Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: "Man swinging bottle shot by driver at Highway 2 rest area"

  1. #1
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    http://www.komotv.com/news/10458092.html

    WENATCHEE, Wash. (AP) - The Chelan County sheriff's office says a man seeking a ride was critically wounded while harassing a driver who stopped at a Highway 2 rest area. The sheriff's office says 45-year-old Jay Kneer of Renton was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle Wednesday night with a head wound. Investigators say 66-year-old Dennis Shaw of Lynnwood and his wife had stopped at the Nason Creek rest area 14 miles west of Leavenworth where Kneer asked him for a ride. When Shaw refused, Kneer became angry, followed Shaw to his car and struck his vehicle window with a glass bottle. Shaw told investigators the attack continued when he pointed a handgun at Kneer. Shaw says he fired in an attempt to scare Kneer and hit him in the head. The Shaws were not injured.
    The only thing I don't agree with in this situation is the part about where he "fired in an attempt to scare"....you don't shoot to scare, you shoot to stop.....you are either in fear of your life or not......

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Every time I read about someone pulling a gun to scare someone it really makes me mad. Even worse is when someone pulls a gun and then says I didn't mean to shoot him. If you are not going to use the thing leave it at home and never shoot just to wound. My opinion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I don't buy the whole "didn't mean to shoot him" arguement that you hear from time to time. To me that's like saying "I didn't mean to rape her" or "I didn't mean to rob that bank". If you didn't mean to, then how did a gun end up pointed at that person and the trigger pulled? I liked the arguement in American Dad, when Stan (the father) is lectured by his hippie daughter Halie. She says something about guns killing people and he says "oh really?" He sets his pistol on the table and says "OK, gun. I command you to kill someone. Go ahead, it's ok. Hmm, doesn't seem to be working."

    I loved that little part of the episode. Kind of pro-gun for Seth McFarlane. Brian the dog on family guy seems to spout off some rediculous anti-gun propaganda.



    my work computer won't let me open youtube, but I googled the clip and I THINK this is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    my work computer won't let me open youtube, but I googled the clip and I THINK this is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws

    Oh, blind linking, you're a brave man!

    But, yeah, that is the clip.

    Stan: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns defend people from people with smaller guns!"

    Haley: :X




  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk:
    I liked the same line at the end: "guns don't kill people, people kill people; guns defend people against people with smaller guns."

    Anyhow, as for the guy who shot the other man "accidentally" he's either scared to admit he was trying to shoot him or more likely he's an incompetent boob who bought a gun and thought that it would make him safe without any training.

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    I don't buy the whole "didn't mean to shoot him" arguement that you hear from time to time. ...If you didn't mean to, then how did a gun end up pointed at that person and the trigger pulled?
    I agree with this point. And it's an important one because of the very high severity and consequences of using deadly force.

    A man who uses deadly force must take absolute responsibility for what he has done--right or wrong.

    This wimpy, oblique kind of responsibility-taking "I fired a warning shot (that happened to go into the guy's head) is a strong sign of a guy who a) was confusedand likely incompetent to use deadly force, or, b) a guy covering up for a definite error in judgment.

    I mean, the guy comes off almost as a goof with a gun.

    The shootwill probably not result in any charges based on the reporting so far. Butthere are some distinct signs that it wasn't all that good a shoot.Notexactly a gun-firstmess but more likely a case of introducing a gun and escalating the situation--followed by thewarning shot to the head inanity.





  7. #7
    Regular Member LaVere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The remains of Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    264

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    http://www.komotv.com/news/10458092.html

    WENATCHEE, Wash. (AP) - The Chelan County sheriff's office says a man seeking a ride was critically wounded while harassing a driver who stopped at a Highway 2 rest area. The sheriff's office says 45-year-old Jay Kneer of Renton was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle Wednesday night with a head wound. Investigators say 66-year-old Dennis Shaw of Lynnwood and his wife had stopped at the Nason Creek rest area 14 miles west of Leavenworth where Kneer asked him for a ride. When Shaw refused, Kneer became angry, followed Shaw to his car and struck his vehicle window with a glass bottle. Shaw told investigators the attack continued when he pointed a handgun at Kneer. Shaw says he fired in an attempt to scare Kneer and hit him in the head. The Shaws were not injured.
    The only thing I don't agree with in this situation is the part about where he "fired in an attempt to scare"....you don't shoot to scare, you shoot to stop.....you are either in fear of your life or not......"

