Harold Fish Case Arizona

V

VA9mm

New member
I saw this on Investigation Discovery the other day and it was quite alarming to someone that carry's. A lot was made of of him carrying a "powerfull" 10mm handgun that was more powerful than what a lot of police officers use. Then they were talking to a juror who said he had hollowpoints and they were designed to kill etc and that was a major sticking point for her. Is ball ammunition designed to tickle? Scary stuff... The man he shot had no weapon but was aggressively coming at him. You can read about the case. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221

This man was given 10yrs in prison and convicted of 2nd degree murder. Just wanted to kick it around here sorry if it's been discussed but, I saw it and tought it would be a good topic. Now they have since changed the law in Arizona where the state has the burden of proof in a self defense case. It sure does make you wonder though.
 
Actually a weapon (screw driver) was found in the dead man's pocket IIRC. And he wasn't a quad amputee so he had 4 weapons attached to the torso.
Brent
 
This has been covered a lot on TFL in older threads. IMO the Fish story is, well, fishy. Major problems when you shoot an unmarmed man and Kuenzli was unarmed at least as far as Fish could tell. From what I have read the jury thought he overreacted and since there were no witnesses to back it up he went to jail. IMO his mistake was firing at the dogs when he had a walking stick that he could have used to fend them off. Also, I don't think there was the disparity of force necessary to justify shooting the guy. My .02.
 
My $0.02. What if the guy runs up and attacks you. Now he throws you to the ground because you were afraid to pull your pistol and shoot. So now you are wrestling on the ground and he gets a hold of your pistol and shoots you. What good did it do to carry it?

Every had a dog or two that you didn't know come running at you? It sucks, had it happen a few times in Kosovo a few times at night. Not what you want to deal with. I probably would have shot the dogs if it was me. You have two coming at you so you have to shoot one with enough time to get the other before it gets to you.

I am sure there was a lot more information during the trial but you get uninformed people on a jury and it could go either way. 10mm hallow points, sounds like a good option for carry out in the wilderness to me.
 
IMO the Fish story is, well, fishy.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a little fishy, but I'm thinking that if Fish was itching to kill, he'd have shot one or both of the dogs first. Having not heard what the jury did, it's hard make a call, but on the surface it seems Fish had pretty good reason to fear for his life.
 
The problem is Kuenzli never laid a hand on Fish and he was unarmed. Fish claimed he was attacked but we don't know that and only have his word. Furthermore there was not (to my reading) a great disparity of force between the two. Seems to me like a sure formula for prison time if you are carrying and shoot someone with that set of circumtances.

As for Kuenzli taking the gun away, IIRC Fish kept it in his pack and Kuenzli would never have known it was there so no I don't think he would have used it on Fish. In Tennessee, even if someone punches you in the nose you can't automatically shoot them and claim SD. You'll do time.

Sure I have had dogs charge me. Big ones too and not the mutts that Kuenzli had. Warded them off with a swift kick and yelling. These were not trained attack dogs either. Just pound mutts. You are forgetting that Fish also had a walking stick which he threw away to grab his gun. Could I at 50 something ward off two pound mutts with a 5 to 6' walking stick? Heck yeah.

I'm thinking Fish, who appeared to be a rather arrogant fellow got mad, shot at the dogs and then got ****** when Kuenzli came up to him and shot him. I think he overreacted and now a man lost his life.

I think justice was done tragic as it now seems. The facts I have read do not support a clear cut case of SD.
 
Fish claimed he was attacked but we don't know that and only have his word.
Click to expand...
And maybe if Fish had been a little more laid back, he'd be the dead guy. Then what? Send Kuenzli to prison?

Furthermore there was not (to my reading) a great disparity of force between the two.
Click to expand...
On what logic do you base this?

The facts I have read do not support a clear cut case of SD.
Click to expand...
Nor do they support anything else.

