a solution is part of the problem. It exemplifies the extent of government induced ‘brainwashing’ of the masses. The original constitutionally illegal law for prohibiting ex-cons from possessing firearms FOREVER, even if you paid your ‘dues’ and were now considered rehabilitated, law abiding, and never committed another crime, was insidiously created by the Johnson administration as part of the 1968 Gun Control Act to prevent a growing faction of society from reaching a point of Constitutionally guaranteed armed resistance to an imminent tyranny by the sitting government.

      This 68 GCA, in and of itself, is a criminal act, according to 18USCC 241-242. (essentially and specifically prohibiting acts or laws that deprive persons of their inalienable rights, like the 2nd/A. And there are follow up court case law precedents, that validates this law).

      When you examine this situation and reflect upon it without personal subjective bias or prejudice, this is all amazingly clear! So why aren’t these tyrannist police state criminals being cuffed and shackled and arrested every time they try to violate our rights by making fiat laws?

      Because we are now socially ‘engineered’ enough to allow them to do virtually anything and everything they want if they say a few magic words like ‘ Proactive Crime Prevention’ or ‘Public Safety’, both of which are fraudulent nonsense and simply don’t really exist in a free society.

      It’s a treacherous Jedi mind trick only designed to literally let a totalitarian government have a police state operations…to break the laws of liberty and get away with the crime. Laughing all the way… at how stupid ‘We the Sheeple’ really are.

      ‘Of the people, by the people, and for the people?’ Yeah, right.

      • Well, I live in the Constitutionally bereft state of CA, and so, if she were to have done that here, there is no doubt in my mind that she would have gotten off, since the idiot citizens of this state believe that all felons who have committed “Non-violent crimes” up to and including 2nd degree manslaughter, should be released into the populace because our prisons are overcrowded and that is the best thing to do to prevent more crimes within the prison walls. And “Proactive Crime Prevention” and “Public Safety” are the golden words every politician uses to shove ridiculous and ineffective legislation upon those of us who have committed no crimes. In any case, because the woman is a pregnant mother, she will have the sympathy of the jury for fighting to protect her baby. Babies and children are other catchwords which tug at the heartstrings of jurors.
        I could also be wrong, and she will go before a “hanging judge,” who will throw the full weight of the judicial system at this poor woman. Which would indeed be a travesty.

        • But any more science the judicial system has failed us all, the jury can be bought out to hang someone. And then really if the judge does not like the jury deceison, he can over rule them. Until all Americans start helping and stand up for there rights and other fellow America rights, it will just get worse.

  4. Ultimate right to self defense is prime importance! Defending yourself and unborn baby takes presidence over any laws. A jury should set her free period. Stupid prosecutors should resign for this stupid action!

  5. She knew that marijuana was illegal.

    Had she not violated the law by possessing marijuana, she would not be in trouble now.

    MORAL: Obey the law.

    The best part of the story is that the hoodlum cannot bother anybody ever again. The only good hoodlum is a dead hoodlum.

    • She may have broken the law, but the law itself is a draconian travesty of justice which enables a ridiculous slough of kangaroo courts to occur. It’s an unconstitutional law, which by our own founding fathers, imbues us with an undeniable duty to disobey said law. Both the felon law, which should be quite specifically angled at violent offenders and be stiff, but non-violent felonies shouldn’t be a factor. Secondly, mere possession should have never been a felony, unless you can somehow actually and provably tie distribution, not suspicion, but actual distribution. Possession of anything you shouldn’t have should never be a felony. And least of all possessing cannabis. Maybe when Kavanaugh is sitting on the high court, we’ll have some justice in this matter. All matters pertaining to gun laws in this country that violate one’s inalienable rights. Inalienable means ‘unremovable’. It can not be alienated from you. Cannnot be separated. Perhaps Democrats need a refresher in reading comprehension.

    • You ‘holier-than-thou’ people living on such morally high ground make my balls swell. Especially you religionistly predisposed. It’s almost as if you never read the bible and its passages like ‘there but for the grace…go I’. or the one I really like: ‘he who is without sin, cast the first motherfucking stone!’ As a former police detective, federal agent, and current forensic research analyst, I dare anybody to put their money where there mouth is. I’ll bet anybody amount who grew up in a normal society with the typical plethora of laws that I can find some crime you committed in your self-righteous sanctimonious notions like ‘obey the law’. For you, Clifton, I’ll triple it. I’ll bet triple the cash because i’ll find at least two criminal acts you committed at some time or another and got away with??? And i’m not just talking about ‘immorality’ which doesn’t have to be a statutory crime, but ones you may not even be aware of, with enough deep cycle background ‘hunting time’? What part doesn’t anyone get yet that it’s our constitutional right and duty as citizens to nullify in court, or redress of petition the countless plague of illegal laws throughout the land mainly designed as aforementioned to make most able bodied Patriot resistors to 2nd/A style tyranny–you know, the kind of totalitatianism that’s going on now and growing through police current state proliferation–into instant criminals not allowed to possess firearms, and therefore subject to surprise target focused confiscation when desired.

