Pregnant Woman Who Shot and Killed Intruder Charged for Illegal Possession

courtesy and KHBS

In December of 2017, Dylan Stancoff forced his way into a home in Ft. Smith Arkansas where Krissy Tran lived with her husband. Tran struggled with the attacker, grabbed one of her husband’s guns and shot Stancoff, killing him. She was pregnant at the time and the shooting was eventually ruled to be justified self-defense by prosecutors.

But Tran had a previous run-in with the law. She had a felony conviction on her record from earlier that year.

In 2017, (Tran) 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.

According to Tran,

The incident occurred in June 2016, ABC Fort Smith affiliate KHBS reported. (Tran) told the station that she was in the car with other people when police found drugs inside the car, but no one claimed them so everyone in the car received the same charges.

Now, more than nine months after the shooting, Tran has been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in connection with the Stancoff shooting and authorities have petitioned the court to revoke her suspended sentence for the marijuana conviction.

She’s now facing a possible sentence of 24 years in prison.




  1. avatar Stereodude says:

    The Injustice system at work…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Republicans are not for weed. Democrats are not for guns. Government is not for anything that takes power from them. Result: she is damned if she does, damn if she doesn’t.

      That’s the America Republicans and Democrats created. GG, statists.

      1. avatar Jaykob says:

        I gave my personal contact info to comment. I have to say this was the most logical statement I have read online.

      2. avatar Palin Smith says:

        98% of all gun crimes are done by Democrats. They love guns! They just don’t like guns in the hands of their potential victims.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Cali love:

        2. avatar Terclinger says:

          1rst video, lady talking head looks like Little Bo Peep in a Modigliani-inspired schmatta.

          First witness is Perry Nickleberry “there was a LOT of shots fired, man”
          Cop is Sheriff Lawhead.

          IS THIS A SPOOF?

          2n’d video: Who goes to an Ice Tray concert at a racetrack? Anyone hear the woman in the background (might have been another vid) “drag his ass out of here so we can get in!”

          DESTROY THE TEACHERS UNIONS they have sodomized America into stupidville.

          PS – _ FU “cop watch” on the second vid: that schmuck FIRED INTO THE CROWD cause his precious cRap “music” concert was sold out. That guy deserved to get shot by cops.

      3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Where exactly is the part that she’s damned if she doesn’t? Hmmm?

        If she doesn’t do weed, she won’t have a problem. Guns were never the issue. The issue was her being a FELON in possession of a firearm. She was free to have guns all she wanted, even by Arkansas Democrats, before she became a felon. As for the weed being illegal in the first place, Arkansas has had plenty of Democrat politicians, including a famous smoker (not inhaler, wtf that means), who could have changed that law and have not.

        So the Democrats being for weed and against guns, in Arkansas, doesn’t ring as true as you’d suggest. Just another example of bumper sticker level reasoning skills.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “Where exactly is the part that she’s damned if she doesn’t?”

          If she doesn’t pick up the gun to defend herself, she could die.

          She did, however, and faces years in prison for making that choice.

          Yes, it’s her problem and doing (arguably non-doing, as she claims she was in the car with others who possessed the drugs).

          It sure looks to me to be unfortunate, but a dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t situation.

          She needs to demand a jury trial, where she can explain to the jury why she made the choice that she did, and hope they can see the injustice of convicting her…

        2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Where exactly is the “felon” exception in the 2nd Amendment? I can’t find it in my copy.

        3. avatar Kendahl says:

          It’s not picking up the gun to defend herself that got her into trouble. It’s having a gun available to a felon. That’s called constructive possession even if she never touches it. Technically, her husband could have them, provided he isn’t prohibited on his own, but he would have to keep every one of them and every round of ammunition on his person or locked up where she had no access. That wouldn’t have done her any good when the intruder broke in.

        4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Where exactly is the “felon” exception in the 2nd Amendment? I can’t find it in my copy.
          One of those things pulled out of someone’s rear end.
          Pot laws are a joke as alcohol is just as bad and maybe worse.
          If you cannot trust an ex-convict with a gun, then maybe the person should still be in prison or executed.

        5. avatar Hannibal says:

          The ‘exception’ to the 2nd Amendment is found in the same place that the exception to almost everything: the 5th Amendment. As long as due process is followed, you can be physically restrained and put in prison. Your rights as written in the BOR are almost all heavily restricted. Or do you think prisoners must be allowed rifles?

          Your interpretation, on the other hand, is without backing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that prison is the only punishment available under due process. As long as the laws preventing legal possession of firearms exists prior to the commission and conviction, it’s no different than throwing someone in jail; it’s a punishment.

        6. avatar Marty says:

          Can’t figure out where she was in possession of weed. It was in a car she was in. Just because no one copped out to being the owner, how do all get convicted? To get convicted, she had to knowingly be in possession. The story doesn’t prove that. There is more to the story than is being reported.

        7. avatar neiowa says:

          Don’t be a pothead and stop whining about it being the same as booze.

          Felon have been thrown out of the militia by a jury of their peers (members of the militia). Being a moron has consequences.

        8. avatar arc says:

          Since you know for a fact that she smoked the evil reefer plant and wasn’t fucked over by American injustice, show me the blood work that should have been done shortly after the arrest that shows beyond all doubt that she smoked weed or had THC in her blood. Being in a car that has pot in it doesn’t mean she had anything to do with it being there but you seem to have it all figured out don’t ya?

          Any decent lawyer should have got her off such bullshit charges but she probably got stuck with a useless public defender.

          Pigs couldn’t prove who owned it, shit, could have been that none of them owned it, but group punishment for something that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place is the telling sign of an injust system. Since you seem to have evidence that shows she did own it, and it wasn’t a wrongful conviction, Id very much like to see it.

          Taking a plea deal that is almost always offered doesn’t qualify as evidence. Plea deals essentially take advantage of anyone who can’t pay for a lawyer and fight charges and offer an easy way for prosecutions to pad their stats. Say you are guilty and dodge jail even if you are innocent, or spend tens of thousands that you don’t have and likely lose anyway… what a choice.

          Kind of like threatening someone with life in prison but deffering it if they “tell the truth” in political cases.

        9. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          So you give up your right to defend your life and the life of your family from violent attack if you ever get caught smoking weed? You really want to go on record for that?

        10. avatar Beth Wiley says:

          So she should have allowed the attacker to kill her and her unborn child? What is wrong with you?

      4. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Not commenting on her past, but in the self defense shooting it sounds like she did exactly the correct and moral thing, regardless of whether it was legal. Justice is an ideal, the law is a tool. In a perfect world the law would always serve justice. This isn’t a perfect world.

    2. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:


      Simply put — Doctrine of Competing Harms …

      If in-fact this article does provide ‘all’ the facts surrounding the actual incident, –and–, all the facts of the victims supposed legal history, she (victim), will probably receive a slap on the wrist for this shooting; hopefully/providing she receives decent, legal representation.

    3. avatar Recon says:

      Would they be after her if she managed to get a kitchen knife into her assailant?

      1. avatar Colorado Wellington says:

        I don’t know but if so we’d have to discuss it at The Truth About Knives and the nice young man would not have made this memorial:

        Dylan Stancoff, age 23

        Lost to gun violence on December 7, 2017 in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

        81 candles have been lit for Dylan.

  2. avatar Casey says:

    Yeah, lock her up for weed, she totally deserves to see her child’s life ruined. THAT’LL TEACH HER TO HANG OUT WITH PEOPLE WHO SMOKE THE DEVIL’S LETTUCE!!

    While we’re on the subject, the revolving door system isn’t revolving fast enough. We need to get the gang bangers with CVS-Reciept-length rap sheets back out into the neighborhoods so they can get on with their recidivism – wait, I mean rehabilitation.

    1. avatar LizzieBorden says:

      HA, HA Devil’s lettuce. I haven’t heard that one. !!

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Wow what a load of bullsh#t! She should be applauded instead of incarcerated…hey way back in the day(45 years ago) I could haven’t ended up with a felony from my stupid compatriots transporting pot I wasn’t aware of.

    1. avatar M.Arthur says:

      The 2Amd says “(The RKBA) shall not be infringed.” That is the only absolute statement in the Bill of Rights. It is violated in this instance by Arkansas. The 2Amd does not say “except for convicted felons.” The only restriction conceivable from the wording is in the 13thAmd which refers to involuntary servitude i.e. adjudicated and incarcerated individuals can be deprived.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        No, but the 5th amendment reads that you may be deprived of life, LIBERTY (think RKBA, for example) and property (think, guns, for example), provided that due process has been adhered to. Soooo…… to revise your B.S. comment?

        Geez, conservatives charge that when it comes to the BoR, liberals can’t count higher than 1. Well. Some people of the gun cannot seem to count higher than 2. What an embarrassment. No wonder this firearms freedom campaign has lasted for decades, with many generations to go before we could possibly win and put it behind us like slavery. We have so many dolts on our side.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Without rationalization potheads (seems to be a lot here) have nothing. Other than an addled brain.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “without due process of law” does not, in any way, shape or form, say that laws must be followed slavishly, not that any law is right.
          The reason we have juries is because we, as a people, want our laws to be followed with understanding (the human factor). This is why jury nullification is a thing, and why prosecutors hate it. I once heard a prosecutor ask a judge to specifically instruct to not only ignore any calls for jury nullification in the jurie’s deliberations, but to order the foreman to report any jury member who suggested it to be reported to the judge and prosecutor for “tampering.” The judge, who had been a judge longer than the prosecutor had been alive, rightly asked the prosecutor to cite the law that even defined jury nullification, much less made it illegal. There is none (at least in AZ). The SCOTUS has, several times, said that juries have the right to judge both the law and the defendant.
          So, trotting the “due process” part of the Fifth doesn’t say, “Its the law, so it must be followed.”

        3. avatar Beth Wiley says:

          Hold on there, doesn’t a crime have to have a victim. Having marijuana is victimless.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Hold on there, doesn’t a crime have to have a victim. Having marijuana is victimless.”

          Such laws are based on the idea that society itself is harmed, and so society id=s the victim.
          There are many such laws. They are very seldom successfully challenged as being victimless.

  4. avatar How_Terrible says:

    Few things exemplify the messed up nature of our criminal justice system quite like this story.

  5. avatar Aaron says:

    what a waste.

    why are we still ruining peoples’ lives over pot?

    yeah, pot is bad for you. so is obesity. so is drinking. those aren’t illegal. why the double standard on pot?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Religion and the other religion.

      You can’t do “drugs” because that’s a sin. You can’t use cannabis because that’s a crime. Plus, it hurts corporations that sell legal drugs.

    2. avatar HP says:

      Pot was outlawed when it was seen primarily as a thing that mostly black people partook in back in the 20’s or 30’s, I can’t remember the exact date. Really no other reason than that. I loathe SJW’s but the prohibition on marijuana is absolutely built on the bedrock of racism.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Gun control is soaked in racism. But the sjw’s embrace it with all their hearts.

        1. avatar HP says:

          You are correct.

        2. avatar Swarf says:

          Gun control laws and drug prohibition laws are all, at the root, racist, classist or both.

        3. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

          Yes. Yes it is. You can look it up. Started with Democrats in the South around reconstruction. Couldn’t have those uppity negros being able to defend themselves. Why, we might want to go over to ‘their side of town’ for some fun.

          I think everyone who wants to carry a firearm should be allowed to; concealed or open, no difference. There may be some mental health issues to be resolved before this becomes the law of the land but that can be handled. As someone famously said ‘An armed society is a polite society’.

          Think of this subject like abortion; if you don’t want to then don’t. That is what we hear all the time from the left and those who would steer and guide our lives and behavior; since they know better than us how we should live our lives.

          When everyone is allowed to carry, I predict personal attacks, rape, murder and other violent crimes will decline dramatically.

      2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Actually, it was an anti-Mexican thing. The first state ban was in California on 1913, based just on general anti-narcotics social welfare engineering. Then came Utah in 1914. A number of polygamists had relocated to places like Mexico and New Mexico after polygamy was banned in Utah as part of that territory’s admission to the U.S. as a state. In their new environs, they became familiar with marijuana in its natural form and under that name. Marijuana had been an ingredient in widely available ointments and tinctures in the U.S. for many years prior, but not so well known in actual smoking form. Anyway, Utah banned it when these expatriates started to return to Utah and brought their new habit with them.

        Other states followed over the next two decades or so, largely in west and southwest states facing an influx of Mexicans. The Mexicans brought marijuana with them. The states didn’t like the Mexicans, so they used their favorite habit as a means of harassing and controlling them.

        The federal ban came with passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (sic). The momentum from the state level was probably enough, but there had also been a number of very highly publicized criminal acts whose committers were on weed at the time of their various horrific crimes. So Congress essentially banned marijuana in response. There are some conspiracy theories out there about timber and production of paper, or rayon and nylon, and hemp as a competing product, but that’s all a bunch of unproven kook talk that some people (usually stoners) drag out to justify legalization.

        1. avatar Jeremy says:

          Yeah the other dude is talking out his rear end. They said it was what was making all the mexicans “loco”

      3. avatar No one of consequence says:

        I read somewhere that it was because hemp was seen as competition for sisal rope.

        That, of course, could be wrong…

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          It’s not wrong, but reinforcing the wallet of existing businesses was just a convenient side effect.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          At least for those voting on the matter in legislative bodies, I’m sure various motivations were more or less important to different law makers.

    3. avatar Purity Of Essence says:

      It’s not what drugs you do, but whose.

      1. avatar arc says:

        The truth.

    4. avatar Ed says:

      Civil asset forfiture….the goverment lives off stealing. Apparently, an awful lot of people here have some fucked up ideas of what FREEDOM is.

      1. avatar Beth Wiley says:


  6. avatar Mi Jim says:

    Please tell me there is more to the story. If the husbands firearms were legal this case is complete BS. I would like to think the justice system in Arkansas isn’t that basakwards

    1. avatar Shane Hazlett says:

      “I would like to think the justice system in Arkansas isn’t that basakwards”

      Like in one hand and sh!t in the other. Tell me which one fills up faster.

      Yes the system in EVERY state is like this.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Naw, if her husband’s guns were legal, they became illegal when she picked them up. That is the way the laws about “possession” work. She is a prohibited person, forever, and that was (supposedly) made clear to her when she accepted a plea deal when she should have demanded a jury trial. Therefore, she should have submitted to rape or murder, or both, rather than defend herself. She ain’t gonna read this, but let me say it again; TELL THE DA YOU WANT A JURY TRIAL, AND YOU WANT IT “SPEEDY”, like tomorrow. Probably too late anyhow, she let them get away with that crap a year ago, now instead of a trial, they only need to revoke her parole.

      BUT!!! This is precisely what we talk about repeatedly. The idea that this young woman is a prohibited person, permanently, for such utter bullshit is exactly what our opponents are attempting to accomplish, and they are absolutely convinced they are doing something wonderful.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        The idea that this young woman is a prohibited person … is exactly what our opponents are attempting to accomplish, and they are absolutely convinced they are doing something wonderful.

        That right there is the kicker.

        And make sure we always, ALWAYS turns this right back on them. Gun-grabbers are more than happy sacrificing such violent crime victims in their march toward disarmament utopia. We have to ask them how many are acceptable — and why it is okay to sacrifice such victims for their cause when it is horrific “sacrificing” victims for our cause (for liberty).