And.... one more... being arrogant is grounds to prohibit one from defending one's self?
 
grymster2007 said:
And maybe if Fish had been a little more laid back, he'd be the dead guy.
Click to expand...

Evidence didn't show that or Fish would have been acquitted. One could just as easily say that if Fish "had been a little more laid back" NOBODY would be dead.

grymster2007 said:
On what logic do you base this?
Click to expand...

Not logic, facts. Fish was a very fit 57 year old man who did a lot of hiking. Kuenzli was younger but not too much larger than Fish. I have seen pictures of them both and reading the doucments on the web do not show any great physical disparity of force. You can check it out for yourself if you wish.

grymster2007 said:
Nor do they support anything else.
Click to expand...

Except Fish killed an unarmed man. So what do you do? Call it even and let Fish go on his word alone? No justice there.

grymster2007 said:
And.... one more... being arrogant is grounds to prohibit one from defending one's self?
Click to expand...

No, but it is a dangerous mindset for someone who carries a gun. In Fish's case it is downright confining.
 
One of the best cases in recent years to refute all that "it doesn't matter what you carry" stuff that pops up from those that don't keep up with the legal side of the issues.
 
Ya'll need to come up with a different term... Un-firearmed is better! so a man without an implement that beats a woman or other man to death with fists is "un armed"? Lack of a steel item in hand does not unarmed make!
Brent
 
One of the best cases in recent years to refute all that "it doesn't matter what you carry" stuff that pops up from those that don't keep up with the legal side of the issues.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it was really about that. Fish's choice of weapon was mentioned, but IIRC, it went towards the prosecution's opinion of Mr. Fish's character.

The prosecution did their best to portray Mr. Fish as a self-righteous moral absolutist with a chip on his shoulder. The fact that he was carrying a more-powerful-than-usual handgun was used as ammunition for that argument. The rejection of the self-defense defense (erm...) was based on many factors, including self-contradictory statements by Mr. Fish, and the delay between when he shot Mr. Kuenzli and when he reported it.

Of course, only Mr. Fish knows what happened that morning, and we can only speculate. The problem is, the jury was in that same position, with a very zealous prosecutor steering them as best he could.
 
Tom Servo said:
I don't know that it was really about that. Fish's choice of weapon was mentioned,
Click to expand...

Tom, what I read from some jurors is that the gun and the ammo really didn't make that much difference. The facts led them to believe that Fish overreacted.

Bottomline, if you shoot an unarmed person where there is not a pretty big disparity of force between him and you then prepare for doing the long course as we used to say in another life.

hogdogs said:
Ya'll need to come up with a different term... Un-firearmed is better! so a man without an implement that beats a woman or other man to death with fists is "un armed"? Lack of a steel item in hand does not unarmed make!
Click to expand...

The law is pretty precise for a reason Brent. In the case you mention, disparity of force is pretty easy to show and the women would be justified in shooting the "man" who was beating her. Unless she was Sheena, Queen of the Jungle;)
 
I think the biggest problems with the Fish case were that Fish's account didn't match the forensic evidence. That is what got him into trouble because Fish talked when he should not have talked. He cooperated fully, without his lawyer.

As for the caliber issue, it wasn't the caliber that convicted him. A couple of the jurors didn't like the caliber and hollowpoint aspect, no doubt, but that was more after the aspect that his story didn't match the evidence, particularly the timing (when Fish reported the event occurred and when auditory witnesses heard the shots) and lack of threat issues as I recall.

It could be argued that caliber and hollowpoints were a sticking point, but so too was the aspect that as a scout leader trained in first aid, Fish didn't make any attempt at first aid other than putting his pack under the guy's head. That was bothersome to a juror.

Note that the juror's also noted that the believed that the threat was not advancing at the time he was shot.

Larson: So this idea that he may have been stopped, that these may have been defensive wounds, played huge?

Elliot: Absolutely.

