An Idaho man learned this week that starting a bar fight with a rifle doesn’t always work out, as reports Tom Holm in the Post-Register. Fifty-eight year old Martin Knowles had been kicked out of the Roadhouse Saloon in Idaho Falls, Idaho, for arguing with (and allegedly kicking…he says it was an accident) Trevor Bennion, a patron with a broken ankle.
Despite being admonished by the bartender never to return, Mr. Knowles did just that forty-five minutes later. This time, however, he was armed with an AM 15 rifle and a pistol. According to bar patron Michael Martinez, the tooled-up Knowles “flung the door open and jacked in a shell and started pointing this rifle at [Bennion’s] wife and then swung it at another” patron.
Despite being somewhat hobbled by his ankle injuries, however, Bennion demonstrated that winning a fight is more about mindset than tools. He grabbed the first thing that was handy — a beer mug, oddly enough — and threw it at Knowles. This was apparently enough to distract Knowles, and that was all that Bennion and a mess of other patrons at the Roadhouse needed. They rushed the armed man, disarming him, and generally opening up an old-fashioned can of Idaho butt-whipping, the results of which are seen in the photo above.
“He was distracted long enough that he didn’t get a round off, thank God,” Bennion said.
Knowles currently faces up to 15 years in prison due to charges of aggravated assault, as well as an enhancement charge for use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony.
Oh, and by the way, Knowles also faces charges for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, due to a 2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, demonstrating once again how well gun control laws work to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons.
The Post-Register reports that Mr. Bennion is feeling pretty blasé about the whole affair.
“Surprisingly, I really don’t feel anything,” he said. “I’m just glad no one was shot; I mean I’ve got a 3-year-old little girl and a wife and I’d hate to leave them and be shot over some drunk idiot.”
Good shit.
Agree. Always love stories with happy endings….
Failed Darwin award right there. He reproduced and he’s still alive.
I think it was the intended victim with the bum hoof who made the comment about having a kid. We don’t know for sure (unless it is the source article, which I freely admit I didn’t read) if hamburger-face there reproduced. Let’s hope not.
This will be, I’m sure, ignored by the NYC press.
After all, none of their readership are interested into sullying their manicures by doing something like this.
If they notice at all, it will only be to point out that all it takes is a good guy with a beer mug to stop a bad guy with a gun. So we don’t need to carry, after all.
Au contraire, I would not be surprised to see this trumpeted as an example of how “real” men don’t need guns.
Edit: I see J-H beat me to it.
Now, the dumbshit redneck (probably) wasn’t there for mass murder, but the patrons damn sure demonstrated a defense to a man with an AR in a bar (or similar-sized area).
Mass-rush the son-of-a-bitch. That hick likely wasn’t there for war, but if he was, the body count would have been some of the patrons, not most of them.
Ask yourself how many mass shootings would have turned out differently if the prey turned into the hunters.
Yeah, DG was right. The NYT will ignore this…
Just a little lucky timing on my part with the post button. You’ve had some really good posts yourself lately, I’ve noticed. Keep ’em coming.
Ah, the humble beer mug. Inflicting injuries since it was invented.
One of the funniest things I’ve ever seen involved an asskicking that started with a beer mug to the dome. That was truly a night to remember. Even now I have trouble not busting out laughing when I think about it.
That shit is always so funny when it’s happening to some one else. I think I went to bars in my drinking days just to see the next bit of hilarity.
And don’t get me started on pool tables where alcohol is served. Priceless.
Well, since I’m not a 90 pound African American transvestite that gets kicked out, comes back, rips the stuffing out of my bra, kicks off my heals, goes over a U in the bar only to eat the washing sinks face first, presses on over the other side of the bar and THEN get my ass kicked by a flamingly gay guy… yeah I don’t care who you are, that shit was funny.
The cops couldn’t take the whole thing seriously when they showed up. I mean, they were doubled over laughing. Especially when some other black guy starts talking about how a “hate crime” just happened (referring to race I assume) and the guy who delivered said asskicking just yells “It can’t be a hate crime! I’m a f@g too!”.
You couldn’t make up what happened that night. I was laughing so hard I was crying.
Yep. You can’t make crap like that up.
I drove a cab for a while in my younger days. That was some funny shit too.
I forgot to mention that “she” was wearing a white spaghetti strap evening dress for this little event.
It was unreal. Most of the regulars didn’t believe that it happened until they heard it from half a dozen people including employees.
If I just mention said transvestite’s street name to my wife she laughs for five minutes like you just told her the best joke in the world.
Also you know it’s an interesting bar when that kind of stunt only gets you 86’d for three days.
