Roommate in hospital following stabbing

4 free views left!

Roommate in hospital following stabbing

By K.C. Mehaffey
World staff writer

Saturday, January 12, 2013

WENATCHEE — A Wenatchee man was stabbed across his face and neck Saturday, and his roommate is now in the Chelan County Regional Justice Center on suspicion of first-degree assault.

Juventino Avila-Ramerez, 49, was taken to Central Washington Hospital, where he underwent surgery for three knife wounds, and was in stable condition on Saturday evening, said Wenatchee Police Sgt. Cherie Smith.

His roommate, Yonatan Acevedo-Felipe, 30, left the scene, but Douglas County Sheriff’s deputies located him about an hour and a half later sitting in a van in his brother’s driveway in Orondo, Smith said.

Smith said the 12:38 p.m. assault at 150 Crawford St. appeared to be unprovoked. “He just gets a couple of knives and attacks him. For no apparent reason, he slashes him across the face and neck three times,” she said.

Smith said another roommate and a neighbor both called police following the incident. But by then, a friend had already taken Avila-Ramirez to the hospital.

Smith said police found one very large kitchen knife and a medium-sized knife in a garbage can near the Crawford St. address. She said a third knife may have been involved, but has not been recovered.

As for motive, she said Acevedo-Felipe said something to police about avenging his brother, “but we don’t know what that means.”

Police are continuing to investigate, she said.

— K.C. Mehaffey, World staff

» Recommend this story.

» 23 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

We need to do something about these awful assault knives out on our streets! Any knives capable of slashing and stabbing more than once should be banned. I am surprised that the press has not sensationalized this story with pictures of these deadly assault knives.

Or perhaps people will realize that we need to do something about the people committing the crime not the inanimate objects they use to commit their dastardly crimes. When will the liberals realize(I know the answer is never)that the bad drugs the pharmaceutical companies are putting out and the professionals that are prescribing them are the problems not some poor inanimate object. with their heads full of bad drugs with horrible side effects those committing these crimes will use whatever they can to commit their crimes. Wake up America before your freedoms are gone! It is not guns causing this carnage in our streets! Demand the press tell the real story about the causes of these crimes.

_Buckmaster 4 months, 1 week ago

nail on head lonedog

anitafayspike 4 months, 1 week ago

The article clearly states there was a large kitchen knife recovered !!!!!!! does not say anything about an assault knife. just saying.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

That's an assault knife.

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

I hate to belabor a point but isn't any knife used in an assaultive manner an "assault knife" simply by virtue of the manner in which it's used?

I hear there's a move afoot that will result in the banning of plastic picnic cutlery.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

"The article clearly states there was a large kitchen knife recovered !!!!!!!"

Well, if it was a "large kitchen knife" I'll assume that it was what is usually known as a "Chef's Knife" in the cutlery industry. Since I have had my taste buds assaulted on many occasions by folks who attempt to tell me they are chefs, I believe that tool would be properly considered an "assault knife". It makes perfect sense to me.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

let's see: an assault was committed a knife was used = an assault knife. What would be interesting to know, sad we have no reporters let alone an investigative reporter, is what medications the perpetrator was on or if he was just on alcohol or some other drug, legal or otherwise.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

the new rulers will see that each peasant will have safe "sporks" issued to them!

novarama 4 months, 1 week ago

I think most of us get the point you are trying to make, Lonedog, but consider the outcome had he been armed with a gun, not a knive. This has been alluded to in other discussion forums in comparing mortality figures per capita from assaults between the US and countries with gun control (our rates are unsuprisingly higher). Yes, it is the armed individual and not the weapon itself initiating the attack, but many have wisely pointed out that certain weapons can inflict greater damage en masse with a larger radius of impact, hence the controls.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

In other threads I have pointed out the fallacy that only guns can be used for mass killing.Machetes were the primary weapon for the Rwanda genocide attempts, killing hundreds of thousands. The Osaka knife massacre involved one person who entered an elementary school killing many young children and seriously wounded many other. High explosives -- used by one person -- were responsible for the largest mass killing of school children in this country.

The types of guns that are being discussed for bans are decidedly NOT the guns responsible for the majority of mass killings in this country, or used in gun violence in crimes involving other crimes besides murder.

It is a false wisdom to look at banning any class of gun or magazines as the solution to gun crimes.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

Novarama, I have pointed out elsewhere that I can put more projectiles downrange and inflict more damage in a shorter period of time with my old faithful bird hunting weapon, a 12 guage Browning semi automatic loaded with buckshot than is possible with one of the weapons you seek to ban. With that fact in mind, I respectfully submit the following:

by Jim Buhring

sourtellinme 4 months, 1 week ago

I just hope all you gun fanatics aren't hypocrites when it comes to other Constitutional rights. I just hope I never hear a word from you guys when it comes to more restrictions on any rights, but mostly abortion. I would bet my last dollar you would love to see that right taken away. And most of you would justify it by saying "whatever it takes to save just one life is worth it" Well guns,abortion and all of the other rights granted to us will be in our society untill the world is in a Eutopia state of mind. It will take another century or two, and we will get there, but only if we don't kill ourselves off first. So to all the people who are fighting so hard to have as little restictions on your precious tubes of metal that shoot a lead ball, I hope that you will fight just as hard to have the least possible amounts of restrictions a woman needs to exercise her Constutional Right to have an abortion. Like yours to have a gun.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Wow... No wonder it so difficult to have any meaningful discussion about firearms with the hoplophobic left. When facts are not available to those who hate guns, when those who loath firearms replace rationality with the type of seething hysteria we see above, then it is apparent for all to see that their argument has become so attenuated as to become cracked and brittle, having withered on the vine.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

Mister Cox, I will admit that I have no more than a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and later amendments, but try as I may I cannot recall one place in either document that mentions abortion. Judging by your fine post above, I'm sure that you must be quite the constitutional scholar, so would you please point out to me just where I can find mention of such in the documents? I can find women's suffrage and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (never ratified) but not once do I find the word abortion or any other medical procedures mentioned.

