Harold Fish gets a retrial

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And yeah, I'm going to be placed under a hell of lot of scrutiny if you're unarmed, but I'm not willing to risk my life on the chance that maybe you won't cripple or kill me. While I more than respect your right to refrain from doing the same in such a situation, your rights end where mine begin. Kuenzli's rights ended when he took his first agressive and foolish step toward Fish.

Go right ahead! I hope the jury buys it or you will be ordering soap-on-a-rope for a long time if you know what I mean

So please get off your high horse about how well you can handle dogs and explain what your going to do now that Mr Kuenzli is running at you yelling threats.please remember he's 20 years younger and the three dogs may join the fight.

No high horse am I on. Just an old man who wants to keep his freedom and his hard earned money who wants to help some folks out. Anyway, there is nothing special to handling pound dogs but I grew up in the South so maybe that is regional. As to Kuenzli (who was not 20 years younger than Fish at the time) SOP is to disengage, deescalate and get out of Dodge. And why not? I am armed and I know it, he doesn't know that and so when he sees the gun it will be when I shoot him if I have to. If he pursues me (which I doubt he would) then I can do whatever, the dogs would be out of the way after I brushed them off. I have the upper hand why use it before you have to?

PS. Brent, I like the white Bulldog. My son had one like that but brown.

 

[mavracer]

SOP is to disengage, deescalate and get out of Dodge. And why not?

OK I take it your going to leave your car and hike home?

I am armed and I know it, he doesn't know that and so when he sees the gun it will be when I shoot him if I have to.

you also don't know that Kuenzli does not have a gun, you have the advantage of hindsight which Fish didn't.

If he pursues me (which I doubt he would)

Your in denial.he's going to scare a security officer for telling him to put his dog on a leash and he's not gonna chash you down for hitting it with a stick Right.

then I can do whatever, the dogs would be out of the way after I brushed them off. I have the upper hand why use it before you have to?

Oh so now your magic wand of 20/20 hindsight says the dogs won't come back, your also forgetting the third dog his personal dog the one most likely to engage you in a physical altercation.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'll say it again.

Fish did several really stupid things.

Kuenzli did several really stupid things.

Stupid + Gun = Dead People.

Don't do stupid things when you have, or someone else has, a gun.


Shooting at a dog is not a bright move unless it's beyond doubt that it's attacking you. I mean ATTACKING you. Think about it. Dog bite or escalate a situation with a gun.... Hm..... I'd rather be bit than take that chance.... bite's hurt, shooting people bites worse....

You decide.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OK I take it your going to leave your car and hike home?

Yes, if the alternative is to kill someone and go through what Fish did. Wouldn't you do that? Anyway, I wouldn't have to hike home just circle back and drive away.

you also don't know that Kuenzli does not have a gun, you have the advantage of hindsight which Fish didn't.

Irrelevant, since (like the screwdriver) the weapon was not produced. Means nothing.

Your in denial. he's going to scare a security officer for telling him to put his dog on a leash and he's not gonna chash you down for hitting it with a stick Right.

No, I am in love with my freedom and house and family and such and do not want to lose them foolishly. The security guard is apples and oranges. First, the security guard confronted HIM over the dog and second the security guard wasn't disengaging and running away as I would be. Finally, he scared the guard but no one was hurt. We don't know whether the gurad was armed but if he was he saw no reason to use his gun or any other weapon he had available did he?

Oh so now your magic wand of 20/20 hindsight says the dogs won't come back, your also forgetting the third dog his personal dog the one most likely to engage you in a physical altercation.

No, that is based on the facts as I have read them. I doubt the dogs were a real threat to him (they never bit him) and he overreacted (jury thought that too) and the third dog never came into play according to fish and was over 30 yards away.

Soapbox moment.
For those of you out here in make believe TFL world who are thinking lightly about killing someone I suggest you take a look more thoughtfully at what happened to Mr. Fish. As someone who is one of the minority non-gun nut/mall ninja/2A absolutist/self defense is what I think it is, poster I feel I need to tell you that if you shoot an unarmed man and are tried for that you had better be able to prove that what you did was reasonable. I know about the innocent until proven guilty deal but in the real world of non-TFLers (who you WILL be tried by) if you cannot do such you will be taking a long vacation at government expense. The real world understands concepts like shooting a home invader, armed robber, rapist, gang attack etc and they understand fist fights. Shooting an unarmed person without great disparity of force (ie. 80 year old vs 25 year old) they do not understand and you will be behind the eight ball from moment one of the adventure. My advice is to not take that trip even it it costs you a dog bite, black eye or God Forbid your pride.
Soapbox off now.

