Harold Fish Not to be Retried

[PT111]

When I say win at all costs i am talking about legally not necessarily ethically. Unfortunately in our adverseral system the emphasis is on winning a conviction by the prosecutor rather than justice being served. Efer notice how the two legal teams go at each other's throat in the courtroom and then go play golf or have lunch together.

[B.N.Real]

There are some troubling aspects to this case.

He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli?

Why would you do that?

I am not informed enough to make a decision on this.

[Stevie-Ray]

Far as I remember, it was said Kuenzli said something like, "I'm gonna kill you!" as he lunged for Fish. That could be construed as a definite threat to your life, unless I'm misremembering.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by B.N.Real

He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli? Why would you do that?

The jury that convicted Fish asked exactly the same question. Good point!

[mavracer]

He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli?

Why would you do that?

why would you fire another warning shot?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by mavracer

why would you fire another warning shot?

Why fire any at all?

[mavracer]

Why fire any at all?

because you fear grave bodily harm or death.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by mavracer

because you fear grave bodily harm or death.

Many CCW instructors tell you not to do that and in some states that is against the law.

[skeezix]

Warning shot, ugh... a waste of ammunition, not to mention who knows where that round will end up.

Ayoobs' book is a good one

Edit - If you fear grave bodily harm or death this is why you announce your intentions such as "Stop, do NOT come any closer!" or if you've drawn a weapon, "STOP or I WILL shoot!" - This is your warning shot, you've made your intentions known that self defense is an option you're willing to explore and works a lot better than "DIE YOU MOTHERF***ER!", especially if heard by another witness right before a gunshot ;-)

[mavracer]

Many CCW instructors tell you not to do that and in some states that is against the law.

Yes many people seem to think a dead victim laying in the alley/boonies is somehow morally superior to the person with the smoking gun explaining to the cops how the criminal got the bullet wound.
more and more states are passing castle laws which remove the obligation to retreat.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Mr. Fish's warning shot cost him 3 years of his life, financial ruin and the death of another person. But, I guess it seemed a good idea at the time

[Mosin44az]

Kuenzli's dogs were smarter than he was, or at least less psychotic. They broke off the attack and wandered away when the warning shot was fired.

This whole horrible incident is a good argument for carrying Bear Spray or at least pepper spray, when carrying a gun. A less-than-lethal, but still effective, defense tool.

[maestro pistolero]

He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli?

Why would you do that?

Because, unlike Mr. Kuenzli, the dogs could take a hint.

This whole horrible incident is a good argument for carrying Bear Spray or at least pepper spray, when carrying a gun. A less-than-lethal, but still effective, defense tool.

Ditto, I've been saying that, and practicing that for years. Pepper spray is way more likely to be the right tool for most altercations, but when you need a gun, there's just no substitute.

[AZAK]

Pepper spray is way more likely to be the right tool for most altercations, but when you need a gun, there's just no substitute.

"And you still had some spray left in your can of pepper spray, so why did you escalate the situation and choose to shoot the victim with your gun?"

or

"You did not even attempt to use the can of pepper spray that you had with you..."

Be careful, walking on the razor's edge. Just something to think on.

That said, I do carry Bear spray when hiking in the woods, and a gun. Spray comes out first for bears and other unarmed four-leggeds. (Unless I am specifically out hunting.)

[mavracer]

Mr. Fish's warning shot cost him 3 years of his life, financial ruin and the death of another person.

NO,Mr Kuenzli's reaction charging Mr Fish cost Mr Kuenzli his life,the Judge not allowing the defense to properly show Mr. Kuenzli as the agressor cost him 3 years of his life.
Mr Fish himself has said many times he wishes it hadden't happened and I'm sure that's true.
you seem to want to convict Fish because he fired a warning shot at the dogs instead of using the walking stick.fine I get that you are morally superior to Fish because you would rather be bit than fire your gun.That's great I'm still proud of you.
Now answer me this what evidence is there that Kuenzli would not have reacted the same way when you wack the approching dog with the stick?
now he's 5-8 feet away from you telling you he's gonna kill you are you still morally superior to Fish?

[hogdogs]

Judge not allowing the defense to properly show Mr. Kuenzli as the agressor cost him 3 years of his life.

The judge's failure to clearly explain to the jury that NO physical contact is required by the aggressor/attacker to qualify for aggravated assault which is a sickness that warrants a lead aspirin via self defense response also played a large role in his guilty verdict...
Brent

[Alleykat]

Why don't we give Mr. Fish the benefit of the doubt? It's pretty easy to second guess when all you have invested is a few taps on a keyboard. He did what he felt he had to do at the time. In my opinion, he behaved correctly.

