Good shooting sends father of 7 away for 10 years for 2nd deg murder -used a 10mm.

It would appear that the prosecutor was guilty, at the least, of attempting to manipulate the evidence to show that what transpired was, in his possibly political opinion, worthy of more scrutiny.
Click to expand...

And this surprises anyone how?

And everything is political for them.
 
Not surprising.

The shooter claims to have been attacked by a guy with two large dogs. The attacker ends up with three holes in him at least one of which was in his side. Both the dogs and the shooter are unharmed. No witnesses. He's lucky he only got the minimum.

Another way to looks at this is suppose you are walking in the woods with your two dogs. Up ahead, you see a guy apparently trying to shoot your dogs. Would running toward the shooter, yelling (swearing) and "flailing your arms" (a quote from the shooter) be an abnormal behavior?
 
One of the main points the prosecutor used was that the 10mm was more powerful that that used by police. Also Mr. Fish had loaded his pistol with hollowpoints which are designed to kill.
Click to expand...

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time there's a thread here with people scoffing at those who warn against using handloads in their defensive firearms. I use the exactly the same ammo in my defensive handgun as my town's police use.
 
If one reads the legal and jury simulation literature and not just opinions on the Internet (:D ), you would know that there is some good research demonstrating that weapons issues have influenced simulated juries. Pragmatically, DAs make a big deal about showing the weapon and describing its characteristics because it influences folks.

People who say that the only thing that counts is whether it is a good shoot, don't know the technical background of the issue.
 
At first glance - especially with the history of "aggressiveness" of this 40 year old's dogs - he should have never let them walk trails unleashed.

The prosecutor here is guilty of misconduct at the very least. There is no way he should have pressed charges against a 57 year old who does not have a criminal record. Ex-school teacher....?

The judge here has probably erred by not allowing the testimony of the police officers who mentioned that the dogs were aggressive and they ALMOST shot the dog themselves.

Wow. What a travesty of justice.
 
Bad juries happen to good people. The amount of misconceptions left in the minds of the jury indicate a horrible job done by the defense. Hopefully he wins on appeal.
 
One of the main points the prosecutor used was that the 10mm was more powerful that that used by police. Also Mr. Fish had loaded his pistol with hollowpoints which are designed to kill.
Click to expand...
Maybe this will put to rest all those claims about how the ammunition you use will never have any impact in court.
 
Maybe this will put to rest all those claims about how the ammunition you use will never have any impact in court.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you want to be totally safe from ever having court problems that are gun-related, you should sell all your guns, give away your ammo, and go hide in a closet for the rest of your life. :rolleyes:
 
What this case shows is that the people running around saying that nothing will matter other than whether it was a good shooting really don't know what they are talking about. Here, the caliber and bullet used played an impact on whether the jury thought it was a good shoot or not. And if you look up the case law on the impact of hollowpoints on the verdict, you will most likely not pull this one up. The juror's comments after the trial are not part of the record, and won't be published as such. All an appellate court will review is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, not whether the juror's prejudice or ignorance played a role.

If one reads the legal and jury simulation literature and not just opinions on the Internet ( ), you would know that there is some good research demonstrating that weapons issues have influenced simulated juries. Pragmatically, DAs make a big deal about showing the weapon and describing its characteristics because it influences folks.

People who say that the only thing that counts is whether it is a good shoot, don't know the technical background of the issue.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Quite true, Buzz. While generally a good shoot is a good shoot, there are no guarantees in the law.

Heaven protect us from evil prosecutors, ineffective defense counsel, and idiotic jurors! As a criminal defense lawyer, I can pretty much ensure that I won't get stuck with ineffective counsel, but the other two are always possibilities.

It all comes down to what I always say: you have to be able to justify what you do, and you have to be comfortable with the risk in doing what you do. The truth is that virtually any variable can be used against a person at trial - you can always try to pound some sense into the fact-finders' heads, but there are never any guarantees in the law. :(
 
In reading an article interviewing a juror, it does not seem like the jury cared about the caliber; the jury found the deceased was attempting to help his wounded dogs when shot by the defendant; the jury came to this conclusion based on the "defensive" caracter of the wounds.
 
What?

How can anyone make any assumptions on this? None of us know the full story. None of us were there. When I read the article it sounded to me like it could fairly go either way. The guy could have ran, he could have backed up while telling the man to quit, he could have verbally warned him in some way. And before someone asks "would you verbally warn an intruder in your house?" please note that this is not the same type of situation. I would hate to know that I killed a man for simply running at me. Once again, I am not telling anyone what they should think or that thy should agree with me. All I am saying is it is very hard to say whether the man is innocent or guilty unless you actually saw what he did. Most of the evidence presented in the article is irrelevant.
 
From what I read, I think the shooter was legally justified. However, I don't know if the judge let in all the evidence about the deceased's mental problems.

Life is not always fair.

Maybe on appeal...
 
Gotta back Fish. It seems he was truly afraid for his life, and judging by Kuenzli's history, he had reason to.

Fish was speaking of a ruling Moran had made early in the trial that Kuenzli's mental health records, statements from dozens of people describing troubling encounters with him and testimony from a former girlfriend -- who alleged Kuenzli terrorized her -- were not admissible.
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't matter if we think the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing the evidence, the appellate court must agree with us...
 
Another way to looks at this is suppose you are walking in the woods with your two dogs. Up ahead, you see a guy apparently trying to shoot your dogs. Would running toward the shooter, yelling (swearing) and "flailing your arms" (a quote from the shooter) be an abnormal behavior?
Click to expand...

HECK YES!:eek: I dont know if you are saying it is normal or not but I wanted to make sure. I'd let my dogs have their way with the dude and I'd run like heck! Besides, if a guy has a gun pointed at me, running at him would definatly be NOT the thing to do. Tactical lesson: when out gunned, distance is your friend.
 
Almost anything can get twisted around by the other side

Anything from what you wear to what you say

What you decide to worry about is up to you

In this case it appears unclear as to whther lethal force was justified

That makes the subtleties all the more important
 
One of the main points the prosecutor used was that the 10mm was more powerful than that used by police. Also Mr. Fish had loaded his pistol with hollowpoints which are designed to kill.
Click to expand...

I do not have the words to express my anger and disbelief at this statement. Dead is dead, it doesn't matter if you die from a shot with a .22lr or a .50AE, you're still dead. (maybe he could have argued that since he isn't as well trained as police he needs a more powerful gun to make up for it) And bullets are designed to kill?.... no, it couldn't be... :barf: On this point, it has also been said that hollowpoints are safer since they aren't as likely to overpenetrate and hit bystanders. But even if he used FMJ is could be twisted around on him in another way such as "FMJ passes through the body and is more likely to wound than kill compared to a hollowpoint, thus it is unnecessarily cruel since it torturously wounds him."
That prosecutor has made one of the most disgustingly idiotic statements I've heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top