  7. avatar Juice says:

    Didn’t turn in her friend, then shot an intruder to protect herself and unborn child. We really have to get this psychopath off the streets.

    At the rate we’re going, marijuana will be decriminalized before she gets out of prison.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Didn’t turn in her friend,…”
      “Each person in the vehicle received the same charges when no one claimed the items.”
      No one claimed she knew about the MJ in the car. The police simply charged everyone, because no one owned up to the “crime”. Obviously, the drugs and paraphernalia wasn’t in anyone’s actual possession, or that person would have been charged. So then, the DA’s office decided to get as many convictions as possible, and threatened each “perp” with a very expensive trial if they didn’t cop a “deal,” which included a felony conviction and a lengthy probationary sentence. In many (if not most) cases, the “perp” can’t afford the lawyer for the trial, so a plea is the only real choice.
      And THAT is the real injustice of our justice system. It has become so expensive to defend yourself against a baseless charge (the police are just too lazy to actually determine who to charge; fingerprints are too hard to gather,even though, once charged, fingerprints are gathered anyway) and for some strange reason, they can’t be compared to fingerprints on the drug containers and paraphernalia. So we will never actually know if she was guilty as charged or not, because of the laziness of the police and the expense of mounting a defense.

  8. avatar sound awake says:

    jury nullification

    1. avatar Shane Hazlett says:

      Won’t happen.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Who’s fault is that?

    2. avatar Nanashi says:

      Gov. Hutchinson should pardon her before it ever gets that far.

    3. avatar Stereodude says:

      Judges, as a rule, pretty much don’t let lawyers present that to the jury as an option even though it’s supposed to be part of the justice system. So, unless one of the jurors happens to know about the principle of jury nullification you’re not going to get that as an outcome.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Judges, especially judges that used to be persecuting attorneys, don’t like juries to learn of that outside the courtroom either.

        1. avatar L says:

          Great read, thanks for posting. I am now just slightly enraged after reading it though…

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          Generally I want to avoid jury duty. However, I kind of want to end up on a jury someday where the person is guilty of some stupid victimless crime so I can exercise the right of jury nullification.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          And yet, the SCOTUS has several times said jury nullification is allowed; not only is the jury allowed to judge the defendant, but the law itself.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Jury nullification would have been a player if she had not pled guilty a year ago, so that there was a trial. Now, no one is discussing a trial, simply revoking her parole, jury nullification isn’t a factor. This is hard core bullshit.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        The two (whether she did something illegal in picking up a gun, and the plea on the drug charge) should be (and are being) considered separately.
        The plea is beyond nullification, but the actual charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm is liable to nullification. IF the case goes to trial.
        The plea, however, is another case entirely, and whether or not her suspended sentence is re-instated or not is up to the rules of her state. In a true justice system, the circumstances would tell the judge that going to jail for what amounts to self-defense is a travesty of justice. Unfortunately, there are far too few judges (and prosecutors) who see anything like that.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    She should have kept a crossbow handy. Is Arkansas one of the states where a convicted fellow can own muzzle loaders? Paul Harrell just did a spot on blackpowder for folks that can’t go the other route.

    I’m not defending the state here. I believe weed should be sold freely. But if I had a felony conviction I think I would have gone another route.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Isn’t a crossbow very difficult for a pregnant women to use?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        A cap and ball Colt SAA loaded by her husband is not so tough.

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “Isn’t a crossbow very difficult for a pregnant women to use?”

        There are x-bows you ‘cock’ with a crank, so infirm people can use them :

  10. avatar Alex Waits says:

    I’ll vote not guilty every day of the week, and twice on Sunday

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      This. And a +1 for the Jury Nulification comment above as well. There is absolutely no reason for this. Intent to distribute? If I have two bags, one each has an equal amount, (because I wanted to try two different strains) that would equal intent to distribute.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Those pesky pre-crime laws Americans are totally cool with.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Except the crime she will go to prison for is drug possession, and she pled guilty a long time ago. So you don’t get a vote. She is well and truly fucked, needs to appeal to common sense, through the media, to the governor, dream up whatever she can.

