Follow-up to story of the kid shot & killed for a bale of hay

I happen to read this paper every day so I told folks I would post additional information as it was printed.
Original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2058086&mesg_id=2058086

Here's today's report:

http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/articles/2007/10/16/news/local_news/1news_17shooting.txt
(excerpt)
Scioto County Sheriff Marty Donini said 17-year-old Nathaniel Kennedy and 18-year-old Jared Fyffe had been in Sinking Springs, early on Sunday, running their hunting dog.

They reportedly were told of a hunting lodge on Upper Twin Creek where they could do some target practice. The boys drove to the lodge and found the club closed.

Then they noticed a bale of straw behind the building and decided to take it down the road to do some shooting in an old field.

According to reports, a nearby neighbor, Eric Whisman, 35, saw the boys taking the bale of straw and fired a warning shot with his gun, which frightened the boys away. A little farther down the road, Kennedy said he thought he had been shot in the back. He pulled his vehicle over and got out to lie down in a field while Fyffe ran to a nearby home to call 911....

MORE

So they'd been out with their dog, wanting to practice shooting, and they saw an old straw bale lying around. I guess they figured they wouldn't be hurting anything if they used it. Probably never occurred to those boys that anyone would shoot a person in the back over something like that.


:cry:

To be buried in his basketball uniform by his grieving parents. All for a stupid furking bale of hay!!

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/NEWS01/710170304

:sarcasm:

I think the parents will be filing a major lawsuit. And the man who shot him should be facing a charge of at least, manslaughter.

Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have a right to use it in any situation you want.

"He was being held on $20,000 bond for the charge of murder and $15,000 bond for the charge of attempted murder."

had been listening to hip-hop, the bond would be a million dollars.

20-Grand for MURDER? Jesus.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

It just does not make sense to shoot and kill another human being for stealing something, especially in this case...tragic and very sad.

And welcome to DU :hi:

:hi:

:sarcasm:


Did you see some of the comments appended to that article?

You'd think those kids had been trying to make off with the Hope Diamond, instead of taking some ratty old straw bale that was lying around outside to mold. Under the circumstances, it probably would never have occurred to them that they were doing any harm.


But even if they'd stolen every last piece of straw in the entire world, that's nothing on shooting a kid in the back.

he should have written down the number of the kid's license plate and called the police, instead of shooting at the vehicle.

Second, it took the PRIVATE ambulance company 45 minutes to show up (it took the sheriff's deputies 22 minutes). According to the Rethugs and Libertarians, private enterprise is supposed to serve us so much better than government services..... :eyes:

Stealing is wrong, but this kid was executed without due process. (It's a heartbreaking story, IMO.)

Fired a warning shot into the boy's back.

... and dirty in the first place?

That's what eventually happens to hay and straw in a wet climate if they're not stored properly.

The boy claims they were stealing hay, yet none was in the truck. The shooter make no claim to witnessing them stealing hay. This one's going to take a while to sort out.

it's like you're all reporting from the scene!

Yea your probably right, i don't have enough experience to voice an opinion on this subject. But i would never deny another their right to voice their opinion. Very Sad.

nt

At this point in time, nobody knows for sure what happen. What we do know is a young man is dead. Now it's time for the investigator, courts and juries to determine why and how it came to this.

:-)

according to the original story's transcription of the 911 call:

"They was over there stealing hay and pointing a gun at me," Whisman continues on the call. "I shot up in the air to scare them… and they just kept pointing the gun. I shot at the bed of the truck, I wasn't trying to nobody and I hit one of them."

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2007-10-16-0004.html

:eyes:

He hit the kid in the back; that's not a "warning shot",
nor is it the likely result of an ATTEMPT to fire a warning shot.

That's "lethal force", is what it is.

Do we? At this point in time, the only thing we really know is, we don't know what really happen. To many conflicting stories that need to be sorted out.

You don't fire warning shots. Period. There simply is no such thing as a "warning shot" for anyone who is a responsible firearms owner.

There are any number of hypothetical situations in which
a "warning shot" is a valid and responsible option for
a firearms owner who values human life.

Criminals have been known to surrender after a warning shot;
that's a situation greatly preferable to killing them, IMHO.

HELLLLLLL NO. That's a good way to get yourself killed.

If you're going to use the weapon in an offensive manner, your ONLY option is to do so to eliminate (ie kill) the threat.

Armed strangers IN MY LIVING ROOM will be shot without
warning, repeatedly if necessary.
But two people "possessing firearms" isn't exactly a
justification for lethal force AT A SHOOTING RANGE,
in my opinion.

It's a lot more likely that I'd just yell
"Hey, what are you doing with that bale of hay?"

