[rampage841512]

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.