  11. avatar fiundagner says:

    Cant have citizens defending themselves as that undermines everthing goverment overreach stands for. Lets kick a violent felon out on parole to make room for this murderer and drug dealer

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Gang member, who sales drugs, out of prison early. Former “drug” user, who defends two lives, goes to prison for years.

  12. avatar John Boch says:

    Sounds like an easy “exigent circumstances” defense in order.

    Does Ft. Smith have that little crime that they can waste resources on an open-and-shut self-defense acquittal?


    1. avatar FedUp says:

      She apparently can’t afford a real attorney, and the public defenders are worse than worthless if they plead her to a felony for sitting in a car with four other people. If she plead out to that BS, what are her chances of fighting the current charges and winning?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They already decided not to press charges about the shooting, it’s the possession of a firearm while a prohibited person they’re working on. My guess is that they know it would be tough to convince a jury to send her to prison, so the plan is to simply revoke her parole on the drug charges, which she should have NEVER allowed. No trial, no acquittal, 20 years in prison, ain’t the law grand?

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        Easy does it, there are people in this thread that love the law, hide behind the law and worship the law so they can tell themselves it is not their fault and its ok to ruin peoples lives -and they’ll take the recognition. Tran has injured no one except an intruder. She has done no injury to society except for guilt by association. Some folks gotta have a job.

  13. avatar strych9 says:

    She was advised by an attorney to plead guilty, to a felony mind you, when she was sitting in a car with a bunch of other people each of which could easily have been the owner of the pot in question…

    Sounds like grounds for a dismissal of the plea and a new trial based on ineffective counsel/representation.

    Don’t even get me started on the pot thing.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Especially if it wasn’t her car. How could a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she owned or even knew about the drugs? Unless they found her prints on it, or one of her hairs inside one of the bags, or whatever. Yes, unless there is more to this, the defense lawyer is either crooked or incompetent.

  14. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Ask for a jury trial. Bring the baby to court. Make the asshole prosecutors work for it.

  15. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Throw the book at her. “I was just in the car and nobody claimed the weed.” Really, Princess Toke? Then why did you plead guilty? It’s one thing to catch a charge, it’s another to get convicted. All you need to do in Arkansas is create reasonable doubt to rebut that presumption of possession.

    Ohhhh…….you just wanted to avoid a more serious sentence? Got it. Well, choose better friends next time. As for the firearm, what’s your excuse this time, sweetheart? None. You’re a felon in possession. Lock her up.

    I’m sick of people whining and crying about the law, but doing nothing but flouting it until they get busted breaking it. It’s too late then, as you’ve already revealed yourself as a criminal, not a mere objector. You won’t be missed on the outside, I assure you.

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      You , Sir, are an unmitigated Ass Hole, in the fullest sense of the term. I pray you have no children and are unable to preform without a “piece” up your ….This war on drugs is BS . I don’t care Mexican/Black whatever. Prohibition is another word for control. More people drank booze than smoked pot, hence Prohibition of Alc. lost. The old quote about not defending Jews cause I ain’t a jew applies to ALL forms of GDGovernment control. You like to prevent gun control but your comment proves that you just want what YOU want.

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      Maybe the pot was hers; maybe not. Either way, it takes a very self confident person to withstand the pressure police and prosecutors can apply to take a deal for a reduced sentence. Look up the Beatrice Six and the Murdock Murders in Nebraska. In both cases, innocent people were pressured into false confessions to avoid harsher sentences if they lost in court. The only good news is that both cases have backfired on the authorities responsible. The Beatrice Six won a $28 million judgement and the two relatives wrongfully accused in Murdock won $2.6 million.