If he had yelled that, do you think ANYONE would
have been shot in this situation?

you wouldn't fire a warning shot.

1) At a shooting range, it's unlikely you'd fire at all. So...no warning shot, there.
2) Intruders in your home, you'd kill them WITHOUT a warning shot. So...no warning shot there, either.
3) Kids stealing bale of hay, you'd just yell at them. So...no warning shot, there.

Why wouldn't you fire a warning shot?

Because there's no such thing as a "warning shot"

nm

You serve 'em up, I knock 'em down.

If you intend to shoot someone.
Thats what I was taught .

You simply don't fire warning shots. There are too many variables that can take place - plus the fact that while you are firing your warning shot they may have already taken that opportunity to gun you down while your firearm is pointed skyward. All of the classes that I have taken, both Law Enforcement and NRA sanctioned all preach that you never fire "warning" shots. That said, I don't support the NRA because of their insane belief that ALL guns should be legal no matter what (and the fact that most of their members are nuts) but they have it right when it comes to tactics. You never shoot a gun unless you know precisely where that bullet is going to end up and what its going to do to get there. That's why it's standard practice for police NOT to shoot tires out of a fleeing vehicle. Too many unintended events can happen, you err on the side of caution.

Sure, some people have been deterred by "warning" shots, but discharging a firearm leaves no room for error. You have to get it right, each and every time you pull that trigger. Sadly enough, people don't consider the consequences once they pull the trigger, even on seemingly innocent things as firing down range at the gun range.

Warning shots go into the GROUND; anything else would be irresponsible.

And someone's likelyhood of "gunning me down while I fire a warning"
is a threat that -I- will assess, with my eyes and my brain, should
the situation ever arise.

And frankly, I don't look to modern-day Law Enforcement for advice
on how to AVOID shooting people who don't absolutely need to be shot.
They and their guidelines have utterly failed to establish any sort
of authoritative voice in THAT field, knowhutImean?

What's the difference, skyward or groundward? Your gun is still not trained on the target should they make a move. What if your gun jams after the shot? That does happen from time to time when one is discharged. Additionally, the ground is not a suitable place either because your "warning" shot may hit concrete/asphalt/rock and ricochet, or pass through wood and pose a threat to someone else. The variables still remain to such a degree that it's not practical or wise to take such a course of action.

As for today's law enforcement, as sad as it is, you are completely right. But the tactics and methods still remain, even though they rarely follow them. I guess in my mind and through all of my training I want to make sure I get it right and stick to the rules when it comes to the use of firearms and deadly force. Too bad that there seems to be a growing number of officers and citizens who bend those rules at every opportunity.

Egads.

Once it hits the ground, you have NO IDEA where it's going next.

I had a 1911 discharge in my backyard (faulty sear...sold that pistol immediately, with caveats) in MO. The projectile, a 230gr .45ACP Hydra Shok, hit the ground at approximately 45 degrees (about 5 feet in front of me), richoceted off a rock buried about 1" below the surface, penetrated and passed through my picnic table (home-made with 1/2" plywood), through my cooler filled with ice and sandwhiches ( :( ), and finally lodged in a tree.

A Glock .45 G.A.P. that I have had the same type of problem (albeit in the firing pin spring) and resulted in a faulty discharge at the range one afternoon. Scared me to death for one, and the ricochet off of gravel/concrete was even worse. It seemed like that round was not going to stop, passing the roof, into a beam, back through the roof and into a 6 inch thick piece of wood.

I've seen guys firing down range at 25 - 50 yards hit a rock in the ground and the round bounce off of it and travel in just about every direction imaginable. Needless to say, I was glad when they put up berms and "catchers" on the small arms range.

Sheesh. :eyes:

Although i didn't see much need for your last little comment.

He put a bullet in the kids back while the truck was traveling AWAY from him - a quarter mile away.

He had a scope. He knew exactly were he was aiming. He planted one square in the kid's back.



I was shooting at their truck to scare them and I accidentally hit one of them? What is he doing trying to "scare" someone when they are traveling AWAY from him at a quarter mile distance?

I agree, it stinks from both ends and will continue too, until all the facts come in, and it's going to take the courts to do that.

what happened and convict someone in their own minds before the FACTS of the case are known isn't it?

You may think he's some great hero protecting America from the Hay Bale Bandits, but to the rest of us, he's a hairtrigger yahoo who killed someone for absolutely no reason.

What an idiotic thing to say. Where have i defended the shooters action in either thread about this case. All i've done is point out that their are to differing statements about what took place and both have to be heard. That's what courts are for. Everybody get their time to present their case, and judges and juries decide innocence or guilt.