    Why are you berating the man. 1. He had a gun. 2. He used it to defend himself and his wife. 3. He and wife are fine not injured. 4. Bad guy in jail.

    What ever he said after is moot.


    All is OK end of story............
    The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.

    Dalai Lama

    ************************************************** ********************

    http://www.generalnewsgroup.com/

  8. #8
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Why are you berating the man. 1. He had a gun. 2. He used it to defend himself and his wife. 3. He and wife are fine not injured. 4. Bad guy in jail. What ever he said after is moot. All is OK end of story............
    I agree that it was a good shoot, but what he said afterwards is NOT moot......it could lead to the person getting charges pressed against him or civil litigation......remember that everything you say and do can and WILL be used against you in a court of law.......this story may not be over.....

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Why are you berating the man. 1. He had a gun. 2. He used it to defend himself and his wife. 3. He and wife are fine not injured. 4. Bad guy in jail. What ever he said after is moot. All is OK end of story............
    I agree that it was a good shoot, but what he said afterwards is NOT moot......it could lead to the person getting charges pressed against him or civil litigation......remember that everything you say and do can and WILL be used against you in a court of law.......this story may not be over.....
    Hardly a "good" shoot. The old man shot a guy in the head he didn't mean to shoot at all.

    It looks like no charges will be assessedagainst him, so in that sense it is "good," sure.

    But the event shows two things:

    1. By shooting a man in the head that he didn't mean to shoot, the old man undeniably handled the attack incompetently. Therefore, he has unnecessarily incurred costs on the shootee and upon society. We have to pay the shootee's medical expenses, for example. Since it was an incompetently handled self-defense shooting, it's an example of a negative consequence of law abiding citizens walking around armed.

    2. The old man has also incurred costs upon himself. The prospect of a civil litigation and its attendent expense is real. He (and his family) have to worry about that. Also, the shooter has to resolve the cognitive dissonance he is experience over having pulled the trigger. That's a cost with a wide range of intensity. Might be low, might be high. It's also affected by what he knows in his own head about his intentions vs. actions.

    People who shoot people in the head don't usuallyfeel good about having done it. Normal people don't, anyway. That may be the biggest cost incurred, after all is said and done...

  10. #10
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    Why are you berating the man. 1. He had a gun. 2. He used it to defend himself and his wife. 3. He and wife are fine not injured. 4. Bad guy in jail. What ever he said after is moot. All is OK end of story............
    I agree that it was a good shoot, but what he said afterwards is NOT moot......it could lead to the person getting charges pressed against him or civil litigation......remember that everything you say and do can and WILL be used against you in a court of law.......this story may not be over.....
    Hardly a "good" shoot. The old man shot a guy in the head he didn't mean to shoot at all.

    It looks like no charges will be assessedagainst him, so in that sense it is "good," sure.

    But the event shows two things:

    1. By shooting a man in the head that he didn't mean to shoot, the old man undeniably handled the attack incompetently. Therefore, he has unnecessarily incurred costs on the shootee and upon society. We have to pay the shootee's medical expenses, for example. Since it was an incompetently handled self-defense shooting, it's an example of a negative consequence of law abiding citizens walking around armed.

    2. The old man has also incurred costs upon himself. The prospect of a civil litigation and its attendent expense is real. He (and his family) have to worry about that. Also, the shooter has to resolve the cognitive dissonance he is experience over having pulled the trigger. That's a cost with a wide range of intensity. Might be low, might be high. It's also affected by what he knows in his own head about his intentions vs. actions.

