rampage841512
New member
This is good news to me. Hopefully he has better luck in a civil trial, if there is one, than he did with his criminal trial.
Harold Fish Not to be Retried
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
- Status
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
azredhawk44 said:
Seems is the operative word but maybe not the reality. I posted this quote before from Massad Ayoob, who has been to one or two of these SD trials so here is his take.
my boldingMas Ayoob said:
The challenge with a SD claim that is different from a normal murder charge is you have to admit that you intentionally shot the other guy when you raise the claim of SD. That alone is accomplishing a lot of the prosecutor's case needed to put you away. I am not sure burden of proof will make that much difference if you shoot an unarmed man and can't show some justification like disparity of force. A man is dead and if the jury thinks it isn't fully justified you may be taking that long government paid vacation.
maestro pistolero
New member
If someone continues to charge me although warned, and although I have a legally held weapon in my hand, should I have any reason to believe they won't attempt to take that weapon from me and use it against me? The person has already demonstrated aggressive, unwarranted behavior.
Wouldn't fear of being disarmed of my legal weapon and being killed be reasonable? Assume I wasn't culpable in some other way, such as having escalated or helped create the situation, and that I wasn't in a place where I didn't have a right to be.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
It's beyond the question of justification or legality.
Point being, Mr. Fish almost certainly wishes that he had another way out. I can not imagine that he isn't and wasn't second guessing the shooting. Yes, alive in *most any* condition is better than dead but you've got to wonder, and I think Fish has got to wonder, if he wouldn't be just as alive and in far better circumstances had he never pulled the trigger, or even drawn the gun that day.
Point being, Mr. Fish almost certainly wishes that he had another way out. I can not imagine that he isn't and wasn't second guessing the shooting. Yes, alive in *most any* condition is better than dead but you've got to wonder, and I think Fish has got to wonder, if he wouldn't be just as alive and in far better circumstances had he never pulled the trigger, or even drawn the gun that day.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
maestro pistolero said:
Maybe, but that is too broad a question with too many unanswered questions. I would say unless you are truly left with no other options, then disengaging, descalating and trying to get the Heck out of Dodge might be better.
Just keep Harold Fish in mind. Over $500,000 to lawyers (the real winners here), three years in prison, mental anguish, family separation and pain etc.
Makes me want to be aware of where I am and look for other options. Each scenario is different however so I can't answer your question generically. Many people on this forum think Fish acted correctly. Look what happened to Fish and is it impossible to happen to you as well? Maybe we should rethink and talk more about not having to pull the gun rather than looking for ways to pull it? As I was taught at my TN CCW class, getting a black eye is not justification for killing someone.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That is true...but I find myself reluctant to start engaging in the mental gymnastics of second guessing every single self defense case and trying to see if i could possibly "create" a scenario where they could have escaped alive without using deadly force.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I agree. I'm just trying (hoping) to get anyone who hasn't thought these things through, to do so. Basically, shooting someone had better be more than "oh crap, this guy might hurt me." because the consequences of a shooting, right or wrong, legal or not, are HORRENDOUS.
Me personally, I'd rather be attacked by a dog than shoot a man. Yes, if the dog attacked me, actually on me, I would shoot it. Yes, if the owner then attacked me, well, who knows, it might turn into a shooting too but to shoot at a dog that has not actually attacked me, in the presence of the owner, and then shoot the owner? I'm NOT making a judgement as to right or wrong, I'm just saying.... damn, you had better think this thing through....
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
peetzakilla said:
Which is why these forums are useful. I don't need to judge Fish, he has suffered (and may suffer more) and so my .02 won't matter but it sure makes me think.
No PBP, when you have a lunatic's dogs attack you, then, after you fire a warning shot, the lunatic runs at you threatening to kill you, you have the right to use deadly force. (If I did that to you I would expect you to shoot me in self-defense - DUH!)
Not a bad outcome IMHO. Thank God for the Appeals Court and it's obvious disdain and condemnation of the lower court's trial outcome.
This case, based on my experience, is a classic case of an Appellate Court's overturning of a decision without expressly saying so.
It's courtroom "101".
IMHO, Fish was railroaded and the Appellate Court obviously agrees with me as well as the wording of the new Arizona statute addressing this sort of scenario.
ETA: Btw, Janet Napolitano refused, while she was governor, to sign the new statutory bill that would forever exonerate people in Fish's shoes. In other words, Napolitano is an idiot.
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Did you see it go down that way? From what I understand Mr. Fish's accounts of the event are the only evidence of what led to the shooting.
OldMarksman
Staff
I think you may have it backwards. The question is, I think, would a reasonable person believe that you reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger--not whether you had reason to believe that a person will not attempt to put you in such danger.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
RDak said:
Ok let's see, 500K in legal fees and probably bankruptcy, three years in the big house, family separation, great stress and anguish, killed another human being. Yeah, not too bad... for the lawyers maybe
RDak said:
Well, RDak then go right ahead and shoot an unarmed man who doesn't lay a hand on you where there is no clear disparity of force as I am sure you will not have to go through what Harold Fish did
But on the bright side if you do get the "Fish" treatment we will be able to start a thread about your exploits and contribute to your defense fund (unless you are rich
)RDak said:
Didn't a jury of his peers convict him? Did they railroad him?