In Huntington WVA one evening I had a black male, easy six foot two and three hundred pounds, wearing high heels, dress and bee hive hairdoo get into my cab. Lit a cigar sized joint and asked to be dropped off at a redneck bar down by the river.
Man, that was a night.
“Man, that was a night.”
Your ‘trailer hitch’ lost its chrome? 🙂
(Do I dare *snicker*?)
Now who’s projecting.
Ah, pool tables in bars.
A friend of mine who had been a baseball pitcher stopped a fight before it really got started one in a bar. We were sitting watching a game when a beer mug got dumped on a guy and fists came up. My friend scooped up a ball and tossed it right past the two to the bartender, who caught it (he was warned with a yell), then scooped up three more and started juggling them while looking right at the guys with their fists up. They took it as the warning it was meant to be, and took their issue outside.
The bartender gave my friend and I and the players of the thus-interrupted game a round of free drinks (I gave my free one to the new game’s winner — I hadn’t done anything to earn it!).
come on 9 where’s the bar. Sounds like my kind of place.
The will to win a scrap often counts more than size, tools, or skill. Glad that his ass was kicked on the way to a long time in the Idaho penitentiary.
All it takes to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a beer mug, and 8 or 10 other guys to help administer the beatdown.
(All in all, I’d rather have a gun than a beer mug, but good job taking the fight to the threat!)
Hope they beat the stupid out of him, otherwise I don’t think hes going to survive prison…
Idaho, like many states doesn’t f— around. This guys going to do some serious time. What would be nice is if they submit the illegal possession of a firearm by a felon beef for federal prosecution. That would flush him down the time toilet.
Good thing that guns are so regulated. Just think about what would have happened if someone else in the bar was carrying.
@ Bob Oso,
It was a real possibility as open and concealed carry in a bar is legal in Idaho as long as the person carrying the firearm isn’t under the influence / drunk.
A bad guy with a gun stopped by good guys without guns. Brilliant !
That was not so difficult, was it?
Sorry about your Attorney General. Rather puts a bag over Trump’s agenda. With baggage like this, it is unlikely you’ll see much success with your gun rights agenda. Of course you have a few years to have another go at it. Should make for interesting theatre.
“A bad guy with a gun stopped by good guys without guns. Brilliant !
That was not so difficult, was it?”
Ask yourself, what if the patrons at the ‘Pulse’ nightclub had responded like that to the threat in their bar instead of trying to run and hide?
What would the body count have likely been? What if one of the bartenders had delivered an equivalent result in 3 seconds instead of over an hour of literal Hell?
H’mm… 🙂
“Ask yourself, what if the patrons at the ‘Pulse’ nightclub had responded like that to the threat in their bar instead of trying to run and hide?”
Are we in agreement here, or is this a somewhat challenge question?
Regarding Orlando, 150 to 1? One might postulate that a response similar to Idaho would have meant a very different outcome at Pulse.
As I’ve noted all along, guns are not the only effective defensive tool. Defining “self-defense” as restricted solely to guns is a bit of nonsense.
“Defining “self-defense” as restricted solely to guns” is from your imagination and nowhere else.
“Defining “self-defense” as restricted solely to guns” is from your imagination and nowhere else.
You simply must visit this forum more often.
“Regarding Orlando, 150 to 1? One might postulate that a response similar to Idaho would have meant a very different outcome at Pulse.”
It was a challenge question. If the patrons at Pulse refused to be prey they would have been lionized as heroes by their community.
That is something you Progressives like to call a ‘Teachable Moment’.
“It’s not nice, but it’s reality.”
Buffy St.Marie, ‘Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee’.
Refuse to be prey and you go a long way to solving ‘convenient’ mass violence…
“It was a challenge question. If the patrons at Pulse refused to be prey they would have been lionized as heroes by their community.”
Then we agree. If the patrons of Pulse had acted as did those in Idaho, they would of course been declared heroes. Also proving the point that, indeed, a gun is not the only way “to stop a bad guy with a gun”.
BTW, Idaho should be a teachable moment for gun lovers.
“Defining “self-defense” as restricted solely to guns” is from your imagination and nowhere else.
You simply must visit this forum more often.
Like, for THIS story?
You’re a dumbass, you know that? I hope you didn’t reproduce.
“gun rights agenda”
They’re called civil rights, and they’ve been around a long time.
You may have, what is it….”a natural, human and civil right” to self-defense, but not to any manner of weapon you choose. That is the venue of society reflected in government.
Incorrect.
Source: The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment.
Well, we have got round the notion that such may not be constrained at all, haven’t we? Each constitutional “right” has some sort of limit logically placed on it. It is the continual bleating, “Shall not be infringed” that serves to prove that the gun crowd is unhinged, wanting guns everywhere, by anyone regardless, with no care for the deadliest of weapons possessed by the least trustworthy. Even with all that, you cannot understand why a vast majority of the public does not agree with you.