      • Mahatma, noone mentioned anything about being as you put it ( holier than thou ) although you are a retired ” WHATEVER “,, why do ragheads always come off with some stuff about Christianity???? I could probably dig up some pretty stinky shit on you also.. So why the slander??? How does it feel, to get stuff thrown back in your face?? Now, everyone was talking about a felon defending herself and her unborn child, SO there is no need for the put downs RIGHT???!!!

  6. It seems reasonable that there should be some differentiation in legal firearm possession between aggressive and dangerous people convicted of a crime like assault or breaking and entering and persons convicted of having illegal substances, insider trading or running a backroom poker game who have never shown any tendency to assault anyone.

    • Agreed. It’s exactly what I argue for, but what do you expect from a conservative siding constitutional libertarian minded independent. Possession of contraband of any sort should never, unless found to be directly and provably linked to distribution, be a felony. Well, possession of firearms when you are undoubtedly a violent ass-hat should of course preclude your use of firearms, it’s about the only exception that makes sense. Beyond that though? Nah, not at all.

    • No, Francisco. For a couple simple reasons. The Totalitarian Tyrannist agenda is NOT and never was reasonably objective. It stealthily uses these so-called common sense gun control debates to systematically chip away at you rights until you wake up one morning to the shock and awe of a flashbang grenade blowing you out of bed and ‘gun seizure teams’ running up your stairs with AR’s you can no longer have because you ‘agreed’ to the last incremental step of gun control that took your rights over the top of the fence and into the trash container. All because of the brain washing of so many people who just wouldn’t see that they are lying so much and so often that it’s starting to seem like a fact. Any and all compromise is a guaranteed step forward for the eventual loss of your rights.

      Secondly, Because our blessed Framers supported and championed the undeniable natural law that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights which means clearly without qualification that Nobody can take these right rights away from us or deny the freedoms they entrust. further more our Founders made this clear by having The Country of America Guarantee these rights with a written Constitution as protection! Again, this is clearly proven and evidenced in the “SHALL NOT be Infringed’ command. Which mean that none of our rights are up for Negotiation. It’s strictly illegal to negotiate away, in any way, shape, or incremental restriction, our gun rights. period.

      If you are an in progress ‘criminal’ committing crimes, we take YOU away and out of the system, not your rights. There’s a subtle, but careful distinction there that should preserve law and order And basic rights if the criminal justice system itself wasn’t so corrupted by Marxist socialist disarmament agenda.

      So we would be aiding and abetting unconstitutional acts against our Bill of Rights, if we agreed to ANY continuance of gun control laws. We should, instead, be repealing and nullifying gun laws, and arresting and prosecuting politicians and legislators who continue to attempt to control us with these fiat laws. They can be charged under 18USCC 242-241.

  7. Why dont we focus on teaching people the other side of this story… yes she has the right to defend herself…. but.. remember, you need to obey the laws because you never know when that 30 year old felony conviction will be back to haunt you.

    • Nick, Nick, Nick… Please answer this question first.
      You need to obey laws that are ‘good’ laws. Not agenda based ones intented to suppress your rights, steal your money, or enslave you. So answer this: Why should she obey an unconstitutional law to not possess a firearm because she’s a convicted criminal, when the criminal felon committing the home invasion attack on her wouldn’t have obeyed it, if he could have got to her husband’s AR first?

      We all know that criminals NEVAAAH, EVAAH, as they say down South, obey gun prohibition laws, right? So isn’t this law discriminatory?

      But good thing that guy not too long ago who was an ex-con in a bad neighborhood and normally disobeying his felony prohibition to possess and was walking down the street and saw a traffic stop where the perp was on top of the cop beating him to death while trying to get his pistol and the ex-con pulled his concealed pistol and ordered the perp to get off the cop or be shot. And when he kept beating the cop the ex-con shot him and saved the cop. Don’t know exactly what happened after that be the media was calling him a hero who didn’t want to be named. Bet he didn’t get any jail time?

      So that’s another reason why laws are not always so good that they must be blindly obeyed at all costs. Especially gun control laws.

  8. I do hope the lady gets off on this silly charge. She has every right to defend herself and her family. The legalists are at it again. They must be liberals. No one else would be that stupid.

    • While I agree she shouldn’t have been charged due to the circumstances technically she did break the law by picking up the gun. Felons by law are not even supposed to pick up a firearm whether they intended to fire it or not.

  9. I didn’t know posession of weed was a felony. If she had possession of meth or heroin, with intent to sell then I might understand. Marijuana is becoming legal for medicinal purposes & in some states recreational use. I don’t use the stuff, and don’t drink alcohol either! But to put a woman in prison for defending herself is wrong! Yeah, she shouldn’t have possessed pot in the first place, but the punishment doesn’t fit the crime! What was she supposed to do?, let the jerk molest her, or kill her? To bust someone like her, when there are REALLY BAD guys who get arrested & then get put back out on the street to reak more violently crimes. Should have given her a medal for ridding society of another scum bucket! Molon Labe ⚔️🇸🇴💀🦅🇺🇸

    • Depends on the amount in their possession. Possession of anything over some ridiculously small amount is a felony. As to the young lady see my post below.