Nelson: It was major.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that the caliber or bullet type were huge, but that the jurors believed the shootee no longer posed a threat when he was shot.

Of course being gun people, we tend to focus on the fact that caliber and bullet type are mentioned, and they are, but so too are many other factors. Then again if you think the ammo issue is significant, then you have to note that Fish's lawyer did just about nothing to discount the prosecution's categorization of the ammo. Ammo will nearly always be an issue. The prosecution will bring it up regardless of the caliber. All calibers can be categorized in a negative light, but at the same time, they can be readily defended when they are commercial ammo.

So the juror was bothered by hollowpoints. She would have been bothered had Fish used .38 spl, 9mm, .45 acp, or any other hollowpoint caliber.
 
Well Tennessee, we’re probably not going to agree on a lot here, so I’ll make one more point and let it go. You say the two men were roughly the same size and conclude that there was force parity. While I might be convinced of a force disparity between Shaquille O'Neal and maybe someone like Giada De Laurentiis, generally parity in size is a poor indicator of parity in force.

BTW: As a young man, I actually researched some of this and discovered that my 5’10” 220 lb. bulk was no match for some 5’4” 130 lb. dynamos, regardless how thoroughly I pummeled their fists with my face. :)
 
Don't disagree with you on the force disparity but here is the deal. If you shoot an unarmed man your attorney had better be able to show force disparity between your attacker and you or you will be doing time. I learned at my CCW class that here in Tennessee just because someone punches you in the nose does not mean you can kill them. Anyway, as was posted by Double Naught there was a question whether the guy stopped before Fish shot him. I think Fish got what he deserved but it is tragic nonetheless.
 
Fish claimed he was attacked but we don't know that and only have his word.
Click to expand...

Major lesson for everyone in that. In a self defense shooting, it's up to the defendant to produce evidence showing that his actions were justified. Guess Fish couldn't do that.
 
One of the best cases in recent years to refute all that "it doesn't matter what you carry" stuff that pops up from those that don't keep up with the legal side of the issues.
Click to expand...

This case is the exception and not the rule. Which is why there are only a few of such cases to support such an assertion outside of the likes of NJ, NY, and CA; places where folks make a career out of making a hard case against lawful self defense. Further, the over-zealous prosecutor (Lessler) was widely regarded as ambitious and an anti-gunner to boot. He introduced into evidence the fact that the NRA was partially supporting Fish's defense. How is that relevant? Further, when he couldn't get a grand jury to indict Fish on murder, he went ahead without one. What does that tell you? He used the Fish case as a stepping stone for his personal ambitions. This guy had plans and he wasn't about to let a high profile case slip by without taking the opportunity to make a name for himself. He was a senior staff attorney then. I bet you know who just made Chief Deputy Attorney in the Coconino County DA's office. Did you also know that the year he prosecuted Fish that Lessler was given a lifetime achievement award by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council? That's a hell of a career advancement in just one year.

Besides, Kuenzli would have been just as dead if killed by a 17 HMR or a 22LR.
 
I don't know that it was really about that. Fish's choice of weapon was mentioned, but IIRC, it went towards the prosecution's opinion of Mr. Fish's character.
Click to expand...
Which becomes a factor in deciding guilt. Is it a big factor? Maybe, maybe not. But it can be and often is a factor, a factor that is easy to avoid instead of pretending it won't matter.

This case is the exception and not the rule. Which is why there are only a few of such cases to support such an assertion outside of the likes of NJ, NY, and CA; places where folks make a career out of making a hard case against lawful self defense.
Click to expand...
It really isn't an exception. Where it becomes an exception is the attention it got. Most cases don't get near the attention this one did, but many cases involve questions about the gun and ammo used in the shooting. usually it is handled easily, but the more out of the norm the more troublesome the issue can be.
 
For what? Every case where they have discussed the caliber and gun used in a shooting? Find any case where there is a shooting. The gun and the ammo will have been discussed during the trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top