The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Alerion · January 12, 2009, 05:50 PM

I actually remember this case from the media when it was going on.

Let me say, first and foremost, I do not believe that Harold Fish should have been convicted! I think the original law, requiring him to prove himself innocent vs. the prosecutor having to prove him guilty was wrong if not unconstitutional.

However, there are a couple of points not mentioned or developed well in the article.

The first was the time frame. Fish claimed that the incident happened at 6:30. He went to the nearest road to get help and a motorist used his Onstar system to call for help. (The area was too remote for cell phones.) 911 got the call at 6:40. Neighboring campers then said that they heard the gunshots at 5:30. After that, Fish claimed to have put his backpack under the guy's head to make him more comfortable (he did) and supposedly stuck around for a while to try to administer first aid in order to explain the hour delay.

The next problem was that the more Fish was interviewed, the more his story changed. And in each case the changes made the story a stronger, more cut-and-dried case for self defense.

And the final problem was Harold Fish! Even though he didn't testify, he was very fond of telling his side of the story to reporters. And he came across as an arrogant ass. This is probably how a jury, who never heard him testify, came to the conclusion that he felt no remorse. I can remember watching a couple of these sound bites, wanting him to win his case, and thinking that the man was hanging himself by not keeping his mouth shut! His theme was pretty much the same every time, "I'm too important and well respected to be convicted for shooting a bum."

Anyway, I hope he gets out soon.

January 12, 2009, 05:50 PM	#63
Alerion Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2002 Location: Bloomington, IN Posts: 287	I actually remember this case from the media when it was going on. Let me say, first and foremost, I do not believe that Harold Fish should have been convicted! I think the original law, requiring him to prove himself innocent vs. the prosecutor having to prove him guilty was wrong if not unconstitutional. However, there are a couple of points not mentioned or developed well in the article. The first was the time frame. Fish claimed that the incident happened at 6:30. He went to the nearest road to get help and a motorist used his Onstar system to call for help. (The area was too remote for cell phones.) 911 got the call at 6:40. Neighboring campers then said that they heard the gunshots at 5:30. After that, Fish claimed to have put his backpack under the guy's head to make him more comfortable (he did) and supposedly stuck around for a while to try to administer first aid in order to explain the hour delay. The next problem was that the more Fish was interviewed, the more his story changed. And in each case the changes made the story a stronger, more cut-and-dried case for self defense. And the final problem was Harold Fish! Even though he didn't testify, he was very fond of telling his side of the story to reporters. And he came across as an arrogant ass. This is probably how a jury, who never heard him testify, came to the conclusion that he felt no remorse. I can remember watching a couple of these sound bites, wanting him to win his case, and thinking that the man was hanging himself by not keeping his mouth shut! His theme was pretty much the same every time, "I'm too important and well respected to be convicted for shooting a bum." Anyway, I hope he gets out soon. __________________ Well, sometimes we’d travel right down the green river To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie hill. Where the air smelled like snakes and we’d shoot with our pistols But empty pop bottles was all we would kill. -John Prine, Paradise