Would you please be so kind as to enlighten me? Just point out where you see that the US Constitution or any of the Twenty-seven ratified amendments gives women the right to an abortion, please. Thanks Eugene!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Wow! sourtellinme, you have every right to your own opinion but you do not have a right to your own facts. There is, in fact, no constitutional right to an abortion. I would sure love to hear your rationale for making such a wild claim.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

WOW Eugene! I agree that a woman should have the right to do as she wishes in the case of an abortion without government interference but there is no guarantee in the constitution in regard to this issue. Please show us your facts in regard to this statement!

sourtellinme 4 months, 1 week ago

The fact is that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. It falls under the 14th Amendement. No, the word abortion is not in the constitution. Never said it was. Anybody,left,right,center,up,down,whatever,that thinks guns are going to be banned and confiscated is just plain nuts. Guns have and WILL always be part of our society. Hopefully,in the very,very distant future, guns will only be around for our protection from nature and for the responsible taking of game. And target shooting too. I'm also very proud and not afraid to say I am NOT a gun owner. Don't hate them nor am I afraid of them. Still go out and shoot with my friends. Now according to the people who live in the Fox news universe, I should be expecting someone to come and get me now that they know I am unarmed. Ohh I'm scared now. I protect my family with numerous non-lethal(unless my dogs get carried away)security measures which keep our home safe,warm,and cozy. I'm even more proud that I'm part of the generation,that will go down in history as the one that stood up and said "enough"

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

Eugene, you are using the Supreme Court's decision on one specific case (Roe vs Wade 1973) and stating that single decision means that a woman has a certain "constitutional right". I and many others disagree with that concept as can be seen here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346849

Certainly one should read the entire statement, but these two short sentences jump right off the page at me when I read the paragraph I reference.

" Americans enjoy certain fundamental liberties which are protected by the US Constitution. The right to abortion is not one of these freedoms."

I believe sir, that although you are well intended, you grasp but a small amount of knowledge and flail it about as though it were a weapon, but your weapon is not equal to the task for which you choose to use it. That is the Fact" of the ruling you choose. Citing one Supreme Court case as it relates to the Constitution is akin to hunting elephants with a flyswatter.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Eugene, I know you want us all to swallow the red-herring with which you have clumsily baited your rhetorical hook, hoping to side-track us from your losing argument surrounding guns and gun rights. We could all go off on a tangent discussing the fact that firearms (arms) are specifically named in the 2nd Amendment, while abortion as a "right" was backhandedly inferred from twisted and convoluted reasoning of section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Do supporters of the 2nd Amendment have an obligation to defend the notion of abortion as a "right"? No more so than those who believe in abortion "rights" must support the notion of a 2nd Amendment. In fact, those liberals who believe in unrestricted abortions on demand are among the most fervent detractors of the 2nd Amendment. Period.

You scoff at the notion of firearms for use in self-defense. You seem attracted to the idea that large capacity magazines should be banned, despite their legitimate use for sport and self-defense. But facts and evidence have a way of scoffing right back at you: http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

Self defense using a gun, whether it is actually fired or simply displayed, happens hundreds of thousands of times per year.
As with the cite above, running out of ammunition when defending self or others is a bad thing. There are significant reasons why a limitation in magazine capacity runs contrary to the needs in a self defense situation.
A gun is the only thing that puts the weak and the strong on an equal footing.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

by Joe Arballo

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

"Anybody,left,right,center,up,down,whatever,that thinks guns are going to be banned and confiscated is just plain nuts."

I find it interesting that you tack on the words "and confiscated" to that sentence. You are trying to be sly about raising the bar. No one can deny the fact that until very recently the radical left, (who only wanted a few, simple, innocent common-sense regulations), said that anyone is "just plain nuts" to think that guns would be banned. Yet here we are, on the verge of crossing a regulatory Rubicon that will ban an entire class of common firearms. The shattering of a barrier which makes gun-haters salivate. A major hurdle to the hoplophobes agenda is now on the verge of being jumped. So what is your evidence that a concern about government confiscation is "just plain nuts"?

Many, many liberals chided those who, prior to the President's re-election, swarmed gun dealers in order to purchase semi-automatic guns out of fear that Obama would act to ban or restrict them. Right-thinking citizens, stating that Obama was the best gun salesman for the firearms industry, were scorned by Obama supporters. The liberal mantra was, "There has been nothing Obama has done to provoke such a concern". But here we are today, right?

Obama and Biden are going to be pushing for the ban on semi-automatic guns...a style of gun which makes up over 75% of the inventory and purchase and ownership of all firearms in America. New York state has passed legislation -- sponsored by Governor Cuomo -- in the "republic-con" controlled senate and is certain to pass in the democrat controlled house. This legislation bans all semi-automatic firearms, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Other states, like Maryland, Connecticut, California, etc., are following the same path.

No, my good friend, those who believe or are concerned about an outright ban on guns cannot be justly characterized as being "just plain nuts". Nor is it "just plain nuts" to believe that a government confiscation of guns is a potential reality as the very next incremental step to strip away the rights of gun owners. The history of the anti-gun movement, and the actions of the government since the 1980's, is factual proof that concern is justly warranted.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

why is Obama saying he will use his executive orders, again, to ban guns BY_PASSING congress not to mention every other house and lawmaking branch in our government? this would be a direct violation of this nations constitution and laws. Will he be charged if he does this or will he use his past executive order that says congress will not take any action for 6 months on his orders?