You have made that all too clear. You aren't worth the time.

Then go play somewhere else.

That's the reason why I would never join the NRA. It's full of people like this who live by the motto "shoot first, ask questions later". I've got so many stories I could tell about these idiots from my time on the range, LE qualifications, tac shoots, etc. but they are a scary, scary bunch.

Interestingly enough, the NRA itself teaches in all of its courses that you don't fire randomly or for warning. A firearm is not a warning device. It is a lethal weapon intended for killing - not for disabling, warning, celebration, etc. You never draw it unless you intend to use it and you never fire at something unless you intend to kill it. For anyone in this thread to suggest that this guy should be somehow let off because he didn't mean to kill the kid is just downright, blatantly pathetic.

(oh, and this wasn't directed to you, just for clarities sake)

at least the gist of it. While I wasn't a gun owner myself except for a brief period of time, I've been trained in their use, in the Boy Scouts as a kid and later by the police, I agree with your post 100%.

Duh. Taking a bale of straw for practice when no one seemed around sounds like something kids do. Shooting them, even if they've got their dog and their guns, is beyond the pale.

That you apparently think that protecting a bale of hay was any excuse to take a child's life.

And exactly where have i said that?

Stop playing people for fools.

Since when is rationalizing a bad thing, especially when you have conflicting statements that must proven true or false in a court of law. I can assure you all angles of this case will be scrutinized, and all angles of defence will be tried. Thankfully the courts don't rely on knee-jerk reaction and emotion to decide guilt or innocence.

It seems you're bending over backwards in defense of the shooter, all the while claiming "we don't know all the facts."

And sorry, this former Texas resident is not overly impressed with the fact that you were a judge in Texas. I've seen too much Texas justice to be overly impressed.

My only defence for him has been his right to have his side of the story told and judged, and all parts of this case to be investigated.


"And sorry, this former Texas resident is not overly impressed with the fact that you were a judge in Texas. I've seen too much Texas justice to be overly impressed. "




I take it the right to a fair trial doesn't impress you either.

We were lucky to have some acreage for my stepbrothers to hunt, and then they had the family's farm to hunt on, too. No need to go anywhere else.

was pointing a gun at the murderer.

he shot a boy in the back who couldn't have been pointing a gun at him.

Yet another reason the murderer should have called the police instead of trying to be a cowboy.

He (the shooter) apparently fired a warning shot in the air first - what would make those kids think that it would be a good idea to pull their rifles and point them at the guy? The shooter meant business when he came out of the house apparently and proved it by firing the gun in the air. So why would those boys think that they would be able to get out of there alive if they had pulled their own weapons? Sure, it's possible, but not likely. The fact that a kid was hit in the back (and there was no exchange of gun fire, it was all coming from the shooter) is proof enough that the guy didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Additionally, I find it extremely odd that this guy waited 20 minutes before he called the cops to report that he had fired shots at these kids. If he had thought it was just a "warning", why didn't he call the cops right away since the theft of hay bales is apparently so important to him that he would use deadly force? Think he called the cops when he heard sirens (that would match the time frame) and thought to himself that he might ought to explain his idiotic Rambo episode? Then he concocted the story that they were threatening him with a gun as if to excuse himself of any responsibility.

......kid was lying after being shot. He saw what he had done so he walked back home to call the police on himself.

He had a few minutes to concoct that weak-assed story about them pointing weapons at him and/or being scarred and/or firing a warning shot.

the boy was shot in the back. Period.

Heck, my stepbrothers hunted from the age of 12 on. Their dad always had bird dogs, and they would practice with their shotguns and such. I could totally see this happening to my stepbrothers when they were kids.

It's just bad all around. Why that guy fired a "warning shot" I'll never know.

it was safe practice to fire bullet into hay so would not go off and do damage elsewhere

Deer season's coming up, so's pheasant and turkey seasons. What's wrong with practice? And even though hay's expensive right now, straw (as per the article) sure as heck isn't.

but this is my boys and their fathers thing. the big one, is SAFe. always safe. and i watch how well they have been taught and how responsible and serious they are on SAFE. and having something that absorbs the bullet is what they automatically and consciously go to.

I don't like hunting season because you'll get these yahoos out there who sit in a blind and drink all day and then shoot anything that moves. Responsible and safe hunters are good for the environment (culling the population) and good for society. Your boys sound like they know how to be responsible and safe and are growing up to be good hunters and great men. :)

"He was being held on $20,000 bond for the charge of murder and $15,000 bond for the charge of attempted murder."

Warning shots? What the hell is that?

You only shoot at somebody if you want to KILL THEM.

