Harold Fish gets a retrial

[rampage841512]

It's a mistake in legal reasoning to presume that an unarmed person attacking you doesn't represent a deadly threat, especially when the attacker knows you are armed.

Fending off dangerous animals with your bare hards or a stick when you have a more effective means is putting yourself in more danger than is necessary. I'm all about individual choice, so if that's how you choose to do it then by all means. Personally, I like my bits just where they are. I don't have time to worry about hurt feelings of someone who can't control their pets.

 

[Jim March]

I believe Mr. Fish should have been released in trial #1, and strongly suspect he'll be cleared if trial #2 happens.

First, he had every right to draw against the dogs and fire warning shots. Might not have been the best possible plan, but he was legally in the right.

We also know that the guy shot had a history of becoming mentally ungued if his dogs were threatened. That's a fact withheld from the jury that should have been available to Mr. Fish to back his story.

There's a fine line between a past criminal/mental issue being used in court or not. If the past issue is similar enough that it backs up somebody's story, it should be allowed in as the appellate court said. The trial judge blew it.

Finally, if a mentally deranged nutcase who is younger and stronger attacks you, shooting him is reasonable, esp. since it's likely his dogs will join any fight on his side.

Has everybody forgotten that the dogs are still a factor even after they pulled back after the warning shots? They represent an additional threat.

The dead guy should have backed down. Instead, he acted in a deranged fashion and pressed the attack. He's dead. I'm not crying.

 

[PT111]

We also know that the guy shot had a history of becoming mentally ungued if his dogs were threatened. That's a fact withheld from the jury that should have been available to Mr. Fish to back his story.

I think the appeals court made it plain that this information should have been allowed and the jury to decide on its value. In 20/20 hindsight Mr. Fish may have overreacted but at the time who can say. He will probably reach a deal with the DA for time served and no new trail but there were lots of mistakes made. Just think of how much this has already cost Mr. Fish even if a new jury turns him loose. That is why you never use your gun as a first option.

 

[RDak]

Based on what I've read about this case, which is never the same as being on the jury, there was clearly enough "reasonable doubt" to acquit Fish.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It's a mistake in legal reasoning to presume that an unarmed person attacking you doesn't represent a deadly threat,

I don't think most SD laws go along with your reasoning. If you shoot an unarmed person you are going to have to make the jury believe that disparity of force between you and the attacker forced your hand. As I said before, just because someone hits you does not give you the right to kill them. I would take a look at the law in your state and then look at the link I provided in my last post.

Fending off dangerous animals with your bare hards or a stick when you have a more effective means is putting yourself in more danger than is necessary.

I think a jury might find otherwise and apparently did the first time. Just because you have a "more effective" means does not mean you have to use it. If my walking stick would do the job (and I beleive it would have) then I think morally that should be the choice rather than going immediately to the gun. Most experts that teach SD urge you to disengage and descalate.

I don't have time to worry about hurt feelings of someone who can't control their pets.

Maybe not but you might need to "take the time" to think about killing someone or you might have a lot of time to think about it later...in prison. As PT111 says very convincingly,

Just think of how much this has already cost Mr. Fish even if a new jury turns him loose. That is why you never use your gun as a first option.

. And don't be so sure that Fish will be turned loose either. The statements I read from the jury after the trial talked a lot about Fish "overreacting" and they knew a good bit about Kuenzli too.

Has everybody forgotten that the dogs are still a factor even after they pulled back after the warning shots? They represent an additional threat.

The dogs never bit Fish before he fired or after. I dispute your assumption that they were a threat at all. Also, just because a person is kooky doesn't mean he gets the death sentence. Have you forgotten that Fish never got a hand or tooth laid on him and another man is dead? We only have Fish's word on what happened too. Again, don't be too sure he will get off and even if he does as PT111 said look what it cost him. I would not call this a good shoot and would urge others reading this to take heed. Maybe Fish was in danger and maybe not but going straight to the gun may have not been the best thing to do. I bet Fish believes that now.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I love how many people seem to think dog bites are these little nips your pets may have given you in response you your scolding. NO way I am fending off TWO dogs with a walking stick when I have a gun, and I probably have 100 plus more hours training with a walking stick type weapon than anyone else in this thread.

