Skip to Content
Deschutes County

Shot fired during Sunriver-area family dispute; son-in-law arrested

RALSTON, KYLE
Deschutes County Jail
Kyle Ralston

SUNRIVER, Ore. (KTVZ) -- A man fired a pistol at his son-in-law in self-defense during a family dispute at a home south of Sunriver Thursday evening, causing no injuries but leading to the arrest of the son-in-law, Deschutes County sheriff's deputies said.

Deputies were dispatched around 7:35 p.m. Thursday to a domestic dispute at a home in the 17000 block of Indio Road in the Spring River area, Sgt. Kent Vander Kamp said.

Deschutes County 911 had received a call from a homeowner, who reported he was assaulted by his son-in-law. He also said he fired a gun during the assault and believed he might have struck his assailant, Vander Kamp said.

Responding deputies determined a domestic dispute erupted between a group of household relatives, which turned physical.

The alleged victim attempted to defend other family members from his son-in-law, identified as Kyle J. Ralston, 28, Vander Kamp said.

The victim and Ralston began to struggle, he said, and Ralston overpowered the victim, who draw a pistol out of self-defense and fired a single round, which missed. He tried to fire again, Vander Kamp said, but the gun malfunctioned.

Ralston fled the scene before law enforcement arrived, but later agreed to meet investigators elsewhere. Ralston was uninjured, while the alleged victim had minor injuries that did not require medical treatment.

"Alcohol appeared to be a factor in this incident," Vander Kam said in a news release.

Ralston was arrested and lodged at the county jail in Bend on charges of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, harassment and coercion.

A jail officer said Ralston was booked into the jail shortly before 11 p.m. Thursday and given conditional release around 3:20 p.m. Friday.

Crime And Courts / News / Top Stories

Barney Lerten

Barney is the digital content director for NewsChannel 21. Learn more about Barney here.

Comments

10 Comments

      1. Menacing, assault with deadly weapon, attempted murder etc…
        Its always good to have plenty of loaded weapons available in case of domestic dispute. More guns = less gun violence. Makes total sense. Just ask any paranoid, spineless, gun toting regressive kook!!!
        Golf and hooker anyone!!!

        1. We know you progressives love guns as long as you’re the ones in charge of them. But the rest of us take responsibility for defending ourselves and our family. As for being a hooker. That’s best to keep your occupation to yourself.

    1. He was defending himself and his family. His weapon of choice was a gun. My preference is a baseball bat. Do you have a problem with baseball bats too or is it just guns?

      1. It’s each persons right to chose how they want to try and protect themselves and their families, but why in the world would you prefer to use a baseball bat?

    2. That doesn’t even make sense. The gun fired the first time. It’s possible that
      they were still wrestling when he fired the first shot, and if there was contact
      with the handgun, it’s entirely possible there was a FTF, assuming it was a semi-auto.
      You can’t charge someone for that… Guns are mechanical devices and there is always
      a possibility something could happen. It doesn’t matter who made it or how much you paid
      for it, it can still fail…
      When I get a new handgun (1911 or Glock)I completely disassemble it, clean it, replace all of the springs including magazine springs, and I shoot at least a couple hundred rounds through it with various kinds of ammunition before I even think about carrying it so I know it’s reliable, but the fact is, something could still go wrong. The only exception is
      with Wilson or Ed Brown 1911’s but even those get completely disassembled and shot the same amount before they are carried because I’ve had a couple of those that didn’t cycle reliably when new but it’s usually because they are ridiculously tight.

    1. Alcohol kills people in many different ways and is usually a contributing factor
      in assaults and shootings, but it is socially acceptable and the state makes money
      on it, so it’s okay.
      On the other end of the spectrum they turn opioids into a full blown crisis
      and the only thing they accomplish is making it hard to get for people that
      truly need them, and force people to buy stronger more dangerous illegal drugs.
      That and it takes away doctors liability if they don’t prescribe them to anyone…

Leave a Reply