A road rage encounter in Charleston, West Virginia, ended with one man dead after police say he drove aggressively, returned after the other motorist pulled over to avoid him, and struck that driver several times before being shot once in the abdomen.
Gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir argued that the sequence matters because the armed driver reportedly followed the most common advice for avoiding road rage: he did not race, argue, brake-check, or continue the confrontation, but instead moved aside and allowed the other man to leave.
According to the Charleston Police Department information presented in a WOWK 13 News report used in Noir’s video, 63-year-old William Ray Hinerman later made a U-turn, came back, exited his vehicle, approached the other driver, and allegedly began hitting him.
The second driver then fired one round. Hinerman was transported to a hospital, where he died.
No charges had been filed as investigators continued reviewing the fatal encounter.
Police Say the Driver Pulled Over to Avoid Trouble
The shooting happened late at night near Greenbrier Street and Deitrick Boulevard in Charleston.
Investigators said Hinerman had been driving aggressively before the second motorist pulled over in an effort to avoid further confrontation.
Noir described that decision as exactly what drivers are repeatedly told to do when another person becomes angry or aggressive behind the wheel.
“Don’t engage. Don’t be a hero,” he said. “Just get off the road and let him go be miserable somewhere else.”
The armed driver reportedly gave Hinerman the road and attempted to end the encounter without exchanging words or matching his behavior.
That should have been the end of it.
Instead, police believe Hinerman turned around and returned to the location.
For Noir, the U-turn was the moment an argument over driving became something far more dangerous because it suggested that Hinerman was no longer trying to continue his journey but was deliberately seeking out the person who had already withdrawn.
A U-Turn Changed the Nature of the Encounter
Noir said public attention tends to focus on the firearm because it caused the death, but the gun appeared only after a longer series of decisions allegedly made by the other driver.
Hinerman reportedly returned, got out of his car, closed the distance, and struck the second motorist repeatedly.
“The gun is at the end of this story,” Noir said. “The U-turn is in the middle of it.”
That distinction does not automatically prove the shooting was legally justified, but it helps explain why investigators did not immediately treat the surviving driver as a murderer.
The available account suggests that the armed man had already attempted to leave the dispute behind before the confrontation was brought back to him.
Road rage is especially dangerous because people often make decisions in seconds that they would never make under normal circumstances. A minor lane change or perceived insult can quickly become personal, and vehicles make it easy for someone to chase another person rather than cool down.
The tragedy here appears to have grown not from the original traffic dispute, but from the refusal to let it end.
Hinerman’s Family Said the Behavior Did Not Fit Him
Noir also addressed reports that Hinerman was a Navy veteran who served in Afghanistan, an attorney, and a retired FBI unit chief.
His relatives reportedly described him as a deeply valued family member and said the alleged behavior did not match the man they knew.
One family member told a reporter that he had no explanation for what happened and urged people to stop treating one another this way.
Noir said he believed the family’s description and accepted that Hinerman may not have behaved like that during ordinary life.
However, he argued that the person standing in front of another driver on a dark roadside must be judged by his immediate actions, not his professional history.
“You don’t get to run a background check on a fist coming at your face,” Noir said.
That point is harsh but important. A long record of public service does not make an alleged assault harmless, while a person defending himself cannot know the attacker’s career, reputation, or usual temperament during the incident.
At the same time, Hinerman’s death remains a devastating loss for his family, and their questions about the shooting deserve a full investigation rather than dismissal.
Investigators Must Decide Whether the Fear Was Reasonable
Noir cautioned viewers not to treat the word “homicide” as proof of murder.
Homicide simply means one person caused the death of another, he explained, and includes killings later determined to be lawful self-defense.
The central legal question is whether the surviving driver reasonably believed he faced death or serious bodily injury when he fired.
Investigators must also consider where he was positioned, whether he had room to move, how many times he had been struck, whether the attack was continuing, and whether the use of deadly force was proportionate to the threat.
No public video had been released, and Noir acknowledged that the surviving motorist may be the only living person with a complete view of what happened on the roadside.
Hinerman’s family reportedly questioned why the shooter did not simply leave.
Noir called that a fair question but said there was not enough public information to answer it confidently. It was unclear whether the man remained inside his vehicle, had been blocked, or was already being struck when he reached for the gun.
That uncertainty matters. A self-defense claim should not be accepted solely because the other person allegedly threw the first punch, but neither should it be rejected on the assumption that an unarmed beating can never become deadly.
Noir Rejects the Idea That Fists Are Harmless
Noir challenged the argument that the incident would have ended with both men alive if no firearm had been present.
He said that view assumes Hinerman would have stopped hitting the driver before causing serious injury, despite allegedly turning around, returning, and initiating the attack.
“There’s no referee out there,” Noir said. “Nobody’s throwing in a towel.”
He cited FBI data stating that hundreds of people were killed in 2024 by hands, fists, or feet without a gun, knife, or other weapon.
His broader point was that an attacker does not need a visible weapon to create a threat capable of causing death or major injury, particularly when the victim is knocked down, trapped, older, disabled, or struck repeatedly in the head.
That does not mean every punch justifies gunfire.
It means the law must evaluate the full situation rather than treating “unarmed” as the same as “incapable of killing.”
The difficult line is determining when an ordinary fight becomes a threat of grave bodily harm, and that judgment often must be made in seconds by the person receiving the blows.
The Shooter Called 911 and Stayed at the Scene
Police said the surviving driver immediately contacted 911, remained at the scene, and cooperated with investigators.
A dispatch recording featured in Noir’s video described a caller reporting that a man had approached and attacked him before he fired.
Noir viewed the driver’s conduct after the shooting as consistent with someone claiming self-defense rather than attempting to escape responsibility.
Still, he warned that cooperating does not guarantee immediate legal protection.
Statements made while adrenaline is high can later become important evidence, and prosecutors may examine every word for inconsistencies or indications that the shooter acted from anger rather than fear.
West Virginia generally does not impose a duty to retreat on someone who is lawfully present, Noir said, but that does not make every defensive shooting automatically lawful.
A prosecutor must still decide whether the perceived danger and response were reasonable under the circumstances.
Weeks after the incident, the driver had reportedly not been charged or formally cleared, leaving the case unresolved.
Letting the Argument Go May Not Always Be Enough
Noir’s central lesson was that avoiding road rage remains the best first decision, even though it cannot control what the other driver does next.
The motorist in this case reportedly pulled over and allowed the aggressive driver to continue, but the confrontation returned when Hinerman allegedly made the U-turn.
“One of them was willing to let it be stupid,” Noir said. “The other one wasn’t.”
His conclusion was not that drivers should look for a reason to use a firearm, but that de-escalation cannot guarantee safety when the other person refuses to disengage.
The safest choice remains to avoid eye contact, arguments, gestures, racing, and any attempt to prove a point on the road. Calling police, driving toward a populated or well-lit location, and remaining inside a locked vehicle may also create additional options.
But once someone returns, gets out, and begins attacking, the situation is no longer a dispute about traffic etiquette.
It becomes a question of immediate survival, followed by a legal investigation that may take months to resolve.
The Charleston case remains under review, and the final legal judgment will depend on evidence not yet made public. Based on the police account presented by WOWK and discussed by Noir, however, the fatal outcome followed several opportunities for the encounter to end before one driver allegedly chose to bring it back.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
