Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Mr. Fish's warning shot cost him 3 years of his life, financial ruin and the death of another person. But, I guess it seemed a good idea at the time 
Harold Fish Not to be Retried
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
- Status
Kuenzli's dogs were smarter than he was, or at least less psychotic. They broke off the attack and wandered away when the warning shot was fired.
This whole horrible incident is a good argument for carrying Bear Spray or at least pepper spray, when carrying a gun. A less-than-lethal, but still effective, defense tool.
This whole horrible incident is a good argument for carrying Bear Spray or at least pepper spray, when carrying a gun. A less-than-lethal, but still effective, defense tool.
maestro pistolero
New member
Because, unlike Mr. Kuenzli, the dogs could take a hint.
Ditto, I've been saying that, and practicing that for years. Pepper spray is way more likely to be the right tool for most altercations, but when you need a gun, there's just no substitute.
"And you still had some spray left in your can of pepper spray, so why did you escalate the situation and choose to shoot the victim with your gun?"
or
"You did not even attempt to use the can of pepper spray that you had with you..."
Be careful, walking on the razor's edge. Just something to think on.
That said, I do carry Bear spray when hiking in the woods, and a gun. Spray comes out first for bears and other unarmed four-leggeds. (Unless I am specifically out hunting.)
NO,Mr Kuenzli's reaction charging Mr Fish cost Mr Kuenzli his life,the Judge not allowing the defense to properly show Mr. Kuenzli as the agressor cost him 3 years of his life.
Mr Fish himself has said many times he wishes it hadden't happened and I'm sure that's true.
you seem to want to convict Fish because he fired a warning shot at the dogs instead of using the walking stick.fine I get that you are morally superior to Fish because you would rather be bit than fire your gun.That's great I'm still proud of you.
Now answer me this what evidence is there that Kuenzli would not have reacted the same way when you wack the approching dog with the stick?
now he's 5-8 feet away from you telling you he's gonna kill you are you still morally superior to Fish?
The judge's failure to clearly explain to the jury that NO physical contact is required by the aggressor/attacker to qualify for aggravated assault which is a sickness that warrants a lead aspirin via self defense response also played a large role in his guilty verdict...
Brent
Why don't we give Mr. Fish the benefit of the doubt? It's pretty easy to second guess when all you have invested is a few taps on a keyboard. He did what he felt he had to do at the time. In my opinion, he behaved correctly.
Could be there won't be a civil suit, and it could be that AZ law precludes such a civil suit; my State's laws prevent such suits.
Could be there won't be a civil suit, and it could be that AZ law precludes such a civil suit; my State's laws prevent such suits.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
mavracer said:
I am glad you think so well of me but the much more important difference between Mr. Fish and myself is that I am not 500K in debt to lawyers and have not lost three years of my life in prison in order to avoid a dog bite. To answer your question about Kuenzli, it is by no means clear that Kuenzli would have harmed Fish even after he fired the shot.
You all keep harping on the judge but the point you keep missing is that when you shoot an unarmed man you may well find yourself "in the system" with another judge and the same thing may happen to you. Once you draw that gun and fire it you may start down a path that you didn't intend and end up like Fish. As I have said before there is no victory here for anybody (except Fish's lawyers) which started with Fish not wanting to get bit by two pound mutts.
This is kind of basic but when things are hot between folk and somebody pulls a gun it might escalate into something tragic so the better idea is to think ahead and look for ways not to do that. As to Keunzli yelling threats at Fish, that is not grounds to shoot.
If being "morally superior" means staying out of prison and keeping financially solvent then I am all for it. I think it is pretty clear that the Fish case was well, fishy or they wouldn't have prosecuted and convicted him.
However, as I told another poster go ahead and draw your gun quick and escalate the situation and we can contribute to your defense fund and have a thread about you on TFL. You may be broke and in prison but you made your point right?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Alleykat said:
It is better to invest some time thinking about how to react to situations when you are CCW than "invest" 500K in a lawyer and take a government paid vacation.
If you think Mr. Fish acted properly then I think you are drawing a bad lesson from the case. What happened to Fish I don't think is as out of the norm as you might think. Given the same circumstances in another jurisdiction, the same thing might happen and so I would probably take the Fish saga as what not to do rather than a "righteous" shoot.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Let's take a vote, shall we?
Choose one:
1)Get bit by two dogs.
2)Kill a man, spend $500,000 and 3 years in jail.
Special note:
A dog "attack" is extremely unlikely. These dogs had certainly never done it or they would be put down. A bite is completely different than an attack. Make no mistake, Fish fired his gun to avoid being BITTEN, not attacked.
Choose one:
1)Get bit by two dogs.
2)Kill a man, spend $500,000 and 3 years in jail.