    3. avatar Red in CO says:

      I REALLY hope your neck gets crushed under your precious “law” you statist. 3 felonies a day, and may you get caught based on some bullshit law and locked up for decades. You are NOT a law abiding citizen. You may be an honest one, but you regularly commit felonies, just like everyone

      1. avatar Colorado Wellington says:

        ”I REALLY hope your neck gets crushed …”

        I understand your sentiment but I don’t wish it on him. Stupidity has harsh enough consequences without the State piling on.

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Then why did you plead guilty? It’s one thing to catch a charge, it’s another to get convicted. All you need to do in Arkansas is create reasonable doubt to rebut that presumption of possession.”

      I can only assume you’ve never looked into what a decent lawyer would cost to mount a decent defense against a charge that is, under the law, entirely valid, with direct and overwhelming evidence that the charge is valid.
      I know that in such a case, I would need to sell all of my guns, my car and my house to afford that defense. And I would still end up in deep debt.

    5. avatar Colorado Wellington says:

      Jonathan-Houston, I’ve known guys like you because life took me to stupid places full of stupid people.

  16. avatar CZJay says:

    Police: Drugs are illegal. You are under arrest for breaking the law! Ooh, they have edibles. Yummy…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      3 cops, no longer with the Santa Ana PD, prosecuted for petty theft and vandalism for destroying cameras and consuming stolen drugs.

      Correction, we didn’t fire the crooked cops, we fired the chief who tried to get the criminals out of the department:

      2018, they up the ante to bank robbery:
      An officer picks up money that spilled from an ATM that was cut open after Sky High marijuana collective raided by Santa Ana city code officials, law enforcement in Santa Ana, CA, on Tuesday, Jan 23, 2018.

  17. avatar Steve Day says:

    Meanwhile, violent career criminals rob people at gun point and big city DAs – who are either lazy, sympathetic or just want good case stats – will plea bargain away the “felon in possession of a firearm” charges, often ending up with only misdemeanors …all done in the name of “racial equality”.

  18. avatar Pg2 says:

    Land of the free and the brave…..

  19. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Should have just buried Stancoff in the crawlspace.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Also, she was not on parole as numerous people here have claimed – she received a 5 year suspended sentence. So she apparently wasn’t even on probation. Parole is a condition for early release from prison – you have to go to prison before you can get parole. Anyway, they’ll probably forget about trying her for felony in possession and just revoke the suspension. That or offer her a sweetheart plea deal so the DA can enhance his record and she just has to pad the county coffers.

  20. Sounds like another case of “Malicious Prosecution…” Not only that but I believe an issue with the statue of limitations…As well as the phony “Welcome to Macon County” group drug charges…Sounds like “Guilt by association” ideological B.S. ….Hopefully she receives proper legal representation! Sounds the Police Department, township and the prosecution need to sued…..

  21. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher"they think we're making pizza',"Oberst von Burn says:

    A weed that grows out of the ground is illegal. That’s fucked up

  22. avatar The Rookie says:

    Just for the general FYI, I found this story with a video and some additional details on the case, including how the shooting itself played out:

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Sebastian County Persecuting Attorney Daniel Shue says that she should have called 9-1-1 when her attacker returned. Yeah, right, you POS. Somebody knocks on the door, she opens it, he jumps on her, and she’s supposed to say ‘back off a minute while I call the cops’.

      Persecuting Attorney Daniel Shue needs to be removed from office, right now, this week, the lying pile of shit.

  23. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I will put gun civil-rights over getting intoxicated while driving a 2000 pound car. I know the pot heads on the west coast disagree. That is why you can smoke pot legally in public and can’t open carry. The problem with Libertarians Liberals and the Left is they don’t believe in personal responsibility. They are full of sh#t.

    I have no issues with anyone drinking, smoking, shooting up IN YOUR OWN HOME.

    This woman was caught by the police in a moving car. This is a DUI case. She f#cked up really bad. But she doesn’t deserve 24 years in prison.

    Every state that has legalized pot has also taken away gun civil-rights. The billionaires like Paul Allen and others are pro pot, but anti gun. That is why the Libertarians are so supportive of Allen and others like him. They will trade guns for drugs every single time.

