View Single Post
Old December 4, 2012, 03:17 PM   #57
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
I realize I said I wasn't going to post again, but the amount of ignorance being spewed here is overwhelming.

You failed to look at the date of this case; it was before the SYG laws where enacted. So you seem to want to hang on this so let’s look at it, here is a guy walking down a trail and another man is walking towards him with 3 unleashed dogs.
SYG has as much relevance in this case as it does in Zimmerman's case. That is, NONE. Stand your ground just means you don't have a duty to attempt to retreat. The man Fish shot was younger and more fit than Fish himself. He was running after Fish. The man would have caught up to Fish. At that point, we don't know what would have happened. Fish did the only thing he could; point the gun at his aggressor and tell him to stop. When he did not comply, being fearful for his life, he fired to save himself from possible serious injury or death. The man Fish shot was younger, physically bigger, faster, and stronger. To the point where there was a difference in power between the men. This justified his use of a firearm.

we can assume
Let me stop you there. To assume is to make an as...well, you know the rest, and you've done a good job of it here.

that it is a state or federal park in which dogs are supposed to be leashed. with that in mind I can hear the conversation...YOUR dogs are supposed to be leashed... screw you and mind your own bee wax.... what did you say?.... screw off....I am going to report you....O yea....bam,bam...
Oh cool, where did you find this information. If this is true, then I'm wrong. Oh wait, you made an enormous assumption. Anyone reading this can ignore what's quoted above, because it contains nothing more than an facts.

Now under federal law you’re not supposed to carry a gun on federal land (that’s changed but not at the time of the shooting)
1) You assume it was a Federal Park which at the time would have been illegal to carry, but it was a National Forest (Tonto National Forest), which has never been off limits to carrying a weapon (well, except states where they ban it, Arizona did not). If it were, then most hunters in the past 100 years would have been committing crimes when they hunt Federal land.

2) Even if what you said is correct (and it is not), it would have no relevance in the case. He would have been fined for that particular charge and it would have been dealt with separately from his self defense case.

3) Make sure you know a law before you quote it. It has never been illegal to carry on Federal land in general. Only certain types of Federal land has it ever been illegal. In this case, it was perfectly legal, even at the time. (This is part of the ignorance I mentioned earlier.)

How many times have we heard of someone knowing they have a gun and being aggressive when they normally wouldn’t?
Making more assumptions, I see. Is this what happened in the Fish case? Oh, you don't know? Ok, we can ignore it then!

There are a lot of dead spots in this case because there is only one witness.
Hey, something I agree with. Let's remember that the initial investigator, however, had determined that it was a legal shoot. It was an anti-gun DA that forced this case to trial.

The gun was mention but no mods are mentioned and Mr. Fish was a gun enthusiast (read that) so I am sure like the rest of us he did something to the gun
Wow, this is one of the biggest assumptions you've made so far! Let's analyze this.

1) You ASSUME that gun enthusiasts tinker with their guns. Well, I'm one that doesn't. There are many others that don't. The information we have (which is more than your assumption) shows that his gun wasn't modified in anyway.

2) Given the facts of the case, and the DA with a chip on his shoulder, IF Fish had modded his gun, with almost certainty, he would have used it against him. He used the fact that Fish had 50 guns at home (irrelevant to the case), had 4 types of ammo in his van (irrelevant to the case), and targets with bullet holes, in his van (irrelevant to the case) to paint him as a gun crazy killer. If there had been a modded trigger on Fish's firearm, we can logically conclude (no assumption needed) the DA would have used that against him.

no they don't because they don't know you and your ability’s.
This is irrelevant. If they thought it was a good idea, they would recommend it. Ask Mas Ayoob if he carries a modded trigger. Ask any expert, who is a master with their firearm if they carry a modded trigger. The safe bet is all of them will say it's stock.

if this is the case then custom guns would be safe queens because heaven forbid you should have to use it in a SD situation.
Huh? This is a really ignorant statement. A custom gun, by definition is still a gun built by an FFL licensed to make guns. If they built a custom gun made for carry, you can bet that they have set it to a point where it is safe from a legal standpoint, and recommend that you don't mod it further.

