|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 1, 2009, 10:02 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1
|
Harold Fish gets a retrial
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ense30-ON.html
If you don't know the Harold Fish story (or tragedy in my books), he was convicted of 2d degree murder after he shot Grant Kuenzli during a hike in northern arizona. Fish was aggressively threatened by Kuenzli's dogs and fired a warning shot to scare them away when Kuenzli started waving his arms wildly and running directly at Fish. Fish warned him then shot him when he didn't stop. Fish said he was in fear for his life. The NBC Dateline story is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221 |
July 1, 2009, 10:24 AM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
That entire deal was one big mess right from the second those two guys crossed paths.
Everybody involved did some really stupid things. Prime example of how tragedy doesn't come from one problem, it comes from "cascading failures". Virtually every action taken in that entire incident, by both parties, was wrong. Problem being, when you use a gun, "wrong" becomes "killer".
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 1, 2009, 10:27 AM | #3 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Awesome news! It is about dern time too!
Brent |
July 1, 2009, 10:35 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
One of the factors in the trial was Fish's use of 10mm ammo as supposedly something extreme. We've debated that quite a bit.
Here's the ruling: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinio...CR060675OP.pdf I scanned it and found no mention of guns and ammo type. Given my scholarly interest in those sort of things. I wonder if it will come out again.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 1, 2009, 10:55 AM | #5 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
I hope with the new details the system will be required to produce for potential jurors will cause the DA to opt out of the re-trial...
Brent |
July 1, 2009, 11:00 AM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I'd go with Criminally Negligent Homicide instead, with time served and probation for life.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 2, 2009, 01:36 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2007
Location: N. VA
Posts: 254
|
The only place where it mentions the gun and ammo are the background
"the defendant dropped his hiking stick, grabbed his 10mm Kimber semiautomatic handgun." Hope he has some better experts on sd and firearms this time around.
__________________
“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly. The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.” Evan Marshall |
July 2, 2009, 01:48 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I'd be shocked if the DA goes anywhere near a retrial. I'm sure he will be offered a plea which will require no more jail/prison time and that will be that.
|
July 2, 2009, 02:05 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I wouldn't accept any plea that involves a felony or loss of civil rights, at this point. He's got the momentum now. The DA isn't going to be able to impose any sentence or plea that resembles what the defendant has already endured.
|
July 2, 2009, 02:07 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I've read some analyses that suggest bringing up the ammo as prejudicial wasn't really relevant to the appeal. Legal reasons.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 2, 2009, 04:05 PM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I just finished reading the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Arizona v Fish.
Whew! If the defense reads the decision that way I just did, the case is almost a slam-dunk for a finding of involuntary manslaughter, if not an outright acquittal. The seriousness of the errors by the original trial court are bad enough. Here, the Appeals Court, in addressing those errors, hands the defense a roadmap upon how they should proceed upon retrial. One of the facts that were not generally known, was that the story Fish told the police, when they first arrived, during the investigation, at the Grand Jury hearing and at Trail, never changed. Whether or not you believe that Fish shot Kuenzli in self defense, you can not argue that he lied about what happened. The appeals court noted several times that the explanation given by Fish never varied in any detail. Fish is either a consummate liar, or he is telling the truth. Occam's Razor applies here. It would be fair to say that I've changed my mind on the innocence of Harold Fish, based solely upon the errors committed by the trial court. |
July 3, 2009, 07:14 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,664
|
Oh, when I saw the title I was thinking of a guy named Harold Fish who was a serial killer/cannibal in the early 1900's totally different guy
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them. |
July 4, 2009, 10:41 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
July 4, 2009, 03:41 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
July 4, 2009, 07:46 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
July 5, 2009, 11:08 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Having been attacked by a dog myself, and not a wild rabid dog but a family pet (my uncle's), I have to agree with his decision to draw his gun. He had good reason to fear a life threatening attack from the dogs alone. And I think it's fair to point out that while he could have shot a dog/s, he didn't. He used a pretty good method for scarring them off, an extremely loud noise.
