Don't bring a flashlight to a gunfight...

Man shot: possible road-rage incident
In Lake Stevens confrontation, alleged assailant also injured
By Eric Stevick, Herald Writer

LAKE STEVENS — One man was shot in the chest and another was hit in the head with a flashlight after an apparent road-rage confrontation in Lake Stevens on Wednesday night.

Both men were taken to hospitals.

Both suffered serious but not life-threatening injuries, Detective Jeff Lambier said Thursday.

Detectives from the Lake Stevens Police Department said they believe the assault was the result of a road-rage incident that occurred between the two men in the Frontier Village area around 8:45 p.m.

Patrol officers were called out on a report of an assault with a weapon at the intersection of North Davies Road and 96th Ave Northeast.

Bystanders called 911 after watching a 25-year-old Snohomish man get out of a Toyota truck and assault the driver of a Subaru with a flashlight, police said.

The Subaru driver, also 25, from Lake Stevens, then grabbed a gun and shot the other man in the chest, according to police reports.

The man who was shot was first taken to Providence Regional Medical Center Everett and then transported to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. The other man was taken to Providence to be treated for head injuries.

“The investigation is ongoing,” Lambier said.


http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20101230/NEWS01/712309805






Sad thing is, these morons are blaming the guy for defending himself... Saying 'flashlights don't kill people, but guns do'... :banghead: .. I'd like to see them take a maglite to the skull...

Moronic brainwashing, guns don't kill people, people do.

Sounds like self defense to me. However, while the man with the flashlight was out of his truck, why didn't the other man just leave? If I see someone coming at my vehicle with a weapon OTHER THAN A GUN, and the way was clear for me to leave, that's what I would do, while calling 911. Even if they had a gun, I would try to leave. If things are happening too fast for that, then I would draw my weapon. I'm not criticizing, I wasn't there, and the details are sketchy at best. I was taught that if you can possibly avoid a confrontation, do so.

This sounds like self defense -- but, since details are spotty -- why didn't the guy with the gun just drive off? If he had no other way to defend himself other than to shoot pending serious harm to himself, then I see nothing wrong with the shooting. But if he could use his car to flee instead of confronting the guy, then why not do so? In states with solid Castle Doctrine laws -- standing your ground would have been perfectly fine. But since this encounter occurred in Washington, where self defense laws are pretty grey -- the better course could have been to disengage if it was available. I certainly advocate standing your ground when depending on the situation. But other options could have been wiser in this case. But -- I could be wrong. I am just drawing a conclusion based on what I know.

acmariner99 said:

This sounds like self defense -- but, since details are spotty -- why didn't the guy with the gun just drive off? If he had no other way to defend himself other than to shoot pending serious harm to himself, then I see nothing wrong with the shooting. But if he could use his car to flee instead of confronting the guy, then why not do so? In states with solid Castle Doctrine laws -- standing your ground would have been perfectly fine. But since this encounter occurred in Washington, where self defense laws are pretty grey -- the better course could have been to disengage if it was available. I certainly advocate standing your ground when depending on the situation. But other options could have been wiser in this case. But -- I could be wrong. I am just drawing a conclusion based on what I know.

Click to expand...

Could be that vehicular extraction was blocked.

I don't think that piece of information is known. If it was blocked, I would see his actions as justifiable. But in the meantime, I think its better to get more information.

acmariner99 said:

This sounds like self defense -- but, since details are spotty -- why didn't the guy with the gun just drive off? If he had no other way to defend himself other than to shoot pending serious harm to himself, then I see nothing wrong with the shooting. But if he could use his car to flee instead of confronting the guy, then why not do so? In states with solid Castle Doctrine laws -- standing your ground would have been perfectly fine. But since this encounter occurred in Washington, where self defense laws are pretty grey -- the better course could have been to disengage if it was available. I certainly advocate standing your ground when depending on the situation. But other options could have been wiser in this case. But -- I could be wrong. I am just drawing a conclusion based on what I know.

Click to expand...

You practically repeated what I said in my post. Washington is a stand your ground state. Self defense laws here in Washington are NOT "pretty grey" at all. You must be in fear of grave bodily harm or death. If someone were coming at me with a huge flashlight and managed to hit me, I would be justified in using deadly force. The question I have in this particular case, which is not yet known, is whether or not the shooter did anything to escalate the encounter. If he did, he may not be able to claim self defense.

This happened in Washington state so he had no duty to retreat. We have no idea if retreat was possible.
Don't beat on people with flashlights.

Ruby said:

You practically repeated what I said in my post. Washington is a stand your ground state. Self defense laws here in Washington are NOT "pretty grey" at all. You must be in fear of grave bodily harm or death. If someone were coming at me with a huge flashlight and managed to hit me, I would be justified in using deadly force. The question I have in this particular case, which is not yet known, is whether or not the shooter did anything to escalate the encounter. If he did, he may not be able to claim self defense.

Click to expand...

I know my flashlight is sturdy enough to be considered a substantial weapon. The possibilities of injury infliction range from mild bruising to broken skulls. Just depends on use.:uhoh:

Reread the article. If it is accurate, the DA that tries to prosecute the fellow without the flashlight is stepping in some deep dodo.

If someone came at me with a flashlight I will shoot him dead on the spot. Considering that he was the agressor in this case and struck this person in the head first. No matter how you look at it the person with the flashlight he had a deadly weapon and intended to use it for that purpose. Regardless of whether it was doing night or daytime! Its plain and simple-self defense.

I carry a gun and a flash light. But I don't shoot people with the gun, and I don't hit people with the flash light. That all changes when I have to defend myself...

Too many un-knowns... if the shooter was verbally instigating... if the excape route to just drive away was blocked...

Hope it was a justifiable self-defence situation... anything else, and it's bad publicity... and my bad spelling doesn't help!

Dieselcrawler your spelling is fine. Lol-We know what you mean and that is no disrespect to you!

I am just happy to see someone driving a Subaru armed! Do you think there was an Obama sticker on his car?

The flashlight arguably can be a deadly weapon. If you're boxed-in, stuck in traffic and someone is walking toward your car in an excited manner with a flashlight held in a menacing manner... take steps to prepare to defend yourself. If he's carrying it down by his side, and perfectly calm, there may be another reason for him carrying it... you could have something hanging down from under your car.

If my right elbow is a deadly weapon, certainly a flashlight held in my right hand would be one. Thus, what the perp did was assault with a deadly weapon. What the defendant did was defend himself against a deadly assault. If there's no duty to retreat in Wa., why is the investigation "ongoing?"

Quite possibly, to secure stronger testimony from eyewitnesses to help ensure flashlight psycho doesn't get off on a technicality.

OldCurlyWolf said:

I know my flashlight is sturdy enough to be considered a substantial weapon. The possibilities of injury infliction range from mild bruising to broken skulls. Just depends on use.:uhoh:

Reread the article. If it is accurate, the DA that tries to prosecute the fellow without the flashlight is stepping in some deep dodo.

Click to expand...

I would agree DEPENDING upon the timing....

Person with flashlight hits.... Person who got hit gets his gun and then shoots--- probably NOT justified!

Person with flashlight hits.... person with a gun defends himself as the altercation proceeds then PROBABLY JUSTIFIED
The above is based upon my understanding of applicable law and is based ONLY upon the information given in this post by me!