 

[skydiver3346]

Shooting on the trail:

Just read this whole story. It seems very strange to me, (that the guy who owned these dogs) went ahead and "threatened" Mr. Fish even after he fired his gun at the dogs.... Now he definitely knows the man has a gun as his dogs were fired upon. Yet he still comes agressively at Mr. Fish? No wonder Mr. Fish shot him. Fish had to think this guy was armed if he would charge him (even after he fired his gun at the guys dogs). Nobody (who is sane)would do anything that stupid if he isn't armed. As others have said, this thing went south from the get go and never should have happened.
Weird stuff....

 

[mavracer]

Yes, if the alternative is to kill someone and go through what Fish did. Wouldn't you do that? Anyway, I wouldn't have to hike home just circle back and drive away.

that's real likely to work HE'S CAMPED NEXT TO YOUR CAR WITH THREE DOGS.

Irrelevant, since (like the screwdriver) the weapon was not produced.

not produced yet.maybe he wanted to get closer since Fish obviously had a gun.

I doubt the dogs were a real threat to him (they never bit him) and he overreacted (jury thought that too) and the third dog never came into play according to fish and was over 30 yards away.

I'm sure your aware how fast a dog can cover 30 yards.I'd bet the dog could have teath sunk to bone before you pull the screwdriver out of your chest.

I'll concede that Mr Fish would not have gone to jail if he hadn't shot.But you'll have to concede that this may have been Mr Kuenzli's breaking point and could have sevearly injured/killed Fish had he not.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It seems very strange to me, (that the guy who owned these dogs) went ahead and "threatened" Mr. Fish even after he fired his gun at the dogs....

Not strange at all. Just because someone shoots at your dog does not mean he will shoot you. If I saw someone shoot at my dog unjustly I might "threaten" to call the police, might even get mad. Would the fact that the other guy is armed stop me from saying that or getting mad? No, since most I believe most folk know the difference between shooting dogs and people and unless I attack him I wouldn't expect him to shoot me.

Turn the thing around. Perhaps Kuenzli felt Fish was NOT going to shoot him and just wanted to go get in his face and yell at him (not legal grounds for shooting somebody) like he always did before when others offended his dogs. I suspect (and my speculation is as good as the next) that Kuenzli took no notice of the gun as a threat to him and just wanted to yell at Fish. The coroner tesitified about the possiblity of a defensive wound to Kuenzli, maybe Kuenzli realized too late that Fish was gonna pull the trigger and thought to himself "Golly! He's going to shoot me." This scenario is perfectly consistent with Kuenzli's previous confrontations and the responses of those he confronted. So, IMO that fact that Fish was armed and had fired a shoot doesn't mean that Kuenzli was aiming to kill Fish as he approached, it may have been the opposite.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

You simply cannot make life and death decisions on what MIGHT happen unless you have some evidence that it is PENDING and IMMINENT.

You say "He might have met me back at the car." This is the same argument of killing a burglar because he "might come back later."

You say "not produced yet." You can not assume someone has a weapon. If you can't see it and they don't make a threat like "I'll shank you" or "I'm gonna shoot you." then there is NO weapon.

Both of these assumption are likely to send you to jail.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As someone who is one of the minority non-gun nut/mall ninja/2A absolutist/self defense is what I think it is, poster I feel I need to tell you that if you shoot an unarmed man and are tried for that you had better be able to prove that what you did was reasonable. I know about the innocent until proven guilty deal but in the real world of non-TFLers (who you WILL be tried by) if you cannot do such you will be taking a long vacation at government expense....

While I think that if Fish now presents his case at a trial without the errors in law and procedure of the first one, he has a good chance of making his self defense case, I completely agree with your statement as a general proposition.

The "innocent until proven guilty" business is effective out the door when one pleads self defense. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove you were there, and he doesn't have to prove you pulled the trigger, and he doesn't have to prove you shot the other guy. If you plead self defense, you will have admitted all of that. You will have admitted all of the material elements of the crime for which you are being tried.

Your defense is legal justification for your act of violence against another human. To acquit you, the jury (of non-gun folks) is going to have to believe that you had no choice and that you were justified in shooting another person. That is going to be a "tough sell" when the other person was unarmed.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

that's real likely to work HE'S CAMPED NEXT TO YOUR CAR WITH THREE DOGS.

Not sure that is true as Fish had to hike to get help. Kuenzli was next his own car. Anyway, I am still armed and if I wait awhile and come back and he STILL wants to hurt me I can take other action. The advantage stays with me.

not produced yet.maybe he wanted to get closer since Fish obviously had a gun.

Still irrelevant to your defense. No produce, no defense.