Someone running at me when I am armed and have just discharged my weapon certainly believes himself to be a threat to my safety, I am not one to second guess my opponents confidence until after things are settled. He closes to a few yards and pulls a knife and there isn't much chance I stopping him before it touches my body.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I love how many people seem to think dog bites are these little nips your pets may have given you in response you your scolding. NO way I am fending off TWO dogs with a walking stick when I have a gun, and I probably have 100 plus more hours training with a walking stick type weapon than anyone else in this thread.

And what is equally disturbing is that some folk seem to think these were trained attack dogs, bred to fight pit bulls or wild rabid feral dogs. They were two pound mutts and the owner was there. Dogs like to run up to people and do so all the time. That does not constitute an attack. Many times a voice command or in this case a swing of a stick would ward them off. I have had dogs run at me many many times and was able to ward them off with a just a tree branch. I have been attacked by dogs too (bitten and jumped on) and warded them off as well with my feet and arms. Now these weren't pit bulls or Dobermans but neither were these. Maybe John you should consider using the stick rather than the gun as opposed to using it and ending up like Fish.

Someone running at me when I am armed and have just discharged my weapon certainly believes himself to be a threat to my safety, I am not one to second guess my opponents confidence until after things are settled.

Maybe if you just ward off the dogs without the gun then you won't need to shoot the owner. Fish went to his gun first and then shot an unarmed man. If you want to take your chances with a jury over that then have at it but don't be surprised if you end up the same way Fish did.

 

[hogdogs]

If you shoot an unarmed person you are going to have to make the jury believe that disparity of force between you and the attacker forced your hand.

In this case the attacker was armed with a large screwdriver in his back pocket IIRC...

As I said before, just because someone hits you does not give you the right to kill them.

You don't even have to hit me to give me the right to shoot you.... I just have to have reasonable belief that you intend to kill me or cause great bodily harm... Sorry bud but I got a glass jaw and other soft targets you won't get a chance to cause "GBH" to.

Just because you have a "more effective" means does not mean you have to use it. If my walking stick would do the job (and I beleive it would have) then I think morally that should be the choice rather than going immediately to the gun.

Morally isn't what is on trial... legally the guy was spot on!
I will buy you a steak of your choice if you can take a walking stick to 2 personal protection trained large breed dogs and stop them from attacking you! For it is never obvious the level a dog may be trained or mentally predisposed to go to. Heck I will even make it easy for you, I will put a pig on a rope and turn loose 2 of my catch dogs and you just defend the pig...

I dispute your assumption that they were a threat at all.

The dogs were a threat as soon as they started a high speed aggressive approach to a person who had not instigated this behavior...

going straight to the gun may have not been the best thing to do.

The military could save a ton on ammo costs with this tactic... soldiers should be issued walking sticks!
Brent

 

[Jim March]

The dogs never bit Fish before he fired or after. I dispute your assumption that they were a threat at all.

If you get in a fistfight or ground fight with a guy who has two large dogs with him, regardless of breed or their otherwise friendly nature, it's an odds-on bet they WILL join the fight.

Dogs don't understand what a gunfight is. Once the assailant was shot, Fish made no more aggressive moves and in fact even delivered some aid. The dogs at that point didn't fully realize a fight had even happened.

But they damned well understand what a fistfight is.

If you want some insights into a dog's level of understanding of the world, watch this video:

http://cuteoverload.com/2009/07/05/oh-so-thats-how-they-did-it/

Note that this is one of the smartest dogs I've ever heard of. First, he knows that the 3D effect of the screen is false in some way. He then makes the Einstein-level leap that the cat on the screen is the same as his buddy the cat right behind him. (The video is in NO WAY violent .)

That's the *pinnacle* of a dog's understanding of what's going on around them.

Also, just because a person is kooky doesn't mean he gets the death sentence.

Umm...yeah...no. Sorry. I have seen WAY too many people who "act out" in extreme rages because it makes them feel more powerful. They *enjoy* being threatening. It's a major form of bullying in which they enjoy terrifying everyone around them.

I detest that sort of behavior and will never tolerate it's being directed at me. And yeah, I know it's fractionally possible a DA might read these words someday. Fine. I stick by them regardless.

Have you forgotten that Fish never got a hand or tooth laid on him and another man is dead?

Good riddance.

You want me to respect human life? I assure you I do...but the dead guy had a long history of acting inhuman.

Behave like an animal, get treated like one.

We only have Fish's word on what happened too.

Wrong!

We have a bunch of reports on how the assailant acted in similar circumstances. All of those reports back up Fish's account.

Again, don't be too sure he will get off and even if he does as PT111 said look what it cost him.

Yes, it cost him a lot - via an overzealous prosecutor, a bad judge and a stupid jury. Sucks. But the new legal change making the new standards for self-defense retroactive WILL get him off. Under the old standard Fish had to prove the need to shoot - under the new, the state has to disprove it. Combine that with the new evidence allowed in regarding the dead guy's history and Fish should NOT take any deal that would leave him with a criminal record.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't you think by now - that there is at least reasonable doubt that Fish was in the right to defend himself?

Isn't that the standard? BTW, this case again shows how as Fiddletown and I put it - the 'if it is a good shoot' blather is baloney.

You need to be able to deal with the ambiguous situation.

 

[hogdogs]

Don't you think by now - that there is at least reasonable doubt that Fish was in the right to defend himself?

Glenn, For clarification sake... Are you implying the reasonable doubt as to whether he was in the right to self defense or reasonable doubt for sake of the jury finding guilt?
Of course I think there is a chance he could have actually intended to shoot someone in malice but the case of the case is that the state had to prove to the jury this to the point they had ZERO doubts he was wrong for the shooting. In this case I would have caused a hung jury with my doubt.
Brent

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Brent, I mean the standard that the jury is supposed to use. Given what we now know and might be presented in a new trial, seems to be that there is NO way to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Fish wasn't justifed in defending himself.

BTW, I don't think folks like us are going to get on this type of jury if the DA has any pre-emptory challenges.

 

[hogdogs]

I was hoping that was what you meant.... I don't think an honest person could find him guilty with the new requirements.

I know I ain't bright enuff to snooker the DA into letting me on a jury...

Brent

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

In this case the attacker was armed with a large screwdriver in his back pocket IIRC...

Discovered after the fact and never brandished by Kuenzli therefore not a weapon.

I will buy you a steak of your choice if you can take a walking stick to 2 personal protection trained large breed dogs and stop them from attacking you!

Those aren't close to the two mutts Fish was dealing with. I will take your bet on two randomly chosen pound mutts though any day.

The military could save a ton on ammo costs with this tactic... soldiers should be issued walking sticks!

C'mon Brent this is not combat, war or the military. This is normal civilian life. Do you WANT to go to prison? I hope not, I have visited there and it is not nice so I'll try real hard not to shoot someone unless it is a last resort.

We have a bunch of reports on how the assailant acted in similar circumstances. All of those reports back up Fish's account.

And just because Kuenzli acted that way in the past did not mean he acted that way that day. Also, IIRC Kuenzli never really hurt anybody when those dog incidents happened he just just yelled and pushed folks. Hardly life threatening. Again, this stuff may or may not help Fish, we'll see.

I detest that sort of behavior and will never tolerate it's being directed at me. And yeah, I know it's fractionally possible a DA might read these words someday. Fine. I stick by them regardless.

I detest a lot of behavior. Rude drunken fans at sporting events, crazy drivers etc but I am not going to shoot them dead for it. Why waste your life and your financial security for a crazy nobody? Jim, I hope you don't live to regret those words.

Don't you think by now - that there is at least reasonable doubt that Fish was in the right to defend himself?

Isn't that the standard? BTW, this case again shows how as Fiddletown and I put it - the 'if it is a good shoot' blather is baloney.

Maybe, we'll see. My reading of the first jury was they felt Fish overreacted. I am not sure that more bashing of Kuenzli will change that. Maybe it will. As Ken says each trial is a crap shoot. And I agree about the "good shoot" baloney too. These things are often convoluted.