    As a former resident of California, who was a victim of the Mulford Act, I watched whites carry guns in pubic during the East Area Rapist attacks in Sacramento county, while blacks could not carry guns, by California law.

    1. avatar Marty says:

      Chris, you either have knowledge the readers don’t, or you’re reading what wasn’t there. The post says she was pulled over “while riding” in the vehicle, not driving it. That’s a big difference. I do agree no one should be driving under the influence of anything, either legal or illegal if it affects their driving ability.

  24. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The “justice reform” democrats should be coming out of the wood work for this “non violent offender” any time soon. Man do I hear crickets or what?

  25. avatar Dan says:

    It’s difficult to rule an innocent person. Thus the push to make EVERYTHING illegal so EVERYONE becomes a felon…..and thus can be disarmed…..and RULED. That is the fundamental reason for the “War On Drugs” which is in reality part of the WAR ON FREEDOM.

    1. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

      When the rules and laws are changed that illicit drugs are no longer illegal then I guess you’re lame argument may have some merit. But as the laws stand as a convicted felon she lost the right to possess firearms, and vote, and a myriad of other privileges and rights she once had. So it sucks to be her.

  26. avatar John Haley says:

    It is entirely too easy to commit a felony in this country, especially a felony of the non-violent type. With a “suspended” felony conviction hangover your head – which in Ga is for ten years, though if the corner of the system you are in is operating properly (in my experience it’s a random mess everywhere) that can/might be truncated earlier if you are squeaky clean – it is entirely too easy to slip up and then it’s down the “criminal” rat hole with you. You’re labeled and stuck, otherwise inconsequential infractions damn you. Violating the restricted gun ownership/access is just one of the ways to slip into darkness. No “normal, rational” prosecutor would bring this charge, but as long as our justice system is dominated by anti-gun zelots without any sense or fairness – just straight lacking in humanity – it should be clear that the gun prohibition for felonies should not apply to non-violent felonies. If you smoke dope, cheat on your taxes,, etc, where’s the wisdom in a law that allows fanatics who hate you for having/using a gun to save your life to send you to prison as a convicted felon for a simple act of self-preservation?

  27. avatar kap says:

    these are the Laws you get from Democrat Liberal Left wing Anti American Communist’s supported by the super rich (Soros; Bloomberg etc:), and by the Roman Church for protection of the Twisted priests!

  28. avatar Wally1 says:

    I applaud her for defending herself, however, actions have consequences. She previously chose to hang out with dopers and got caught. There’s a reason it’s called “Dope”. I do not blame the justice system. Marijuana users never consider themselves as drug addicts, I beg to differ. Drugs, even marijuana have such a negative effect on society it affects all of us. What’s even more disturbing is now she’s going to have children. With parents like these, maybe the best course of action is in fact to be in prison and someone with morals raise the children, so they have a chance. Life is tough, it’s tougher if your stupid.

  29. avatar Infidel762X51 says:

    Should have ratted out the drug owner.

  30. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

    This is a Country based on the rule of law. That’s what seperates up from a Banana Republic that just changes it’s laws to suit it’s immediate needs and wants. She knew the rules, she knew the law. Could there have been some latitude exercised in this case, sure. But the law is the law. I have no pity for her.

  31. avatar Zebra dun says:

    W. T. actual F.?

  32. avatar TheTruthBurns says:

    Tran a Vietnamese in Clintonia Arkansas did she Kill White Trash or N.iglet? Either way she flushed a piece if S. hit down the Toilet protecting her Unborn Child which Democrats Hate in Clintonia Arkansas. I guess she should have submitted to Rape & Murder so as Not to Offend Gun & Weed Haters.

  33. avatar Chiefton says:

    If I were president, I would grant her a full pardon on the drug charges which would negate the possession of a firearm charge by a felon. End of problem for her because all she did was defend herself.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email