Not at the guys. That's entirely different.

When you use a firearm in any OFFENSIVE manner, you do so to kill and not warn. A firearm is not some sort of alarm, horn, bell, or other warning device: it is a weapon when used, in any fashion, against humans.

What goes up must come down.

Never pull your gun unless you intend to use it.

Never point your gun at anything you do not intend to kill.

Those two rules rule out the "warning shot."

I've seen people here fire away from people up into the air (at an angle, so it doesn't come down on them) as a warning shot. Granted, I grew up in rural Michigan surrounded by hunters and all, but I'm not sure what the law actually says.

Never Fire warning shots.

A .22 rimfire (a weak gun) fired up in the air can land a bullet up to FOUR MILES away with enough velocity left to kill.

That is why there are laws against ALL weapon discharges within the city limits of almost all cities in the USA.

Doesn't mean people followed it. ;)

Where did you grow up? I grew up in the Mason/Dansville area southeast of Lansing.

I'd move there if I could, but with Hubby's family in Cleveland, Battle Creek is enough of a drive as it is. *sigh*

...instead of just accepting that notion.

I own firearms and even have a concealed carry permit. The first thing you are taught is that when you level your gun at someone, you better damn well be sure that you are ready, willing, and able to kill that target. You don't fire randomly to "scare" someone or to "warn" them away - you run the risk of hurting yourself and innocent bystanders if you start to get fancy with your shooting. And one of the cardinal rules of responsible firearms use is that you NEVER shoot blindly into the air and you never shoot without knowing precisely where your bullet is going to travel, what it is going to travel through, and where it will end up.

The article states that the kid was in the truck already when the second shot was fired. The shooter was firing at the truck, this was no accident. He may have thought that he was just gunning for the tires or the truck bed, but once he leveled it and fired, he took the chance that his aim might not be so great and he could hit one of those kids. He claimed that the kids leveled guns at him - which in my opinion is bullshit - if they had leveled guns at him he could have fired at them while they were doing that. But instead, he fired at them when they got into the truck and were driving away. Those kids never fired a shot, which is interesting since he claims that they were yelling at him and threatening him with a gun.

The killer probably came out of his house with a vengeance, shouting and waving his gun around. Probably fired a round into the air, and the boys took off - and rightfully so. For good measure, he fires a round at the truck and it kills this kid. Lock this guy up and throw away the key.

*edited for clarity, spelling*

as a gun owner and user (target only) since I was a child, you are right.

If the kids had rifles (hunting, right?) how could they "brandish" at the guy while in a truck? Defies physics, unless they are pointing out a side window, which would be stupid.

Something fishy about his statements...

While the sheriff's office was investigating the response time Tuesday, Kennedy's Chillicothe High School baseball coach Marty Dunn was preparing a uniform to take to Kennedy's mother. She plans to bury him in the uniform, Dunn said.

"He was a kid who was really hyped up about playing and being part of the team ... He was a great teammate," Dunn said. "He was always willing to be there, helping out for whatever it was ... He loved being part of something, part of something positive, being part of something bigger than himself."

Kennedy's family moved to Chillicothe last year from Pike County and although Kennedy immediately began schooling at Pickaway Ross Career and Technology Center, he joined the CHS baseball team. Both schools have groups of students facing double losses. Kennedy was a senior in the electricity program at Pickaway Ross, the same program 18-year-old Lex E. "Bucky" Hawk III was in. Hawk died Sept. 23 from injuries sustained in a car crash. Kennedy's teammates also lost a former teammate and friend in December 2006 when CHS graduate Chaz Kaltenbach, 19, was shot and killed after a party in Columbus.
http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/B8/20071017/NEWS01/710170304/1002

Those gun advocates who think that the world will be safer if everyone is armed lack imagination. Incidents like this will be common place, because every disagreement has the potential to escalate to tragedy.

And even if you did take guns out of the equation, there's still always that one vindictive asshole who would beat someone to death over something of little or no value.

It's an attitude problem, not a gun problem.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners, who are honest with themselves and leave politics out of it, would denounce what this guy did and want to hold him accountable. He broke several of the cardinal rules of firearm ownership just in that one episode that tragically cost this kid his life.

As I eluded to in another post, the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is pervasive throughout the NRA fringe. I call them the fringe because their are a great number of firearms owners who don't belong to their organization because they don't represent the true sentiment of those of us who take firearms seriously. They believe that deadly force is sanctioned and necessary whenever they feel threatened, no matter the circumstance. If you can stomach it, look over their propaganda magazines, American Rifleman and America's First Freedom. They both have little to do with firearms or tactics, but about advancing the propaganda that "DEMOCRATS HATE GUNS THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR AWAY!" and promoting an agenda for the legalization of pretty much any gun you can imagine. They trumpet incidents like these in their monthly columns about gun owners who have used their guns to protect themselves (in fairness, most are legitimate circumstances, others are much more speculative), whether right or wrong. They are the very definition of hipocrisy - they teach responsible ownership, methods, and tactics in classes yet preach "FREE GUNS FOR ALL!" to everyone else.