We also have a right to defend our freedom, which becomes rather difficult when those in power ban the tools of freedom fighters.
“We also have a right to defend our freedom, which becomes rather difficult when those in power ban the tools of freedom fighters.”
We are talking common sense regards gun ownership, a total ban. But to carry your argument, I’ve read nothing, anywhere, of government attempting to “ban” each and every tool of “freedom fighters”. Have you something about “banning” clubs, or bats, or stones, or pikes, or swords, or longbows, or any other means of defense? Oh yes, I’ll spot you that “banning” pepper spray is silly to the days.
Actually, with or without the Second Amendment which we do have, we do have a right to defend ourselves and use any means we desire to use. You only have rights you exercise anyway. Some of us have more rights than others. Some of us make our own decisions and live by our own rules, but we realize this concept is lost on people like you. I will defend myself with whatever I deem is necessary, and I don’t need anyone’s approval either. My God given rights to defense over rides any laws or opinions on this subject. It’s always better to be judged by 12 in a Kangaroo court than carried by 6 for burial.
“Some of us make our own decisions and live by our own rules,…”
As I’ve said all along, gun owners are not the most law abiding. Living by ones own set of rules is the hallmark of anarchy. Still wonder why the populace fears gun owners?
The populace does not fear gun owners. Only tyrants and their adulating cohorts, like you, do.
The very fact that you hyper-focus on people not having to utilize a firearm to defend themselves proves it. Hoorah! They didn’t have to use a gun to stop a bad guy! So how does that logically extend to not needing a firearm for self defense? Oh wait, it doesn’t.
And yes, I know from whence your statist argument stems with “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”. Yes, it is incorrect, but having a firearm on the good guy gives him a hell of a lot better chance than he had without one.
People like you won’t be happy until you control *everything*. And you can’t, because that isn’t the way the universe works.
“The populace does not fear gun owners.”
Then why no polls or surveys telling us that an overwhelming majority of the populace, or even voters, endorse unfettered gun rights? The best that has been published shows a barely (being generous) even split on “gun control”?
“…but having a firearm on the good guy gives him a hell of a lot better chance than he had without one.”
Perhaps. Are we to conclude that the Idaho incident is the sole example of people successful defending themselves without using a gun?
“People like you won’t be happy until you control *everything*.”
Yes, some ascribe to that idea. There are tyrants in every walk of life. Why is an insistence on provable competency and safety in gun handling “control” as you think it? Doesn’t mean confiscation, doesn’t mean police state.
Do you “feel” secure knowing there are people running about who believe possession of a gun, under all circumstances, no matter what, is a good thing for society?
Your own vaunted crime stats (and I will admit for this conversation that all the reduction in crime is due solely to increased gun ownership) demonstrate that the fear of crime is irrational What is the likelihood of any gun owner meeting a deadly threat? Why do you need absolute gun rights to counter that infinitesimal risk? Are the crime statistics wrong? Is the alleged reduction in crime not due to increased ownership? Is the crime rate actually out of control, only being masked by the MSM? Which irrationality suits you best?
You have the innate right to whatever weapon you feel sufficient to stop the worst threat you can conceive of facing. Anything less and the right to self-defense is meaningless — and a government that dictates anything less declares the lives of its citizens of value only if they are strong enough to not need a more potent weapon than law allows.
Perhaps a compromise is possible wherein one can use any weapon at hand, but if a firearm is used, the nature of the weapon would result in an additional, or original charge (self-defense, after all) of using an illegal weapon. Thus, the damage, injury or death of an aggressor would be covered as justifiable, and not a crime. Whereas, the use of a firearm would be illegal. The underlying act (self-defense) would not then become a crime, but the act of using a firearm would be. End result is an attacker stopped, and the illegal use of a firearm punished.
It’s a crime to defend yourself no matter what you use. If someone is to be charged then the aggressor should be charged every time. The standard for self defense is a gun, using it is not a crime.
8 years for trump. The anti civil rights crowd, you know, your side is imploding. With the right picks for scotus and more wins midterm we should be in even better shape.
Thanks for playing, though.
“With the right picks for scotus and more wins midterm we should be in even better shape.”
Always a possibility, one supposes. But have you had a look at the new leadership over here? Everyone of them is pushing more social conscientiousness, more equality of the people, more compassion for the oppressed. Yes, Bernie, and the boys look different, but it is all gradation. No going back to failed icons like the Clinton, or John Dean, or McCauliff. After 2 years of Trump buffoonery, failed political appointments, dozens of investigations into Trump cronies, resignations, the tide will move in our favor again. Haven’t you seen just recently the formal effort by the ex-president, his staff, and his mentor Jerrod declared? Your side cannot stand up to the constant punishment. As the saying goes (I think), “Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.” Enjoy yours.
