Quote:
As BikerRN pointed out, the man's name is Harold Fish. The governor did not pardon him.
The court of appeals overturned the conviction because the trial judge erred by not admitting certain evidence offered by Fish in his defense. A new trial was ordered, but the prosecutor decided not to retry Mr. Fish and instead dismissed the charges.
|
Yup, actually, I found the name in the post above BikerRN if you note. You are correct that the governor did not pardon him, but she did sign a law retroactively including Fish and removing any possibility of further criminal charges putting the burden of proof on the prosecution instead of the burden of proof on the defendant who in Fish's case must prove his innocency. Technically, not a pardon, but I was just going off the top of my head. Old age takes its toll on the brain cells.
I also looked up the Larry Hicks story and yes, he did not make a statement immediately, but he also did NOT obtain competent counsel immediately as well to make a full statement of facts with in a couple of days under the proper counsel.
http://www.shastadefense.com/ArmedCi...ork_2010-9.pdf
So I believe the proper way to deal with this is keep quiet immediately after the fact due to the physiologic effects of adrenalin and stress reaction, obtain competent representation
immediately to intervene on your behalf with a lawyer that is familiar with self defense cases. Fish talked too much without a lawyer and the inconsistencies in his statements led to indictment. Hicks didn't even make a formal statement before his indictment and counted on a court provided public defense lawyer after the fact. Their cases are unfortunate, but not ideal examples of self defense cases.
From all of the reading and CCW classes I have attended, the recommendations are to limit immediate after the fact statements to nothing but the basics. Obtain competent representation immediately, make a full formal legal assisted statement within a few days of the incident once the stress reaction adrenalin is abated and aggressively defend from the beginning to establish the facts.
It always helps to have witnesses supporting your side of the story. I hope I am never in such a situation in the first place. For Larry Hicks, immediate retreat would have been the best approach if possible. In retrospect, he believes if he would have been more assertive in defending himself by pushing the woman down and retreating, the shooting might have been averted. If I have two large women beating on me, I will defend myself in kind to put an end to it without the need for further escalation of force. Another lesson to consider. One was apparently a martial arts practition, talking about the women. Better to to knock the women down before the boyfriend jumps in. Then it is three against one and you by definition have grounds for immediacy and jeopardy of life or grave bodily injury. Most of us wouldn't ordinarily hit a woman, but a solid defensive punch against two aggressive woman might have ended the confrontation allowing retreat before the boyfriend arrived.
Easy to second guess after the fact, but I believe there are lessons for all of us to consider. People do not react appropriately in an emergency situation unless they have had prior training and a lot of it. You really have to know the answer before the situation happens to know how to do right.
In any case, great discussion. Terrible situations.