The real issue in this case was whether or not Fish was in fear for his life fro the dogs' owner. I have to agree with the ruling that that matter was handled badly by the trial court. Evidence that would support his story was excluded in order to paint a picture (or, to be fair, that allowed a picture to be painted) in which what Fish said happened didn't happen at all. There is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case if evidence that goes to support his claim about what he encountered is allowed. The fact that the man fish shot was unarmned shouldn't even be an issue. The implication is that an unarmed man could not cause you serious bodily harm or death, but the fact is that an unarmed man can do those things. It comes down to whether or not the attacker is willing to do so, and having no prior knowledge of this person the benefit of the doubt must go to the attacked party, Harold Fish. Unless, of course, Fish is lying about what happened. The evidence doesn't seem to indicate that he has been.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
July 5, 2009, 11:14 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
If two dogs set upon me simultaneously, damn straight I'd pull the pistol and drop the stick. We are NOT required to arbitrarily limit our response in self defense to some sort of peculiar proportionality test , particularly not against critters.
Last edited by csmsss; July 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM. |
July 5, 2009, 12:46 PM | #18 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Might want to take a look here: http://www.useofforce.us/
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
July 5, 2009, 01:10 PM | #19 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
I never once considered this a "bad shoot"... If your sweetest auntie in her sunday best runs at me with the same aggressive demeanor of the teeth bared dogs... she is gettin 2 CoM!
If my beloved "Rosie" the 8 year old pit mix 30 pounds leaves my property in a threatening manner on a jogger, he is not gonna get so much as a glare from me if he shoots her dead! Actually if she does that one more time I am likely gonna punch her dang ticket my self! The fact that he was approached by a guy in a threatening fashion is reason enough following the startle he just got from the dog incident. I feel his only mistake was citing details in his statements. Time of day etc. is too hard to determine as is elapsed time following any high pressure situation. Had his statement left these answers vague, his statement and that of the distant "ear witnesses" would not have been compared with the same scrutiny and I feel he would have walked out of trial a free man! Brent |
July 5, 2009, 02:25 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
I think anyone, regardless of the circumstances, start behind the power curve when they shoot an unarmed person. Doesn't mean they won't walk but it is harder to prove SD when that happens. I think if they retry Fish he may not get off the second time as I think there are some questions about this one IMO.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
July 5, 2009, 11:32 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
It's a mistake in legal reasoning to presume that an unarmed person attacking you doesn't represent a deadly threat, especially when the attacker knows you are armed.
Fending off dangerous animals with your bare hards or a stick when you have a more effective means is putting yourself in more danger than is necessary. I'm all about individual choice, so if that's how you choose to do it then by all means. Personally, I like my bits just where they are. I don't have time to worry about hurt feelings of someone who can't control their pets.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
July 6, 2009, 04:42 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
I believe Mr. Fish should have been released in trial #1, and strongly suspect he'll be cleared if trial #2 happens.
First, he had every right to draw against the dogs and fire warning shots. Might not have been the best possible plan, but he was legally in the right. We also know that the guy shot had a history of becoming mentally ungued if his dogs were threatened. That's a fact withheld from the jury that should have been available to Mr. Fish to back his story. There's a fine line between a past criminal/mental issue being used in court or not. If the past issue is similar enough that it backs up somebody's story, it should be allowed in as the appellate court said. The trial judge blew it. Finally, if a mentally deranged nutcase who is younger and stronger attacks you, shooting him is reasonable, esp. since it's likely his dogs will join any fight on his side. Has everybody forgotten that the dogs are still a factor even after they pulled back after the warning shots? They represent an additional threat. The dead guy should have backed down. Instead, he acted in a deranged fashion and pressed the attack. He's dead. I'm not crying.
__________________
Jim March |
July 6, 2009, 05:24 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
Quote:
|
|
July 6, 2009, 06:58 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
|
Based on what I've read about this case, which is never the same as being on the jury, there was clearly enough "reasonable doubt" to acquit Fish.
|
July 6, 2009, 10:36 AM | #25 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|