    People who shoot people in the head don't usuallyfeel good about having done it. Normal people don't, anyway. That may be the biggest cost incurred, after all is said and done...
    Dead is dead. A person is not any more dead from a fatal head shot or one to the heart. The only sad part here is the old man misspoke when he said he did not mean to shoot the bad guy. Officer, I was in fear of my wife's and my life. I acted accordingly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    <snip>People who shoot people in the head don't usuallyfeel good about having done it. Normal people don't, anyway. That may be the biggest cost incurred, after all is said and done...<snip>
    Is this another axiom Hank T? Also, is swinging a glass bottle make the person armed. I would really hate for this old man to be guilty of your axiom of "It is bad to shoot an unarmed person."

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    Why are you berating the man. 1. He had a gun. 2. He used it to defend himself and his wife. 3. He and wife are fine not injured. 4. Bad guy in jail. What ever he said after is moot. All is OK end of story............
    I agree that it was a good shoot, but what he said afterwards is NOT moot......it could lead to the person getting charges pressed against him or civil litigation......remember that everything you say and do can and WILL be used against you in a court of law.......this story may not be over.....
    Hardly a "good" shoot. The old man shot a guy in the head he didn't mean to shoot at all.

    It looks like no charges will be assessedagainst him, so in that sense it is "good," sure.

    But the event shows two things:

    1. By shooting a man in the head that he didn't mean to shoot, the old man undeniably handled the attack incompetently. Therefore, he has unnecessarily incurred costs on the shootee and upon society. We have to pay the shootee's medical expenses, for example. Since it was an incompetently handled self-defense shooting, it's an example of a negative consequence of law abiding citizens walking around armed.

    2. The old man has also incurred costs upon himself. The prospect of a civil litigation and its attendent expense is real. He (and his family) have to worry about that. Also, the shooter has to resolve the cognitive dissonance he is experience over having pulled the trigger. That's a cost with a wide range of intensity. Might be low, might be high. It's also affected by what he knows in his own head about his intentions vs. actions.

    People who shoot people in the head don't usuallyfeel good about having done it. Normal people don't, anyway. That may be the biggest cost incurred, after all is said and done...
    Dead is dead. A person is not any more dead from a fatal head shot or one to the heart. The only sad part here is the old man misspoke when he said he did not mean to shoot the bad guy. Officer, I was in fear of my wife's and my life. I acted accordingly.
    I don't know what "Dead is dead" means. The point is that, based on a very credible source, a guy got shot in the head unintentionally.

    That's bad.

    As far as the shooter having "misspoke," well, he didn't misspeak if that was the truth.

    If he really and trulyunintentionally shot the guy in the head, that's bad.

    Regardless of what he says after the incident, it's still bad.

    And that's why there are costs. For you, me and him. And his family. Bad is bad.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    if someone causes me so much fear i draw, i'm going to hope till the last minute i don't need to shoot... if in the moments between then i decide to put a bullet in his general direction (my only shot at another was in the general direction... and it stopped the problem) and i miss the 'general direction' and hit him, well heck! i gave every warning i could, if you got me to that point and i was freaked out enough to pull my gun you can't expect me to handle my weapon with complete regard to you're safety, my gun comming out has put the aggressors safety at the bottom of the list of my concern (somewhere under "is the milk in the fridge going to go bad tomorrow?")

    the guy should be happy he's in the hospital and not the morgue.
    (and i appologize in advance if he does end up in the morgue for the remark that might not settle well with you, and believe me wouldn't with me).

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Personally i think this is ********! They were already in there car. Why didn't they drive away? But no, they had to pull out a GUN! and take away an innocent mans life. I hope their conscience eats at them for the rest of their lives and they can't eat or sleep because of what they did... to my uncle.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    ever feel like you're being treated like a trout.... sure smells like power BAIT to me

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I didn't know he had died. I hunted around the internet a little bit, but couldn't find anything except older reports thathe was in serious condition.

    I did come across one story that provided backround.If true, he is far from innocent. He has quite a history: http://tinyurl.com/ywgk48 Excerpt:

    "Kneer has a criminal record going back 20 years, with more than 50 arrests in that time and multiple convictions for theft, trespassing, drug violations and robbery in King, Snohomish and Chelan counties.