4 years. That’s all we can count on, 4 years.
MSNBC election night, as the true horror of the election results sank in, on a discussion panel, Leftist scum Micheal Moore commented: “Why couldn’t we run someone beloved?”
People listened: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/oprah-tom-hanks-meet-your-next-celebrity-president-commentary.html
Why will Oprah or Tom Hanks win in 2020?
Simple. No one hates them. 50 percent of the electorate hates Trump. There’s no beating that.
Winfrey – Hanks 2020?
2Asux, has it occurred to you at anytime in the last 4 months that every assumption, every prediction, and every declaration of certainty about Donald J Trump has been 100% *wrong*?
Is it even within the realm of possibility that you could be wrong, once again?
Not one word about the alcoholic, grossly corrupt, neurological basket case you were so certain would sweep effortlessly in to the White House, but you KNOW President Trump will fail….
“… every declaration of certainty about Donald J Trump has been 100% *wrong*?”
One thing I learnt long ago, when all goes well, something’s amiss. The polls and clairvoyants were just too sweet for my tastes. Never bet on a sure thing, eh? Have you, though, paid attention to what has happened since the election? All the ascribed buffoonery, the cronyism, the crookedness, the fleeing of nominees, that is what you wanted for the country? You have it, then.
You can’t take one lone example and success and act like that should be the rule. This was in Idaho, I guarantee you everyone of those patrons at that bar had a gun, but they just couldn’t get to it. All bars should have a back door. It’s not hard to handle a drunk even with a gun, but most shooters are not wasted when they do things like this.
By the way, how is your knife ban going over accross the pond? After they manage to take all your butter knifes so you can’t cut yourself’s, maybe they can ban forks next.
If you think this gun ban thing is ever going to happen here in the U.S, you will see real quick we won’t stand for that here, but keep dreaming we become as helpless and as much a pleb as you are. We all know you came to troll, and you just make yourself look stupid by even trying.
You are welcome to bring your beer mug battalion and meet and mine on the battlefield civil war style all lined up at distance, and we will see how that goes.
” I guarantee you everyone of those patrons at that bar had a gun, but they just couldn’t get to it. ”
I’ll give you a moment to ponder.
Missing Dead Soldier, is that you? I can spot your brand of stupid from way over here.
Sorry. Not entertained by an intellectual race to the bottom.
That’s ok. Even snowflakes like you need a safe space to play. We enjoy your pseudo intellectual prattle as well.
Sorry 2asux. Society does not chose what I use to defend my family with. I chose. If it’s a beer mug followed by an ass whoopin… so be it. If it’s a knife or a baseball bat or a gun…. so be it.
Neither you nor anyone else has a say in that matter. End of story. My family is more important to me than your precious feelings.
“Neither you nor anyone else has a say in that matter.”
I do hope your chest recovered from its thumping.
As to your statement, society is already deciding who, when and where may legally (if you carry illegally you are no longer a law biding citizen, right?) have your gun. It is not the gun I fear, but the gun owner. If you are possessed of sound mind and successfully passed a background check and a formal gun safety course (with actual firing of the gun), then I would be less suspicious. There should still remain certain places where guns should be restricted, but those can be negotiated.
When the law is corrupt, who is really the outlaw? I would trust him with a gun before I would trust someone like you with one. He don’t need no permission or permit to exercise his rights, that’s why they call them rights.
Society really isn’t deciding anything, but there are people who think they are deciding something that make laws, but that;s only an illusion, not real life. I asked you this before, but if you think the Second Amendment sucks, then why are you on a gun forum? Shouldn’t you be licking Janet Reno’s boots or something instead?
“….why are you on a gun forum?”
Interesting, that.
I frequent this forum because it is not an echo chamber of me mates. At times, I become weary of hearing nothing but affirmation of my thoughts. Here, there are some challenging sorts who frame argument properly and cogently. Testing ideas is never a bad thing. There is also the off chance that some people who are not cemented into their own minds might be persuaded that common sense can be compatible with gun ownership. Sometimes, one of your lot pose tough questions that help shape antidotes to the “guns everywhere” mantra.
As usual you got it wrong. Self defense should never be restricted.
And the training I’ve had would make you curl up in a ball and cry for your mommy.
“And the training I’ve had would make you curl up in a ball and cry for your mommy.”
You must put considerable effort into getting it so wrong. Formal training is to be prized. Never held otherwise. Good on ya’.
^^^ This^^^
Comments are closed.