NYT has an Identity Crisis Over Gun Slinger’s Identity

The New York Times, normally so squeamish about the use of firearms, recently published a highly sympathetic account of a woman using a gun to defend herself in Wyoming.

Unfortunately, the woman wasn’t a woman, but a man claiming to be a woman. And “she” wasn’t defending herself, she was the aggressor. (Pronouns translated into British under order of the Crown Court.)

The Times’ video of the incident shows the transgender, who goes by “Rihanna” but dresses like a man, walking, right hand on her holstered gun, directly into the path of three men crossing the street in the opposite direction. It wasn’t a short walk; she must have gone at least 50 feet to reach them.

The first man steps around Rihanna. The second, Scott Durham, also veers well out of the crosswalk to avoid her, but she veers too, positioning herself directly in front of him, at which point he pushes her, without breaking stride. Rihanna collapses like a house of cards, practically bouncing off the pavement.

So far, the video could be a Charles Atlas ad for his program to turn weaklings into real men.

But then the transgender whips out a firearm and points it at the men, as they continue on their way, with barely a glance back at her. This is the case that turned the Times into an NRA-loving, gun rights enthusiast.

According to the Times, the question in Rihanna’s case is whether “Stand Your Ground” laws apply “when the person holding the gun is transgender.” After all, the Times notes, this happened in “gun-friendly, staunchly Republican” Wyoming. So, it asks, “why is a trans woman being prosecuted after being shoved to the ground?”

As a newbie firearms supporter, the Times may be unaware of this, but there isn’t a state in the union where pointing a gun at these guys would be remotely justified. Rihanna was the aggressor. You can’t initiate a fight, get brushed aside, then point a gun at your victim’s back as he calmly walks away.

But in the Times’ version of events, the incident didn’t begin with Rihanna confronting the men, but when “Ms. Kelver” — as the paper deadnames her; her name is “Ríhanna Novalee ChasingStars” (I’m guessing the Times didn’t think this would help her case) — “drew her gun after she had been pushed down in the street.”

No, it began when Ms. ChasingStars strode across the street, stood in front of the men, and, by her own account, hectored them for allegedly using a “homophobic slur.” (They deny it — and they’ve been more honest with the police than she has.)

The Times’ report on the trans gun-slinger is only the latest example of the media taking sides on news events, then lying about what happened. No matter the truth, the facts must be doctored to ensure that it’s always the same story: White Man Viciously Attacks Angelic Black Child/Black Man/Gay Man/Black Woman/White Woman/Asian Woman/Muslim Woman/Trans Woman.

For the media, every story has to be Emmett Till 2.

Remember a certain “Stand Your Ground” case out of Florida a decade ago? It got a fair amount of attention. In the first six months after George Zimmerman fatally shot a black 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin, the Times alone ran 254 articles on the case.

The entire media wanted Zimmerman tried for murder. They were unimpressed with his argument that he was flat on his back, screaming for help, having his head pounded into the pavement by Martin before he fired.

Zimmerman was Hispanic, but, because he was the villain in this set piece, he had to be called “white.” For this, the media invented an all-new category: “White Hispanic.” I had never heard of such a designation, nor had anyone else, nor was it ever heard again.

Although contemporary photos of Martin existed — smoking pot and brandishing a gun, for example — we got nothing but adolescent pictures of him. (I began to suspect the Times was taking sides in Rihanna’s case based on the paper’s failure to include any prepubescent photos of Mr. Durham.)

The gated community where Zimmerman lived was 49% non-Hispanic white, 23% Hispanic, 20% black, and 5% Asian, or — the Times called it — “predominantly white.” The Zimmerman jury was composed of five white women and one Puerto Rican woman. Here’s the Times’ description, all from a single news story: “none of them black.. all but one of the jurors is white… jury without any black jurors… a jury that includes no blacks.”

NBC News intentionally edited Zimmerman’s call to emergency services to make him sound racist. What Zimmerman actually said was: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” In response to the dispatcher asking him, “is he black, white, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman replied, “He looks black.”

But the version NBC ran repeatedly, including on the “Today” show, had him saying: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good…. He looks black.” Hmmm, why would NBC choose that particular way to edit it?

Usually the media slip in whoppers by quoting the victim’s family members or lawyer, without mentioning that these are people who stand to make millions in extorted settlements with local governments. Thus, the Times quoted Martin’s father saying Trayvon was “murdered by someone who weighs more than 100 pounds than him.” Zimmerman was 27 pounds heavier, only because he was overweight. Martin was four inches taller and in considerably better shape.

Similarly, in the Wyoming case, Ms. ChasingStars’s lawyer is quoted by the Times — without correction — claiming, “She doesn’t pull a gun till she’s on her back with three guys around her.” There were no guys around her. As the video proves, but the article hides, the men were walking away from her when she pulled a gun.

Every one of the media’s morality plays modeled on the murder of Emmett Till is invariably a concoction of monumental lies. If they keep it up, how long before people start doubting the original?

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER