Harold Fish gets a retrial

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nomad65

Inactive
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/30/20090630selfdefense30-ON.html

If you don't know the Harold Fish story (or tragedy in my books), he was convicted of 2d degree murder after he shot Grant Kuenzli during a hike in northern arizona. Fish was aggressively threatened by Kuenzli's dogs and fired a warning shot to scare them away when Kuenzli started waving his arms wildly and running directly at Fish. Fish warned him then shot him when he didn't stop. Fish said he was in fear for his life.

The NBC Dateline story is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221
 
That entire deal was one big mess right from the second those two guys crossed paths.

Everybody involved did some really stupid things.

Prime example of how tragedy doesn't come from one problem, it comes from "cascading failures".

Virtually every action taken in that entire incident, by both parties, was wrong. Problem being, when you use a gun, "wrong" becomes "killer".
 
I hope with the new details the system will be required to produce for potential jurors will cause the DA to opt out of the re-trial...
Brent
 
The only place where it mentions the gun and ammo are the background

"the defendant dropped his hiking stick, grabbed his 10mm Kimber semiautomatic handgun."

Hope he has some better experts on sd and firearms this time around.
 
I'd be shocked if the DA goes anywhere near a retrial. I'm sure he will be offered a plea which will require no more jail/prison time and that will be that.
 
I wouldn't accept any plea that involves a felony or loss of civil rights, at this point. He's got the momentum now. The DA isn't going to be able to impose any sentence or plea that resembles what the defendant has already endured.
 
I just finished reading the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Arizona v Fish.

Whew! If the defense reads the decision that way I just did, the case is almost a slam-dunk for a finding of involuntary manslaughter, if not an outright acquittal.

The seriousness of the errors by the original trial court are bad enough. Here, the Appeals Court, in addressing those errors, hands the defense a roadmap upon how they should proceed upon retrial.

One of the facts that were not generally known, was that the story Fish told the police, when they first arrived, during the investigation, at the Grand Jury hearing and at Trail, never changed.

Whether or not you believe that Fish shot Kuenzli in self defense, you can not argue that he lied about what happened. The appeals court noted several times that the explanation given by Fish never varied in any detail. Fish is either a consummate liar, or he is telling the truth. Occam's Razor applies here.

It would be fair to say that I've changed my mind on the innocence of Harold Fish, based solely upon the errors committed by the trial court.
 
Oh, when I saw the title I was thinking of a guy named Harold Fish who was a serial killer/cannibal in the early 1900's:eek: totally different guy
 
Antipitas said:
It would be fair to say that I've changed my mind on the innocence of Harold Fish, based solely upon the errors committed by the trial court.
Click to expand...

Same here, although the facts of the case I have read still give me doubt. Shooting an unarmed man is always problematic and tough for me to see as a good SD claim absent disparity of force. The other issue I see is that he had a walking stick that could have precluded drawing the gun in the first place.
 
maestro pistolero said:
Which "he" had a walking stick and why would that have precluded drawing?
Click to expand...

Fish had a walking stick that he could have used to ward off the dogs but instead threw it aside and drew his firearm. The dogs weren't wild feral types and Fish knew that and a walking stick probably would have fended them off and not escalated the incident. IMO, if you have the means to defend yourself safely and not use deadly force then you should use the lesser force if available. That is one of the biggest problems I have with what Fish did.
 
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.
 
If two dogs set upon me simultaneously, damn straight I'd pull the pistol and drop the stick. We are NOT required to arbitrarily limit our response in self defense to some sort of peculiar proportionality test , particularly not against critters.
 
Last edited:
rampage841512 said:
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.
Click to expand...

First of all Fish was not bitten by the dogs they just ran at him. That happens a lot with dogs and that does not mean they are attacking you. I too have been attacked by dogs (and I mean bitten and jumped on) and was able to fend them off with no weapons until the owner got control of them. The dogs who ran at Fish were not attack dogs or wild and Fish knew they had an owner. Fish had a walking stick and choose to use the gun instead. IMO that escalated the enocounter needlessly.

rampage841512 said:
The fact that the man fish shot was unarmned shouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...

It is most definitely an issue! In most states to successfully claim self defense after shooting an unarmed person you must show that a disparity of force was present. Just because someone hits you does not mean you can shoot them at least in TN.

Might want to take a look here: http://www.useofforce.us/
 
I never once considered this a "bad shoot"... If your sweetest auntie in her sunday best runs at me with the same aggressive demeanor of the teeth bared dogs... she is gettin 2 CoM!

If my beloved "Rosie" the 8 year old pit mix 30 pounds leaves my property in a threatening manner on a jogger, he is not gonna get so much as a glare from me if he shoots her dead! Actually if she does that one more time I am likely gonna punch her dang ticket my self!:mad:

The fact that he was approached by a guy in a threatening fashion is reason enough following the startle he just got from the dog incident.

I feel his only mistake was citing details in his statements. Time of day etc. is too hard to determine as is elapsed time following any high pressure situation. Had his statement left these answers vague, his statement and that of the distant "ear witnesses" would not have been compared with the same scrutiny and I feel he would have walked out of trial a free man!
Brent
 
hogdogs said:
I never once considered this a "bad shoot"... If your sweetest auntie in her sunday best runs at me with the same aggressive demeanor of the teeth bared dogs... she is gettin 2 CoM!
Click to expand...

Well, you may not consider this a "bad shoot" but if you did what you just said you would do Brent I think you might find the next few years rather "confining" if you know what I mean. Of course, you could hone your ultimate fighting skills with your new "roommate";)

I think anyone, regardless of the circumstances, start behind the power curve when they shoot an unarmed person. Doesn't mean they won't walk but it is harder to prove SD when that happens. I think if they retry Fish he may not get off the second time as I think there are some questions about this one IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top