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
|