Special note:
A dog "attack" is extremely unlikely. These dogs had certainly never done it or they would be put down. A bite is completely different than an attack. Make no mistake, Fish fired his gun to avoid being BITTEN, not attacked.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
hogdogs said:
There is no evidence (other than Fish's word) that those dogs were vicious and in fact the vets that handled them said they weren't. And yes I have been attacked by dogs and did not need a gun to ward them off. As to Kuenzli being a "lunatic" I didn't know you were a psychiatrist and if you are not I would be careful about your "diagnosis".
hogdogs said:
Brent, you must really want to be locked up.
Shooting someone who is unarmed and hasn't touched you is not a good way to avoid problems. I think you better be able to 'splain that to a jury, and as I have said before such a jury will not be TFLers or even people that own guns. You do understand that right?
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Sure you're not mistaken? In many states, the fact that the use of deadly force was justified under the criminal code does protect against civil liability, and in some, it is specified that a plaintiff must pay for the costs of a suit.
But how is it determined that the act was justified under the criminal code? Not by the fact that no charges have yet been filed, I'll wager (and consider the lack of a statute of limitations for homicide). Usually, there has to be a criminal trial and acquittal, or the determination is made in civil court.
At that point things really start to vary. In civil trials, the burden is one of a preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt. And whether that burden is placed on the plaintiff or on the defendant seems to vary by state, by my lay reading.
Peetzaslinger,
I will take option #3... Live in a place where the attacker does not legally need an inanimate weapon to pose a threat to my health or life. I do not even need "disparity of force" as a legal justification for self defense up to and including lethal force.
Brent
I will take option #3... Live in a place where the attacker does not legally need an inanimate weapon to pose a threat to my health or life. I do not even need "disparity of force" as a legal justification for self defense up to and including lethal force.
Brent
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
hogdogs said:
Well, it won't be here in the states but I was in a place like that for about 90 days once. They call it Somalia, lots of guns there!
I am not.. thus I used a layman's term "lunatic"... I think I read that these 2 same dogs were accused of similar behavior in the past...
I have handled some dog attacks without shooting the dog... But I have also disposed of many dogs in a hole if they belonged to me and exibited similar behavior against any person or dog not encroaching on "their territory" and a squatter's camp on a city, county, state or federal forest/park land is not "their territory"...
Brent
Once again you are 100% wrong!
Read the florida law regarding self defense... No mention of disparity of force requirement! Simply I must feel a reasonable risk of death or even great bodily harm!
Try again TG, You cannot get me riled up nor can you tugging false info outta yer drawers convince me you are qualified to debate these issues. You are quite the curiosity!
Brent
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Remember the dogs OWNER was not a threat until Fish reacted inappropriately to the dogs. We can call it hindsight all we want but the fact remains that getting bit by a dog is better than killing a man, spending 3 years in jail and $500,000 down the toilet.
If Fish had not pulled and fired his weapon then it is EXCEEDINGLY likely that the worst that would have happened was a nasty dog bite.
Fish would be suing a very much alive Kuenzli, who would look like the bad guy in all this (to everybody) and none of us would even know anything ever happened.
My question is this:
I'm not asking right or wrong. I'm asking, if you were Fish, which would you pick?
1) A dog bite.
2)Kill man, spend 3 years in jail, spend $500,000, be sued in civil court.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
hogdogs said:
Brent, I suspect you aren't a lawyer either. You won't find the legal principle of disparity of force in statute only in court cases and legal precedent. Statutes aren't written that way. You shoot an unarmed man physically similar to you who hasn't touched you IN FLORIDA and you will find out what I am talking about.
hogdogs said:
No, Brent I represent in many ways the views of "the rest of the world" that aren't gun enthusiasts. Also the ones who will judge you should you do some of the things the you say on here you would do. Of course we both know that some of that is posturing but remember that Prosecutors can look on here and read this stuff so be careful.
But the appropriate action would have been to fend off the dogs with the walking stick...? This would have likely resulted in the same behavior from the deceased guy.
The only hindsight I get is the brutal reminder that the justice system is not perfect. While a minor dog bite or slap on the face is not great bodily harm... I am not willing to risk the remaining health i have betting that is all I have coming. The 2 dogs exhibited enuff aggression to warrant being shot. The verbal threat against my very being also warrants being stopped with force.
Nasty dog bite would have been in plural, thus great bodily harm...
Also, I know of no one who would just stand there letting the dogs attack. Strikes, kicks, walking stick blows sure... And surely this would have also enraged the deceased.
Sue a homeless guy...
Lemme know how that works out for ya' as far as getting your bills paid.He already looked like a bad guy to many in the community if not just a physcho...
Brent
- Status