Kenneth Rowles, 50, was charged in Ohio with felonious assault after he shot at two teenagers who had knocked over his McCain campaign sign. Patrick Wise, 16, had kicked the sign and then ran to a waiting SUV. Rowles fired a rifle three times at their fleeing SUV, hitting the vehicle all three times and wounding Kyree Flowers, 17.
The incident occurred on October 28th when the teenagers kicked over the sign and Wise yelled, “This is for Obama.” Rowles then went off the deep end and grabbed his rifle.
Rowles’ conduct after the shooting is equally reprehensible. Rather than reporting the shooting where he clearly shattering the window of the vehicle and likely injured the teenagers, Rowles called to report earlier incidents of being vandalized. It seems clear that he realized that he was a moron looking at a criminal charge and wanted to build a case for his actions.
One cannot protect property — even McCain signs — with force calculated to cause serious bodily injury or death. Even under castle doctrines, this would be fit the definition of protecting a domicile. This is why (in addition to basic dictated of morality and logic) that Obama supporters have been arming themselves with video cameras to combat the same problem. It has been much more effective in dealing with people in this country who cannot express their political views without trying to silence the views of others. While these are teenagers, they are old enough to know better. That is not however an invitation for gunning them down in the name of political speech.
His best hope is a pardon if McCain wins, but I would not count on it either way this election goes. However, he will be allowed to vote since any conviction would occur after the election.
For the criminal complaint, click here.
For the full story, click here.
I too discriminate against crazy. Evil also makes the list. I also have a recipe for a great dip for people with chips on their shoulders. It’s a secret, but I can share it here since mespo seems to be serving it anyway. Take 2 cups sour cream and mix it with 1 1/2 big cups of Get Over Yourself. Salt and pepper to taste. Chill overnight. Serve with crow and a side of humility. I’d suggest a wine but some may take the color as racism and there seems to be plenty of whine to go around.
Mentioning race isn’t racism. Sometimes it’s merely factual. Making an issue of race at the slightest provocation? If that’s not racism, it’s classic baiting and reflexive – neither of which benefit anyone and often make the speaker look as racist as those he attacks.
The key issue here isn’t the parties skin color. That’s pure troll bait. The issue is that some half-witted jackass with a gun decided to shoot at kids for defacing a paper/plastic sign because pulling a trigger is easier than being a man about it. In court, his motive is largely irrelevant unless the specifics of what he is charged with have a mens rea component in the local jurisdiction. Outside of court, his motives re: race are almost totally irrelevant as well. The fact is he shot at other humans over a piece of advertising. It’s not like he was shooting at armed intruders or was in mortal danger. If you’re screaming “Race!” over this, you really are missing the point. Racism is the least of this moron’s problems.
janolan:
You got me. I do discriminate against crazy, middle aged white guys who shoot at black kids for stealing their signs. Call me crazy! And lest we deduce unwarranted patterns from McCain supporters, show me the scores of black faces at his rallies. Nope very few. Mentioning the race of people isn’t racism; shooting at people of a different race because of that fact is racism. Simple rules for your simple take on things!
jonolan said:
Your racism was showcased by, “The point is that McCain supporters tend to be the angry, middle age, white guy who are sometimes prone to this kind of excess.”
The automatic assumption of behavior patterns based on race is a key component of racism. You obviously suffer from it, much to your shame.”
Oh snaps! He’s right! Assumption of behavior patterns based on race IS racism.
Dang so I did not start reading this thread planning on agreeing with him.
Still though? Before with Ms. Todd? Wishing she’d burn in hell? Wow. She made a bad mistake but I don’t wish bad things on people, only justice and wisdom.
The latter is punishment enough sometimes.
Nope, Mespo,
Your racism was showcased by, “The point is that McCain supporters tend to be the angry, middle age, white guy who are sometimes prone to this kind of excess.”
The automatic assumption of behavior patterns based on race is a key component of racism. You obviously suffer from it, much to your shame.
janolan:
“There was no useful purpose to mentioning the vandals’ race except to race the specter of racism being a motive in the property owner’s response.”
**********************
I find it wonderful to be accused of racism for pointing out racism. To most of us, pointing out the likelihood of insidious motivation, is reason enough, but perhaps you care to defend the homeowner since he has indeed shown himself to be a reasonable man.
rafflaw:
“as an aside, whenever I see the word “domicile” I think of “Shooter” in the movie “Hoosiers” who referred to his house in the woods as his “domicile”.”
*************
I think he pronounced it as his dome-i-cile. Don’t have the exact clip but here’s a good one from the movie with Dennis Hopper running the ol’ “picket fence”:
rafflaw:
“I am a middle aged, white guy who is an Obama supporter and I haven’t torn any McCain signs down.”
***********
Me too. Generalities are useful for arguments but make for bad individual decisions.
I really don’t see the point of destroying the other party’s signs. It’s not like people are going to change their minds just because someone ruins their signs.
“Oh no! They’ve cut up my Obama sign! I had better just vote for McCain now!” Or vice versa.
Seriously, the guy was wrong to shoot at the kids, it was a dumb move on his part. Instead, he should have gotten several McCain signs to replace it. Act like an adult; be the bigger person.
We had a group of teens that went around switching people’s sign of who they were supporting, something I thought was rather funny. It didn’t hurt anyone. And people got over it.
Jonolan,
I’m surprised that your first response to two people being shot is to find fault in the reporting of the incident. The reporter mentioned that Mr. Rowles used race as a description of a person who was committing a crime. That’s why race is mentioned. It’s not part of a conspiracy to make all McCain supporters look racist, it’s good reporting.
If you read an article on a robbery that said “Mr. Smith reported that the two men who robbed his store were white and around 6 feet tall” most people wouldn’t assume that the reporter was trying to imply that Mr. Smith had something against white people.
Big Fella has it right, this isn’t about politics or race. I don’t pretend to be privy to Prof. Turley’s thoughts, but I would think that this was posted mainly as a way of discussing both gun issues and property rights. Both of which are reoccurring themes on this blog.
MASkeptic,
The two reports and their coverage are quite different. Ms. Todd – may she rot in Hell someday – made the case at least partially about race when she made her police report. Therefore it was reported that way in the news. BTW: she never to my knowledge claimed sexual assault, which is somewhat surprising all things considered.
In the Rowles case there was no valid objective reason for CNN to mention the race of the vandals.
Another commonplace lunatic in Ohio, who settles things with gunfire.
Ho-hum…anything new to report?
jonolan
I agree with what you say about raising the spectre of race, it reminds me of the recent reports I saw on Fox that a white female campain worker for McCain was physically and sexually assaulted by a black male Obama supporter.
Honestly sometimes I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.
Similar to an observation I made on another blog recently (commenting on an item about the 8 year old kid who was killed when his parents let him shoot an uzi), there is no law that prevents morons from owning guns.
The play this incident is getting in the media has nothing to do with politics or racism, as some commenting above imply, it has everything to do with bringing stupidity to light, so that an aware public might not repeat it, something that unfortunately seems to have be periodically reinforced with the public.
Vaguely reminiscent of the time Gussy Force shot some guy in his driveway making off with his back porch refrigerator.
He did a stretch in Rockview for that one…something about reasonable force. I do declare, Gussy was a caution…learned a lot from him.
mespo,
You perfectly illustrate the racism that permeates the Obama campaign and his supporters. You also highlight the agenda and bias of CNN’s coverage of the story. There was no useful purpose to mentioning the vandals’ race except to race the specter of racism being a motive in the property owner’s response.
Mespo,
I am a middle aged, white guy who is an Obama supporter and I haven’t torn any McCain signs down. All kidding aside, this is a horrible over reaction to a prank by a gun toting idiot. This was a stupid political sign and his so-called domicile was never at risk. As an aside, whenever I see the word “domicile” I think of “Shooter” in the movie “Hoosiers” who referred to his house in the woods as his “domicile”. I would agree with Prof. Turley that this shooter probably won’t have the opportunity for a pardon, even if McCain steals… I mean wins this election.
jonolan:
The point is that McCain supporters tend to be the angry, middle age, white guy who are sometimes prone to this kind of excess. I am sure that the kids race (they were African-American) had nothing to do with his anger either. See the movie “Falling Down.”
jonolan
I don’t know and can’t answer what sort of blog comments I would or would not post in counterfactual universes. How does it matter?
I suspect the MSM would cover or not cover the story you posit (BTW I have seen such stories, of McCain supporters vandalizing Obama signs) according to whether they perceived it to help or hurt Obama, just as with all other news events. On the one hand you’d have McCain supporters vandalizing an Obama sign, so MSM would be motivated to play it up. On the other, you’d have an Obama supporter using/firing a GUN, and the MSM doesn’t like guns and perhaps wouldn’t want to give impression that any Obama supporters are violent gun nuts, so they’d have a motivation to play it down. Which motivation would ultimately win out, I cannot say.
best
Would you bother posting this if it’d been an Obama supporter who shot to pro-McCain vandals? Would the MSM have covered it in the first place? I somewhat doubt the former and strongly doubt the latter.
“One cannot protect property — even McCain signs — with force calculated to cause serious bodily injury or death.”
Well, that’s ridiculous.
No condemnation whatsoever for the people who trespassed on and vandalized another man’s property, eh? Figures.