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.
azredhawk44 said:The burden of proof falls on the state to prove you DID murder... rather than previously the burden of proof fell on the defendant to prove you DID NOT murder. Seems straight-forward to me.
my boldingMas Ayoob said:The wording of the law aside for a moment, it's also simple "Jury Psychology." If the jurors don't believe it was self-defense, they will not acquit. Therefore, they must be presented with clear and convincing proof that it WAS self-defense.
Lots to think about if you think you should draw and shoot to avoid a dog bite or a black eye. I sure don't envy Mr. Fish and I don't know this but I wonder if he wishes very much he had acted differently.
maestro pistolero said:Wouldn't the fear of being disarmed if my legal weapon and killed be reasonable?
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.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.
__________________
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.
peetzakilla said:I'm just saying.... damn, you had better think this thing through....
So all you have to do is shoot them face to face (which is easy to do when holding someone up at gunpoint) and make sure your story matches the forensics. It does not matter how unlikely the story is as long as there is not a contradictory side to the tale?
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.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 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?
ARS 13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
RDak said:Not a bad outcome IMHO.
RDak said: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!)
RDak said:IMHO, Fish was railroaded
RDak said:and the Appellate Court obviously agrees with me as well
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.Didn't a jury of his peers convict him? Did they railroad him?
hogdogs said:that, my friend, is railroading.
RDak said:The Appellate Court's opinion ensured no retrial would occur. Like I said, "courtroom 101".
RDak said:Fish was railroaded by the judge. The Appellate Court and Arizona legislators agree with me.
RDak said: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.
RDak said: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.
RDak said:Oh well, we're both good guys. We just disagree on this one.
RDak said:If that lunatic was attacking you the way he went at Fish, I would have shot him to protect you.