I'm sure your aware how fast a dog can cover 30 yards.I'd bet the dog could have teath sunk to bone before you pull the screwdriver out of your chest.

Pure speculation not likely to impress a jury.

But you'll have to concede that this may have been Mr Kuenzli's breaking point and could have sevearly injured/killed Fish had he not.

I will concede no such thing. I think the reverse is true. Kuenzli was just ****** but another jury will decide perhaps.

 

[mavracer]

I will concede no such thing. I think the reverse is true.

if you don't concede that you don't know what Kuenzli is thinking at that time then you would know that the reverse is true. And in that case I submit to your outstanding mind-reading skill and obvious knowledge of time space continuem.
But I leave out with the utter astonishment that you would call Fish arrogant.

 

[PT111]

I just read the entire appeals court ruling and there are some things that need to be brought out. If you have not read it i suggest you do as it will clear up some misuderstandings on this trial and appeal. One of the main points of the ruling is the the ommission of the testimony about Mr. Kuenzli's behavior. This covered most of the ruling and contrary to rumor they agred with the trial court on most of the rulings. One point that they made can be summed up in this paragraph:

¶54 For the reasons stated above, evidence of specific acts
of violence by the Victim when confronted about his dogs is
relevant to corroborate Defendant’s description of the events
leading up to the shooting even though Defendant was unaware of
those acts. The superior court should conduct an appropriate Rule
403 balancing test in light of the factors we address in this
opinion

If you read the entire ruling you see that the history of Mr. Kuenzli's behavior was irrelavent until the DA (being a very good DA) tried to paint Mr. Fish as the aggressors, claiming that Mr. Kuenzli was merely trying to retrive his dogs, was shot in a defensive position, Mr. Fish was basically a gun nut waiting to shoot someone and lying about the entire episode. The appeals court ruled that the testimony could be used to boost Mr. Fish's claim on how Mr. Kuenzli would act toward his dogs and that he was the agressor, not Mr. Fish as the DA had tried to portray him.

Since Mr. Fish had no knowlege of Mr. Kuenzli's past behavior then it should not be admitted. However "some" testimony could be used to demonstrate that Mr. Kuenzli was the agressor. The appeals court said that the sanitized version that was presented in the trial was insufficient to establish that Mr. Kuenzli could be a raging maniac and testimony to establish that could be admitted.

Howevere they "gave examples" of such cases as where a man kills another and claims self-defense. The fact that the deceased just got out of prison after 18 years for killing someone and was readyt to kill someone else would not be admitted as a defense except that the deceased had told the defendant about it. If the defendant had not known then it would not be part of the trial. Since Mr. Fish did not know about Mr. Kuenzli being crazy then he was just another hiker.

I someone else can read all 58 pages and give us a different insight it would be helpful.

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR060675OP.pdf

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

if you don't concede that you don't know what Kuenzli is thinking at that time then you would know that the reverse is true.

Go back and read your own question again. You were basically asking me to read Kuenzli's mind

But you'll have to concede that this may have been Mr Kuenzli's breaking point and could have sevearly injured/killed Fish had he not.

How could I know this was Kuenzli's "breaking point"? Could have would have is no good to the court. Kuenzli could have done a lot of things, the standard is would a reasonable person believe that Fish's life was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm based on Kunezli's actions and I say no based on what I have read. In fact, the more I read about it and how Kuenzli acted during his previous blowups the more I think Fish was not in danger and overreacted to Kuenzli's bizarre but not deadly behavior. Apparently another group of people called ajury agreed. No mind reading involved or needed.

But I leave out with the utter astonishment that you would call Fish arrogant.

The DA referred to Fish as arrogant and I think that helped in his conviction.

 

[mavracer]

Go back and read your own question again. You were basically asking me to read Kuenzli's mind

NO I did not I very clearly stated MAY and COULD

the standard is would a reasonable person believe that Fish's life was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm based on Kunezli's actions

yes and this is all you get to go on,you don't get that he never actually laid a hand on anybody only that Mr Fish as a reasonable man belived it.

I say no based on what I have read. In fact, the more I read about it and how Kuenzli acted during his previous blowups the more I think Fish was not in danger and overreacted to Kuenzli's bizarre but not deadly behavior.

Here is where you must concede that you may be wrong because you don't know Mr. Kuenzli's intentions toward Mr. Fish.

Apparently another group of people called ajury agreed.

Only because a Judge didn't explain that Kuenzli could have been guilty of aggrivated assault without touching Fish.
and it's mavracer I ride the harley, race the maverick.

 

[Al Norris]

Folks, we are going around and around in circles here. No one is going to change their presumptions, that's evident.

Closed for the reasons stated above.