RDak said:
That is completely untrue. Appellate Courts don't find on issues of fact, only procedure and law. The appeals court did not exonerate Fish. They can't do such. In fact it is quite possible that if Fish were retried he could well be found guilty again. The trial court made some mistakes but that doesn't make Fish innocent. I speculate that the DA decided to leave well enough alone but I think Fish actly foolishly and as Peetza said earlier, I wonder if Fish is glad he drew his gun on those dogs.
Sorry, Bub, but railroading is rarely related to the jury and their decision of guilt... that is generally referred to as a "Kangaroo Kourt"... When the judge ill or misinforms the jurors as to the rules of the charges, fails to allow relative and pertinent information about the case and those involved in it... that, my friend, is railroading.
I also feel that The prosecution is openly admitting that they had no case to begin with by not re trying the case. The law only changed a little bit and if they were dealing with a murderous liar they would now have had time to gather the few more tidbits of info to prove his guilt once again...
Brent
TG: Harold Fish won. The Appellate Court's opinion ensured no retrial would occur. Like I said, "courtroom 101".
Plus, the Arizona legislature enacted a new statute to prevent the travesty of justice experienced by Fish from ever occurring again.
As usual, you are wrong on just about every argument you present. You throw in these "out in leftfield" arguments that have no bearing on the fact Fish was railroaded by the judge. The Appellate Court and Arizona legislators agree with me. (As hogdogs stated, the jury had nothing to do with this "railroading" result.)
Those are the plain facts. Just live with them. You were wrong, I was right. Fish was, for all intents and purposes, exonerated the very instant the Appellate Court's opinion was issued. Once again, you were wrong, I was right.
I learned a long time ago when being trained on the job by a veteran attorney/judge, "don't fight the facts". You have apparently never heeded that advice. At least in the Fish case you haven't IMHO.
You consisently go off into "curveball" arguments and ad hominem "theories" for some unknown reason. I guess that's just your personality. Some people just like to over analyze stuff I guess. You are one of them IMHO. (And so were alot of attorneys I've dealt with over the decades before I retired. But that's their job when they are arguing the indefensible IMHO.)
ETA: Sorry to come off as angry but you replied to my post with a condescending, smart aleck tone. So it was time for me to clearly state you were wrong and I was right in our entire discussion of this Fish case.
I do agree that it is important we all seriously think about when we will use deadly force. On that we agree entirely.
Plus, the Arizona legislature enacted a new statute to prevent the travesty of justice experienced by Fish from ever occurring again.
As usual, you are wrong on just about every argument you present. You throw in these "out in leftfield" arguments that have no bearing on the fact Fish was railroaded by the judge. The Appellate Court and Arizona legislators agree with me. (As hogdogs stated, the jury had nothing to do with this "railroading" result.)
Those are the plain facts. Just live with them. You were wrong, I was right. Fish was, for all intents and purposes, exonerated the very instant the Appellate Court's opinion was issued. Once again, you were wrong, I was right.
I learned a long time ago when being trained on the job by a veteran attorney/judge, "don't fight the facts". You have apparently never heeded that advice. At least in the Fish case you haven't IMHO.
You consisently go off into "curveball" arguments and ad hominem "theories" for some unknown reason. I guess that's just your personality. Some people just like to over analyze stuff I guess. You are one of them IMHO. (And so were alot of attorneys I've dealt with over the decades before I retired. But that's their job when they are arguing the indefensible IMHO.)
ETA: Sorry to come off as angry but you replied to my post with a condescending, smart aleck tone. So it was time for me to clearly state you were wrong and I was right in our entire discussion of this Fish case.
I do agree that it is important we all seriously think about when we will use deadly force. On that we agree entirely.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
hogdogs said:
No Brent that is called trial error and it happens a good bit. That is why we have appeals courts. Fish was tried legally albeit with errors and calling it "railroading" does not jibe with the facts. A railroading means Fish was framed or unlawfully prosecuted and he was not.
RDak said:
Like I said before that is not true and any lawyer would tell you such. The Appellate Court can do no such thing.
RDak said:
Also untrue and without foundation. The Appellate Court found out errors in the original trial (that is normal and not "railroading") and remanded it back to the trial court. If the Appellate Court could do and say the things you claim then they would have just ordered Fish's release. I am not a lawyer but neither apparently are you.
RDak said:
This is about as out of left field as you can get and untrue. The courts don't work like that. Appeals Courts can not "exonerate" anybody and did not here either. Those are facts.
RDak said:
I accept your apology. Not sure how you can say you were right all along about Harold Fish. OJ Simpson got off but that doesn't mean he was innocent. I stated earlier, Fish could well have been tried again and found guilty by another jury.
I think the bigger lesson to be learned is that you should only use your firearm as a last resort. If you call Mr. Fish's experience a "victory" with three years in prison and 500K in legal bills then I would call it a pyrrhic victory I would not wish to have.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
RDak said:
No problem there. That's why I like TFL!
RDak said:
And if you are a good enough guy to do it then I would hope that we would have no other choice so I wouldn't feel bad if they locked you up for doing it.
Anyway, I have had crazy people get after me as I work with a lot of homeless people from time to time. I haven't had to shoot any of them and they did more than Kuenzli. I feel bad for everyone involved and wish it hadn't happened.
- Status