It's not the gun, it's the mindset.

But an attitude with a gun can. And yes, people get beaten all the time, but with guns it's so much faster, so much harder to stop, and so much more lethal.

For the record, I'm not a ban-the-guns person. I don't like them myself, but I can go along with the idea that a law-abiding person, carefully background-checked and perhaps licensed in the way drivers are, should be allowed to keep a gun for protection or hunting.

BUT I disagree strongly with the idea that if everyone had guns, we'd all be safe n cozy.

The answer to ending gun violence will never be MORE GUNS!

he was NO THREAT when he was shot.

And here is where the defence will lose their case. Even if the last shot was just an unlucky hit, especially if it was taken at 1/4 mile ( 440 yards) at a moving vehicle, there was no justification for it.

PORTSMOUTH - A man shot and killed a teenager who stole a bale of straw from a piece of property used by a shooting club for target practice, authorities said ...

Whisman told authorities that he is the property's caretaker ...

Kennedy and a friend, Jarrod Fyffe, 18, also of Chillicothe, went to the site Sunday for some target shooting but found the premises closed and no one around. They saw the straw bale and put it in the vehicle. A shot rang out as they drove off, Donini said. A second shot hit the pickup's bed, went through the driver's seat and hit Kennedy in the back ...

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/NEWS01/710160377

at Halloween to "appropriate" one of the few remaining outhouses in the area and a bunch of straw bales (no fires, please) to put in the middle of Main Street. You could watch the teens running around trying to hide from the police in the dark. No one ever did anything that was vandalism or permanent damage. I guess there are some here who think shooting them would not have been excessive or unjustified?

IF the kid was genuinely hit by a "warning shot," this wouldn't be the first time this has ever happened. From both a civil and criminal standpoint (not to mention a safety standpoint), warning shots are generally a bad idea for civilians (both police and the non-LEO variety). They're an even dumber idea if you are pointing the gun in an unsafe direction when you do so.

Given the distance, color me skeptical, unless the "warning shot" was fired at a closer range. Given the statistics of areas, a hit at 440 yards from a single unaimed shot would be statistically quite remarkable. I suspect he was probably aiming at the truck.

Oh, wait...

RIP, Nathaniel.

http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/articles/2007/10/18/news/obituaries/obituary_kennedy.txt

Nathaniel Kennedy, 17

Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:01 AM EDT

Nathaniel Wade Kennedy, 17, of Chillicothe, went to be with his Lord Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007. He was born Oct. 26, 1989, in Maysville, Ky., a beloved son of Roger Kennedy and Marge Sparks, of Lucasville, and Bonnie Hayslip, of Chillicothe.

Nathaniel loved the great outdoors, he loved to hunt and fish. He loved to play baseball, spending time with his dad, and family and friends.

He is survived by a sister, Breanna Kennedy; grandparents, Barbara and Dave Mandery; grandfather, Carl Kennedy; grandmother, Loretta Elderidge; aunts and uncles, Vickie and Tim Bivens, Brenda and Jack Smith, Patty and Wayne Harper; cousins, Michael, Chad Holsinger, Cassie, Erica, Travis Sigler, Andrea Smith, Brent Harper and Renee King; and a number of great aunts and uncles, and second cousins.

He was preceded in death by his grandfather, Douglas Hayslip.

Funeral services will take place at 3 p.m. Friday, Oct. 19, 2007, at Ware Funeral Home in Chillicothe. Callers 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the funeral home.

10/18/07

The "getting out of the truck to lie down" part smells ..

Letting your friend "lie down in a field" while you "run" to knock on anonymous doors to call 911, seems a bit "off the mark" too..

If the vehicle ran, why not take it and your friend to a place to GET help.. That would take a lot less time..

Whatever the whole story is, the overarching fact is this.... Teenagers can no loonger do the silly pranks that once used to go unnoticed. The grownups seem to be armed & triggerhappy..

I hope that every parent sat down with their teens after this happened ...and explained it to their own teens..

The movies present a freewheeling atmosphere for teens that no longer exists. When I was a teen, we DID stuff like that, and even when caught, we would get sent on our way after a stern "talking-to", but never got arrested, shot at, or run off the road.. Times are different now..