I have a gun digest book wrote by Massad Ayoob and in there he mentions that a lot of pistol shooter on the IPSC use there every day carry guns in the competitions and I am sure they have mods and they carry them for SD, they don’t seem to worry about it
So, you ASSUME they have mods you mean? Also, I've read that particular book several times and I'm pretty sure he mentions it with regard to IDPA, which has very strict guidelines on guns you can use. Modded triggers aren't allowed in most every case. Even if it is IPSC (I'm too lazy to find my books since they're packed away from my recent move) he mentions, you realize there are several classes of guns. No one with a racegun would use it for carry. Also, several people use their stock guns in IPSC because they want to practice with their carry gun. In other words, just because a gun is used in IPSC does not automatically conclude it is modded. More logical fallacies, brought to you by, barstoolguru. Again, your statement is loaded with assumptions, and light on facts.

Before I had written this, I had thought about something. I'm thinking that most people don't realize that you will likely face a civil trial after your criminal trial. There are a bunch of differences in these, but two are really important for people in SD situations. The first is in what happens once a decision against you is made, the second is in how those decisions are made.

In a criminal trial, if you are found guilty, you will spend time in prison, have to pay attorney and court fees, as well as pay fines. Time in prison varies with charge, as do the fines. Usually the fines are capped.

In a civil trial, if you are found liable, you won't spend time in prison, but there is no cap (this depends on the state, actually) on how much you might have to pay out. In many cases, it could be several hundred thousand, up to several million.

How a decision is made is really the crux here. In a criminal trial, you are tried by a jury of your peers, and you must be found not guilty if the jury believes there is any sort of reasonable doubt. Essentially, if a reasonable person could believe in the possibility that you didn't commit the crime, you should be acquitted. The Judge has little to do with your case, except as a mediator. He can, however, sway the jury at times by deciding what the jury can and cannot use as evidence. (This is something that did happen to Fish).

In a civil trial, it's much worse for you. It is you against the complainant. Your verdict in your criminal trial has absolutely zero relevance in the civil trial. The whole idea of a jury of your peer is thrown out. The decision is made by a Judge. The whole idea of beyond a reasonable doubt, is thrown out. It's based SOLELY on preponderance of evidence. Meaning, if the opposing side has more evidence that you are liable than you have of you being not liable, regardless of what that evidence is, you will be found liable. It is MUCH harder to win a civil case...ask OJ Simpson who was found Not Guilty in his criminal trial but found liable in the civil trial.

What this means is, that modded trigger is evidence that is stacked against you. Even if you can justify it, it can still be used against you. Especially if you have an anti-gun, activist Judge making the decision. Civil cases are usually more private and we don't know exactly what happened in them in many cases, so we will likely not see publicly the results of very many of these.

The instructor who taught my CCW told us a story of a 60 year old woman who shot and killed an intruder. After emptying her retirement fund to fight a conviction, she was found not guilty. She didn't realize she still had a civil trial. She was sued by the family of the person she shot. She was out of money, and couldn't fight the lawsuit effectively. The preponderance of evidence showed she was liable for this person's death.

Like I said, do what you want to do at your own risk. I'm trying to help people not go through things like others have gone through. I also ask that if you wish to have a discussion effectively, refrain from the use of so much assumption. Also, it's a good idea to have a good grasp on the facts, which in the case of the Fish case, you most certainly did not.

I'm also adding to my challenge from earlier. If you find me a single expert in the field of self defense who either:

1) says it's ok to carry a modded gun.


2) carry's a modded gun (as in, below recommended factory specs)

I'll leave this forum and never post again.

I'm very confident you simply won't find it because they know how stupid it is to tempt fate.
Gaerek is offline  
Page generated in 0.03885 seconds with 8 queries