 

[rampage841512]

I am not sure that more bashing of Kuenzli will change that.

Since when is telling the truth bashing?

As Glenn said, and I said well before him, there is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case if it goes to trial.

 

[hogdogs]

Discovered after the fact and never brandished by Kuenzli therefore not a weapon.

So had a Seacamp been found "after the fact" it would be claimed he had no weapon?
And he was armed with 2 flailing weapons physically attached to the ends of his arms so, at least in the states I have resided, he was "armed" to some extent.

Those aren't close to the two mutts Fish was dealing with. I will take your bet on two randomly chosen pound mutts though any day.

But at the moment you are charged by the dogs you do not know this. As well I have seen some, seemingly, pound mutts with some pretty high grade PP grades and awards.
How about that offer with my catch dogs? They are "mutts" (American bulldog Pit crosses) And they are not trained to catch either, just going on the prey drive and instincts that all dogs have to one degree or other but you can't judge a dog nor their intent in 3-5 seconds just like you can't a younger larger yelling out of control man...

And just because Kuenzli acted that way in the past did not mean he acted that way that day. Also, IIRC Kuenzli never really hurt anybody when those dog incidents happened he just just yelled and pushed folks.

We know he acted that way because an upstanding, educated stable person told us so....
And this same man had no idea to how far this crazed manic was going to take this aggressive maniacal behavior.
Brent

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So had a Seacamp been found "after the fact" it would be claimed he had no weapon?

Not if he didn't draw it and attempt to use it no.

Since when is telling the truth bashing?

When it has no relation to the incident. Kuenzli was a nutty dude it appears but that may not matter. Remember how they used to handle rape trials by bringing in old lovers to try and show the women was loose? IIRC you can't do that anymore. In fact, you can rape a prostitute if she says no and her "character" will not be admitted as evidence. Has to be relevant and maybe some of Kuenzli's past is, we'll see. He may get off but it has cost him a bunch that he might could have avoided.

How about that offer with my catch dogs?

No thanks I suspect they are trained and I probably wouldn't do too well in that set-up situation. Lets stick with the randomly chosen ones from the pound, I suspect I could do that pretty well. I have in the past.

 

[nazshooter]

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.

And you're willing to bet your life on it? I don't think you are giving enough weight to the fact that this incident happened out in the woods, not in a place where Fish could expect the police and an ambulance to come to his rescue if it turned out that he had underestimated the threat.

IMO, if you have the means to defend yourself safely and not use deadly force then you should use the lesser force if available.

Is firing a gun into the ground (essentially just making a really loud noise) really that much greater than wacking the dogs with a stick? Maybe in a neighborhood where you have innocent bystanders to worry about but in the woods it doesn't seem THAT drastic. He had no way of knowing Kuenzli was crazy, and if you don't think he was crazy then who else charges an obviously armed man screeming death threats?


BTW, just because a dog's owner is near by doesn't make the dogs less dangerous. Twice my wife was attacked while jogging and in both cases the owners were watching when it happened. One of them thought it was funny that her little dog was chasing a jogger and the other was actually yelling "it's OK he doesn't bite" as the dog was hanging off of my wife's leg.

 

[csmsss]

TG, you're mistaking what you think you would do with what the law required Fish to do. Just because you think you would behave differently than he did in that situation doesn't mean A) you actually would and B) Fish acted illegally or even unreasonably.

You weren't there. None of us were there. There certainly seems to be an abundance of confusing and conflicting circumstances which will make it extremely difficult to successfully retry Fish. But you seem to entirely ignore that in lieu of reasserting ad infinitum what you claim you would have done.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And you're willing to bet your life on it?

Fish bet the other way and it cost him three years in prison (at least) and $500,000 in legal bills. I am not sure the fact it happened in the woods mattered.

Is firing a gun into the ground (essentially just making a really loud noise)

Drawing and shooting a deadly firearm is doing a lot more than "just making a loud noise." I hope if you carry you know that.

who else charges an obviously armed man screeming death threats?

That is what Fish said. The coroner said Kuenzli was standing still when shot and a wound to his arm may have been defensive.