    He was released last month from the Chelan County Regional Justice Center, where he had been since his arrest in January on suspicion of second-degree robbery.

    He was well-known to Chelan County deputies, Harum said, and was typically combative with them. He said that when deputies had to handle a call involving Kneer, "you made sure you had a second person there."

    I suspect he scaredMr. Shawthoroughly.




    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Typical anti. If they had some merit to argue, they wouldn't need the use of "look at me" text.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    sece wrote:
    Personally i think this is ********! They were already in there car. Why didn't they drive away? But no, they had to pull out a GUN! and take away an innocent mans life. I hope their conscience eats at them for the rest of their lives and they can't eat or sleep because of what they did... to my uncle.


    Personally, and by all means, if this was your uncle don't be offended, but that seemed like a bad punchline to me. It's like you either were trying to get shock value using "...", or your total ******** just trying to get reactions out of us.




  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    sece, I understand why you are here. You obviously have the wrong idea about us. You night notice from the other threads that we are very critical of nearly any shooting and very skeptical of the shooter nearly all the time. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because we are avid gun owners, we support anyone that uses a gun to hurt another person. It is quite the opposite. We do not condone violence in this group, and support being proactive about avoiding such situations. We don't run around playing batman and looking for "criminals" to punish. We try very hard to avoid these situations at the cost of our dignity and our money. I'm sure most people on this forum would recommend handing the robber your wallet over shooting him, in a stereotypical mugging situation. We are only interested in defending our lives and the lives of those that we care about, so please reconsider your opinion about who we are. We are not the bloodthirsty group that you seem to be mistaking us for.

    Please also notice that a lot of people on this thread in particular are calling the shooter's judgement and proper gun handling into question. We aren't saying "oh, well he used a gun so he has my support." We're very skeptical of what he did and are questioning whether the situation warranted such an extreme display of force.

    Please take this into consideration and think about it from a different perspective for just a moment. I hope that you can see that you may have had the wrong idea about us. And before you take too strong of a stance for or against guns for self defense, please post on your home state's forum asking someone to take you shooting. I'm sure any of us would love the opportunity to let you see for yourself first hand before making a decision about guns.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Typical anti. If they had some merit to argue, they wouldn't need the use of "look at me" text.
    Is Washington an Effort-to-Retreat state, or is it a Stand-Your-Ground state? If it is a Stand-Your-Ground state then the man acted well within his right.

    And if it is an Effort-to-Retreat state, is there an exception for property and, even more relevant, vehicles? Some states don't require you to attempt to retreat from/with your vehicle if being attacked in it because, for all intents and purposes, it is considered a mobile abode.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Notice how the troll referred to the shooter as "they" and "them." I suppose all of the millions of gun owners are responsible over the slaying of a nut by another nut. Not to mention we don't even know whether or not he actually died.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    nickerj1 wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    Typical anti. If they had some merit to argue, they wouldn't need the use of "look at me" text.
    Is Washington an Effort-to-Retreat state, or is it a Stand-Your-Ground state? If it is a Stand-Your-Ground state then the man acted well within his right.

    And if it is an Effort-to-Retreat state, is there an exception for property and, even more relevant, vehicles? Some states don't require you to attempt to retreat from/with your vehicle if being attacked in it because, for all intents and purposes, it is considered a mobile abode.
    There's no effort-to-retreat statute that I'm aware of. Still, I think he should have tried before shooting the guy.

  23. #23
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    I am used to the laws in my home state. NC is one of those weird states where self defense force cannot exceed assault force, unless your life is in serious danger and you have no way to retreat. It would be hard to justify shooting someone from inside your car when allhe had was a bottle. I don't even think I can justify it without additional information. However, had he pulled the gun and not used it, the hitchhiker would have remembered his plate # andcalled 911 to report abrandishing.Life is full of hard choices. Let's hope this man can live with the one he made.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •