You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Revisiting the Harold Fish incident
- Thread starter JohnH1963
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
There were some inconsistencies with Fish's statements in the case. These were minor, but enough to make the jury second-guess Fish.
For example, Fish made a statement to the police about what the attacker was yelling at him. Then during later statements to the grand jury and during other interviews, he fumbled and didnt seem to recall what the attacker had said to him exactly.
Fish might not have been lieing, but sometimes over a period of time we tend not to recall all the facts or the facts get changed in our memory. Most of us cant recall exactly what was said to us, who we talked to or exactly what we did a few days ago.
Thus we get back to making statements to the police. You shouldnt make statements to police without an attorney.
As well, you should be taking your own personal notes in great detail to everything said and that happened knowing that you might have to recount what had occurred months later in a court or in front of a grand jury. Any statements made to the police, with the consent of your attorney, you should make your own personal recording.
For example, Fish made a statement to the police about what the attacker was yelling at him. Then during later statements to the grand jury and during other interviews, he fumbled and didnt seem to recall what the attacker had said to him exactly.
Fish might not have been lieing, but sometimes over a period of time we tend not to recall all the facts or the facts get changed in our memory. Most of us cant recall exactly what was said to us, who we talked to or exactly what we did a few days ago.
Thus we get back to making statements to the police. You shouldnt make statements to police without an attorney.
As well, you should be taking your own personal notes in great detail to everything said and that happened knowing that you might have to recount what had occurred months later in a court or in front of a grand jury. Any statements made to the police, with the consent of your attorney, you should make your own personal recording.
I actually remember this case from the media when it was going on.
Let me say, first and foremost, I do not believe that Harold Fish should have been convicted! I think the original law, requiring him to prove himself innocent vs. the prosecutor having to prove him guilty was wrong if not unconstitutional.
However, there are a couple of points not mentioned or developed well in the article.
The first was the time frame. Fish claimed that the incident happened at 6:30. He went to the nearest road to get help and a motorist used his Onstar system to call for help. (The area was too remote for cell phones.) 911 got the call at 6:40. Neighboring campers then said that they heard the gunshots at 5:30. After that, Fish claimed to have put his backpack under the guy's head to make him more comfortable (he did) and supposedly stuck around for a while to try to administer first aid in order to explain the hour delay.
The next problem was that the more Fish was interviewed, the more his story changed. And in each case the changes made the story a stronger, more cut-and-dried case for self defense.
And the final problem was Harold Fish! Even though he didn't testify, he was very fond of telling his side of the story to reporters. And he came across as an arrogant ass. This is probably how a jury, who never heard him testify, came to the conclusion that he felt no remorse. I can remember watching a couple of these sound bites, wanting him to win his case, and thinking that the man was hanging himself by not keeping his mouth shut! His theme was pretty much the same every time, "I'm too important and well respected to be convicted for shooting a bum."
Anyway, I hope he gets out soon.
Let me say, first and foremost, I do not believe that Harold Fish should have been convicted! I think the original law, requiring him to prove himself innocent vs. the prosecutor having to prove him guilty was wrong if not unconstitutional.
However, there are a couple of points not mentioned or developed well in the article.
The first was the time frame. Fish claimed that the incident happened at 6:30. He went to the nearest road to get help and a motorist used his Onstar system to call for help. (The area was too remote for cell phones.) 911 got the call at 6:40. Neighboring campers then said that they heard the gunshots at 5:30. After that, Fish claimed to have put his backpack under the guy's head to make him more comfortable (he did) and supposedly stuck around for a while to try to administer first aid in order to explain the hour delay.
The next problem was that the more Fish was interviewed, the more his story changed. And in each case the changes made the story a stronger, more cut-and-dried case for self defense.
And the final problem was Harold Fish! Even though he didn't testify, he was very fond of telling his side of the story to reporters. And he came across as an arrogant ass. This is probably how a jury, who never heard him testify, came to the conclusion that he felt no remorse. I can remember watching a couple of these sound bites, wanting him to win his case, and thinking that the man was hanging himself by not keeping his mouth shut! His theme was pretty much the same every time, "I'm too important and well respected to be convicted for shooting a bum."
Anyway, I hope he gets out soon.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I think this is a good example for when we discuss issues and the cliche of: If it's a good shoot, you don't have to worry about XY or Z equipment issues.
If you go to trial, like Mr. Fish - it isn't a good shoot and you will worry about equipment issues.
If you go to trial, like Mr. Fish - it isn't a good shoot and you will worry about equipment issues.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I think Mr. Fish should have used the walking stick he had with him to ward off the dogs. Instead he went to his gun and escalated the situation IMO. Bottomline to me is: Don't draw unless it is the very last resort. I believe as the jury did that he overreacted and so a man was dead because of it.
He lost his temper and got angry. BAD. You have to remain composed and not loose your cool. I think he messed up. You just cant shoot unarmed people. Who knows what really happened. He was jacked up with adrenalin because of the dogs and lost his cool. Bad call. He should not have shot.
I'm glad this thread was started because watching this story on TV really confirmed my thoughts on CCW.
People should never trust the police and especially the DA.
I don't care what the internet commando's say, you stand a good chance of serving hard time if you kill an unarmed perp. Is it worth it? After 20 years of imprisonment do you honestly think you would be proud of not taking a beating?
If you must use deadly force on an unarmed man, don't leave an unarmed body.
Mr. Fish had way to much arrogance and ignorance.
This is the system we live in, it sucks and it is unconstitutional but the average juror is an idiot. You don't want 12 morons determining your fate.
Much better to have a few broken bones.
People should never trust the police and especially the DA.
I don't care what the internet commando's say, you stand a good chance of serving hard time if you kill an unarmed perp. Is it worth it? After 20 years of imprisonment do you honestly think you would be proud of not taking a beating?
If you must use deadly force on an unarmed man, don't leave an unarmed body.
Mr. Fish had way to much arrogance and ignorance.
This is the system we live in, it sucks and it is unconstitutional but the average juror is an idiot. You don't want 12 morons determining your fate.
Much better to have a few broken bones.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you must use deadly force on an unarmed man, don't leave an unarmed body.
1. That is bad advice as modern forensics will easily figure out a 'drop' weapon.
2. Suggesting an illegal action, like faking a crime scene and your actions, is not acceptable here.
Nothing more to be added, so I'm locking it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.