The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

JohnH1963 · December 16, 2008, 04:37 PM

Many people here might or might not be familiar with Harold Fish. He shot an unarmed man with a 10 mm in Arizona and was sentenced to 10 years.

Now before posting to this thread, please first take a few moments to click on these links and read the information fully. The MSNBC link contains statements from Fish, the juror, several character witnesses and the prosecutor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/welcome.htm

There are several key mistakes that Harold Fish made:

1. Talking with the police without an attorney present.

2. Not taking specific notes after the incident and during his conversations with the police. He should have tape recorded what he said to the police for his own records. He made inconsistent statements that contradicted what he said to the police thereafter.

3. Utilizing a caliber that the local police department does not use.

4. Not attempting to back away or avoiding the situation.

5. Not warning the victim that he was about to fire if he did not stop.

There are also some things to be said about the victim. Using hostile or aggressive conduct and temperment against a man with a pistol in his hand is never something you want to do. The victim should have kept his hands in the open and walked backwards from Harold Fish talking in a calm manner.

If I was in the victims position, then when I heard the shots I would have tried to find cover behind a tree first. The first rule when you hear shots is to seek cover or go in the opposite direction of the shots. Then when addressing Mr. Fish, I would have spoken calmly from behind the tree and asked him to holster the weapon. Once the weapon is holstered, then I would come out from behind cover slowly with my hands to my side (but lifted slightly) and keep a distance of at least 25 feet. I would also not walk far from the cover position in the event I had to dive behind it if the weapon becomes unholstered.

So what could have Harold Fish or the victim done differently for a better outcome? This case is a great one to examine. Mr. Fish seemed to do everything he was supposed to do, but the outcome was indeed negative and he is still in prison to this day.

Lets say these were two armed Park Rangers or police from the local department in the forest and this scenario went down exactly as it did with Mr. Fish....would they have been treated any differently?

December 16, 2008, 04:37 PM	#1
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	Revisiting the Harold Fish incident Many people here might or might not be familiar with Harold Fish. He shot an unarmed man with a 10 mm in Arizona and was sentenced to 10 years. Now before posting to this thread, please first take a few moments to click on these links and read the information fully. The MSNBC link contains statements from Fish, the juror, several character witnesses and the prosecutor. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/welcome.htm There are several key mistakes that Harold Fish made: 1. Talking with the police without an attorney present. 2. Not taking specific notes after the incident and during his conversations with the police. He should have tape recorded what he said to the police for his own records. He made inconsistent statements that contradicted what he said to the police thereafter. 3. Utilizing a caliber that the local police department does not use. 4. Not attempting to back away or avoiding the situation. 5. Not warning the victim that he was about to fire if he did not stop. There are also some things to be said about the victim. Using hostile or aggressive conduct and temperment against a man with a pistol in his hand is never something you want to do. The victim should have kept his hands in the open and walked backwards from Harold Fish talking in a calm manner. If I was in the victims position, then when I heard the shots I would have tried to find cover behind a tree first. The first rule when you hear shots is to seek cover or go in the opposite direction of the shots. Then when addressing Mr. Fish, I would have spoken calmly from behind the tree and asked him to holster the weapon. Once the weapon is holstered, then I would come out from behind cover slowly with my hands to my side (but lifted slightly) and keep a distance of at least 25 feet. I would also not walk far from the cover position in the event I had to dive behind it if the weapon becomes unholstered. So what could have Harold Fish or the victim done differently for a better outcome? This case is a great one to examine. Mr. Fish seemed to do everything he was supposed to do, but the outcome was indeed negative and he is still in prison to this day. Lets say these were two armed Park Rangers or police from the local department in the forest and this scenario went down exactly as it did with Mr. Fish....would they have been treated any differently?