  10. She should pay the penalty for the earlier drug case. But not for defending her and her childs lives from this man bent on evil! Any prosecutor worth their salt would know that. They should not charge her with the firearms usage. This is just another antigun stomp on the rights of a person to defend themselves from evil.

  11. There is a lot of irony in this unfortunate situation. And a batch of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Regardless – THERE ARE OTHER WAYS. Tasers are available every where. They are seldom lethal. They will temporarily blind an attacker. And they will temporarily put someone down and immobilize them. There is training available on how to use them properly. LAWS ARE DIFFERENT in the 50 states. Get educated, get training and practice. At worst – one could be charged with assault – but hopefully not.

    g

  12. I think we can all agree there are a few people who should not be allowed to possess firearms. Those few who should not have them should be taken to court and the state prove the case for them no longer having that right. A felon should have his/her rights automatically restored after they serve their ENTIRE sentence including any probation unless the state can show cause to not restore them.

    In the young ladies case she did break the law because it is illegal for a felon to even handle a firearm. That said she should not have been charged due to the circumstances. If this does go to court the jury should use jury nullification to throw out the charges and find her innocent.

  13. Marijuana is legal in alot of states and hopefully it will be legal in the entire country if the smart people see to it ! A scumbag attacks a woman , not just a woman ,but a pregnant woman and he gets shot , good deal lucille ! Nuff said !!!!!!!!!!!

  14. The War On Drugs, so-called was from inception a legal, a legislative, an operational, a bureaucratic screw-up, which unlike red wine and whiskey, does not improve with age.

  15. The NRA, GOA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation are all losers for allowing municipal, state, federal officials, legislators, governors, and presidents to violate the rights of all citizens by the enactment of unconstitutional rules and laws; all in violation of their oaths of office and dereliction of duty. There isn’t any where in the Constitution a way to remove citizenship, or a citizens rights under it.

  16. I don’t see a problem with felons losing the right to bear arms. Maybe some distinction should be made regarding whether the crime was violent or not (e.g., dealing drugs). However, for now, the laws are what they are, and the big lesson here (again) is, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Nobody likes consequences nowadays.

    But let’s do decriminalize ALL drugs. Let’s manufacture the recreational drugs – weed and even opiates – and pass them out for free. We will shed a class of people who will forever be non-producing burden to us.

    BTW, don’t felons permanently lose the right to vote? I think it is probably a good thing that they permanently lose that since they have demonstrated a large capacity for not making good choices and their stay in the prison has probably distorted their perspective on society.

  17. Clifton,,, if you happen to be a citizen, you could get busted for J Walkin, littering,spittin on the sidewalk or any other archaic laws still on th books! But if you’re a politician, you can & do get away with murder! Fast & Furious ring a bell? I respect honest law enforcement agents, but to bust a pregnant woman for pot is insane! She had every right to kill th scum bucket! Good riddance to him! Glad she had th pistol. & knew how to use it! “ Another one bites the Dust “ Molon Labe 🇺🇸💀🇸🇴🇺🇸💀

  18. She was a convicted FELON = firearm illegal. The gun belonged to her husband = questionable possession. She used the gun to protect herself and her unborn baby. <( Some states have a "Castle Doctrine" that protects people that use force to protect their "castle" and others that need protection) She could be prosecuted for the USE of a firearm while being a felon, but the sentence should be suspended because of the critical situation involved.

  19. Some of you people here are as naive as the felons you’re talking about, all it takes is a twist of fate and guess what? Now you might be a felon yourself, I’ve seen what these people go thru just to try and get life back on a normal track and the narrow minded people make it impossible for someone with a record. My district rep. has the same issue, I called on behalf of a relative and he had the same problem, a relative with a record, who went and did their time, never had a record before or since that just wanted to get back to work and all you untrusting people refuse to give them a chance to show they are worth more than they get credit for. But just because they had this one issue on their record they couldn’t even get a job washing dishes or working illegal aliens jobs. Now how fair is that? A hundred and fifty years ago there was no such thing as an unarmed felon, when you got out of prison you got back all your belongings, and that included guns and horse (if they didn’t feed it to you) and all the rest because without it you didn’t survive. Oh, and yes, you DO get your right to vote back, along with the rest of them except the right to bear arms, and that is the govt’s doing. Think about that, if every other person in a school is armed, who in their right mind is going to walk in and start shooting? Right! Nobody would do that knowing they’d get shot. Disarming the public is the first step to installing a dictatorship.

  20. The Democrats have turned modern America into a gigantic left wing sewer. What they did to this woman who defended her self against a criminal, is a crime in it’s self. Just watch. Now the Democrats will be pushing for more gun control to protect their precious criminals! Like criminals? Vote for Democrats!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here