Could be there won't be a civil suit, and it could be that AZ law precludes such a civil suit; my State's laws prevent such suits.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by mavracer

I get that you are morally superior to Fish because you would rather be bit than fire your gun.

I am glad you think so well of me but the much more important difference between Mr. Fish and myself is that I am not 500K in debt to lawyers and have not lost three years of my life in prison in order to avoid a dog bite. To answer your question about Kuenzli, it is by no means clear that Kuenzli would have harmed Fish even after he fired the shot.

You all keep harping on the judge but the point you keep missing is that when you shoot an unarmed man you may well find yourself "in the system" with another judge and the same thing may happen to you. Once you draw that gun and fire it you may start down a path that you didn't intend and end up like Fish. As I have said before there is no victory here for anybody (except Fish's lawyers) which started with Fish not wanting to get bit by two pound mutts.

This is kind of basic but when things are hot between folk and somebody pulls a gun it might escalate into something tragic so the better idea is to think ahead and look for ways not to do that. As to Keunzli yelling threats at Fish, that is not grounds to shoot.

If being "morally superior" means staying out of prison and keeping financially solvent then I am all for it. I think it is pretty clear that the Fish case was well, fishy or they wouldn't have prosecuted and convicted him.

However, as I told another poster go ahead and draw your gun quick and escalate the situation and we can contribute to your defense fund and have a thread about you on TFL. You may be broke and in prison but you made your point right?

[hogdogs]

but the much more important difference between Mr. Fish and myself is that I am not 500K in debt to lawyers and have not lost three years of my life in prison in order to avoid a dog bite.

Another important point of note is that you also haven't recently been rushed by 2 vicious dogs and a raving lunatic yelling threats agianst your life...
Brent

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Alleykat

It's pretty easy to second guess when all you have invested is a few taps on a keyboard. He did what he felt he had to do at the time.

It is better to invest some time thinking about how to react to situations when you are CCW than "invest" 500K in a lawyer and take a government paid vacation.

If you think Mr. Fish acted properly then I think you are drawing a bad lesson from the case. What happened to Fish I don't think is as out of the norm as you might think. Given the same circumstances in another jurisdiction, the same thing might happen and so I would probably take the Fish saga as what not to do rather than a "righteous" shoot.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Let's take a vote, shall we?

Choose one:

1)Get bit by two dogs.

2)Kill a man, spend $500,000 and 3 years in jail.



Special note:
A dog "attack" is extremely unlikely. These dogs had certainly never done it or they would be put down. A bite is completely different than an attack. Make no mistake, Fish fired his gun to avoid being BITTEN, not attacked.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

you also haven't recently been rushed by 2 vicious dogs

There is no evidence (other than Fish's word) that those dogs were vicious and in fact the vets that handled them said they weren't. And yes I have been attacked by dogs and did not need a gun to ward them off. As to Kuenzli being a "lunatic" I didn't know you were a psychiatrist and if you are not I would be careful about your "diagnosis".

Originally Posted by hogdogs

NO physical contact is required by the aggressor/attacker to qualify for aggravated assault which is a sickness that warrants a lead aspirin via self defense

Brent, you must really want to be locked up. Shooting someone who is unarmed and hasn't touched you is not a good way to avoid problems. I think you better be able to 'splain that to a jury, and as I have said before such a jury will not be TFLers or even people that own guns. You do understand that right?

[OldMarksman]

Could be there won't be a civil suit, and it could be that AZ law precludes such a civil suit; my State's laws prevent such suits.

Sure you're not mistaken? In many states, the fact that the use of deadly force was justified under the criminal code does protect against civil liability, and in some, it is specified that a plaintiff must pay for the costs of a suit.

But how is it determined that the act was justified under the criminal code? Not by the fact that no charges have yet been filed, I'll wager (and consider the lack of a statute of limitations for homicide). Usually, there has to be a criminal trial and acquittal, or the determination is made in civil court.

At that point things really start to vary. In civil trials, the burden is one of a preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt. And whether that burden is placed on the plaintiff or on the defendant seems to vary by state, by my lay reading.

[hogdogs]

Peetzaslinger,
I will take option #3... Live in a place where the attacker does not legally need an inanimate weapon to pose a threat to my health or life. I do not even need "disparity of force" as a legal justification for self defense up to and including lethal force.
Brent

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Live in a place where the attacker does not legally need an inanimate weapon to pose a threat to my health or life. I do not even need "disparity of force" as a legal justification for self defense up to and including lethal force.

Well, it won't be here in the states but I was in a place like that for about 90 days once. They call it Somalia, lots of guns there!