317
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 60 points 2 years ago

It's horrifying that she's jailed for having been attacked. What the fuck is wrong with you, Arizona?

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago

The same thing that is wrong with almost all cops across the US.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

The LAPD openly acts as bodyguards for the proud boys now, a group considered terrorists in Canada

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Police have no duty to protect, so they're choosing to protect the proud boys.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

Thanks for posting this, I hope more people hear about this story and Epona's able to raise the $500k for bail and more to get a good defense team

Also, to put that bail amount in perspective - Andrew Lester (the guy who shot Ralph Yarl in the head) only had to post $200k.

[-] TurboDiesel@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

And Trump's was $200k as well. Apparently existing while trans is worse than trying to kill democracy.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 18 points 2 years ago

Or a treasonous "billionaire" who still needed a bail bondsman.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't care if you don't like guns. Arm up, learn to shoot, and protect yourselves out there. One political side has been stockpiling for decades (it's even part of their culture) while the other side is willingly disarming themselves.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 33 points 2 years ago

Curious how that would help here?

She got arrested for being the victim. If she shoots her attacker do you think the cops wouldn't have still arrested her?

Unless you meant protect ourselves from the cops, but running gun battles with the cops isn't going to help anyone.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The presence of a firearm itself may have been enough to make them think twice. I mean, do you normally try to assault someone who's visibly carrying?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

You can get arrested for threatening someone with a firearm too. It wouldn't have helped.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Get assaulted, raped, possibly killed? Or deal with the arrest and after math of having defended yourself from such. I know which one I'd choose.

I'm sorry, but I hate this argument.. because it's crock.

Attackers generally do not telegraph their intentions. They often come on suddenly and unexpectedly. I've been assaulted before and could not have defended myself even if I wanted to. I was caught too off-guard. Having a gun would not have helped me in any of those situations.

It's a "I am very badass!"-solution often from folks that have never been in that vulnerable kind of position before, because if they have, they would know that it cannot be reliably executed.

[-] Xtallll 1 points 2 years ago

Never threaten with a firearm, either use it or don't.

[-] violetraven 13 points 2 years ago

Isn't this what gun rights people say to women who then become statistically more likely to be shot by their own weapon?

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

deleted by creator

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

How about no?

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago

She was attacked and defended herself so she got arrested and her attackers got off completely free. That's some peak school zero tolerance policy bullshit. It's also completely insane she has a 500k bail but Trump, who tried to overturn and destroy our democracy so that he could establish a dictatorship only has 200k. This singular case should be provided when people disagree that Trans people are being attacked and persecuted all across the country.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

In "So-called Flagstaff, Arizona".

Um, I think the name of the town is not is question here.

[-] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

IGD places so-called in every article as a way to call attention to Land Back movements and acknowledge that every city and town is on stolen land.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!

[-] bartlebee@infosec.pub 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It felt like there wasn't any context to the actual circumstances of her arrest, especially considering the exorbitantly high bail amount. I looked around and the most information I could actually find was through a motion filed by her attorney.

She is being held for aggravated assault x2 along with some other misdemeanor charges with an implication that the charges will be elevated to attempted murder. Her attorney also notes that she has numerous other felony charges over the years, many but not all of which were later plead down to misdemeanor charges. Epona is also noted as homeless and transient that had outstanding warrants for failing to appear for some of her charges in other states. She has outstanding warrants for this in at least one other state. Assuming that it is true that she is transient and the DA intends to upgrade her charges to attempted murder, this at least provides some idea as to why the bail amount seems ludicrously high on the surface.

I realize that virtually all trans individuals face an extremely unwelcoming response from society that can often include abject violence and I feel true empathy for those that carry that burden. In this particular case it seems that there are lots of details that may deviate from the narrative that this particular individual was simply attacked by a group of men while minding her own business. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the original link is very one-sided which is why I went looking for more information. There are no journalistic articles covering the attack, but the motion filed by Epona's lawyer is moderately revealing.

https://www.lookoutphx.org/blog/flagstaff-trans-woman-attacked-facing-felony-charges/

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I'd like to donate but that donation site seems sketchy. Anyone have any information about it? Is it legit?

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
317 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23359 readers
2917 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS