I hope someone can set me straight on this
Bill of Wright
think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
who didn't see it, here goes...........
Back in spring 2004, a hiker has an unfortunate meeting with
a stranger on a trail in AZ. The hiker is 57 years old, married
with 7 kids, retired teacher, salt of the earth type, no criminal
record. He is also carrying a 10 mm automatic pistol loaded
with hollow point bullets. He carries it for protection, mainly
against wild animals he might encounter, he has a license to
carry, and all this is completely understandable in my mind,
as I would probably want to do same if I hiked in the wilderness
for many many miles. So he's walking along, and he sees
a guy maybe 50-60 yards away I guess, standing by his
car, with two dogs. The hiker raises his hand and says
"hey I'm just hiking by" or something similar to let the guy
know he's no threat of any kind. The unleashed dogs
then rush toward hiker in threatening manner. Hiker yells
for him to control his dogs, he then fires a shot into the
ground, and the dogs veer off, but the guy then rushes
toward the hiker allegedly yelling he's gonna kill the hiker,
etc., and the hiker is yelling back that he didn't hurt the
dogs. Anyway, the man keeps charging, and ends up
catching three shots to the chest. Hiker then puts his
backpack under the guy's head and goes to the nearest
road for help, etc., etc. He cooperates fully with police
and they initally conclude self-defense. But the local
folk go apeshit and say this wonderful dog lover was
no threat, and long story short, hiker ends up being
found guilty of 2nd degree murder and gets 10 years
in stir w/o possibility of parole!
Turns out that the guy was a bit of a loose cannon nutcase,
apparently living out of his car. Of course, a few of his
"friends" and his sister of course say wonderful things about
him, etc., but other who've known him say he's an extremely
volatile type. They don't paint a pretty picture. Okay,
there's the background. I have a couple of comments.
First, a big deal was that the hiker had shot an unarmed
man. Uh, maybe I'm stupid, but this was not once
brought up: If a person has a firearm, and another
doesn't, but is charging at the one who does, doesn't it seem
reasonable that the one who does could easily be killed with
his own weapon if he waits till there's actual hand-to-hand
combat, leaving the hiker with good reason for stopping
the charger before he gets to hiker? Another brilliant comment
from a woman juror was that these "hollow point things" are meant
to kill and why would he be loaded with such deadly ammo if he
were such a nice person?!!! (I'm paraphrasing, but what she
said was similar.) DUH!!! If a person is going out into the
wild with a handgun, wouldn't it make sense that he would want
deadly, effective ammo in the event that a large or vicious animal
began charging? Wouldn't a person want to drop the animal
before it had a chance to, perhaps infect him with rabies or something?
I hope some legal experts or law officers will pipe in on this.
Kent Wills
Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote:
>I just did something pretty rare. I watched a current TV show.
That's not that rare. People do it all the time :-)
>I
>think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
>who didn't see it, here goes...........
>
>Back in spring 2004, a hiker has an unfortunate meeting with
>a stranger on a trail in AZ. The hiker is 57 years old, married
>with 7 kids, retired teacher, salt of the earth type, no criminal
>record. He is also carrying a 10 mm automatic pistol loaded
>with hollow point bullets. He carries it for protection, mainly
>against wild animals he might encounter, he has a license to
>carry, and all this is completely understandable in my mind,
>as I would probably want to do same if I hiked in the wilderness
>for many many miles. So he's walking along, and he sees
>a guy maybe 50-60 yards away I guess, standing by his
>car, with two dogs. The hiker raises his hand and says
>"hey I'm just hiking by" or something similar to let the guy
>know he's no threat of any kind. The unleashed dogs
>then rush toward hiker in threatening manner. Hiker yells
>for him to control his dogs, he then fires a shot into the
>ground, and the dogs veer off, but the guy then rushes
>toward the hiker allegedly yelling he's gonna kill the hiker,
>etc., and the hiker is yelling back that he didn't hurt the
>dogs. Anyway, the man keeps charging, and ends up
>catching three shots to the chest.
The man must be an idiot. He knows the hiker has a weapon.
Even so, they hiker could have fired a warning shot into the
ground as he did with the dogs.
>Hiker then puts his
>backpack under the guy's head and goes to the nearest
>road for help, etc., etc. He cooperates fully with police
>and they initally conclude self-defense. But the local
>folk go apeshit and say this wonderful dog lover was
>no threat, and long story short, hiker ends up being
>found guilty of 2nd degree murder and gets 10 years
>in stir w/o possibility of parole!
Second degree seems harsh IMO, but I wasn't in the court room,
so I don't know what all was presented.
>
>Turns out that the guy was a bit of a loose cannon nutcase,
>apparently living out of his car. Of course, a few of his
>"friends" and his sister of course say wonderful things about
>him, etc., but other who've known him say he's an extremely
>volatile type. They don't paint a pretty picture. Okay,
>there's the background. I have a couple of comments.
>
>First, a big deal was that the hiker had shot an unarmed
>man. Uh, maybe I'm stupid, but this was not once
>brought up: If a person has a firearm, and another
>doesn't, but is charging at the one who does, doesn't it seem
>reasonable that the one who does could easily be killed with
>his own weapon if he waits till there's actual hand-to-hand
>combat, leaving the hiker with good reason for stopping
>the charger before he gets to hiker?
It's possible, of course. A warning shot *might* have stopped
the attacker.
Another option that was open to the hiker was to shoot the man
in the leg, or arm. Yes, the main body mass is easier to hit, but the
chances of the attacker dying would have been less had the bullets hit
an arm or leg. This *may* be why he was convicted of second degree
murder.
>Another brilliant comment
>from a woman juror was that these "hollow point things" are meant
>to kill and why would he be loaded with such deadly ammo if he
>were such a nice person?!!! (I'm paraphrasing, but what she
>said was similar.) DUH!!! If a person is going out into the
>wild with a handgun, wouldn't it make sense that he would want
>deadly, effective ammo in the event that a large or vicious animal
>began charging? Wouldn't a person want to drop the animal
>before it had a chance to, perhaps infect him with rabies or something?
Most definitely!
A wounded animal is *very* dangerous. Having bullets designed
to kill the target is better when hiking in an area where one is
likely to need to use a gun.
>
>I hope some legal experts or law officers will pipe in on this.
>
I'm certainly no expert, but I hope my reply has been
informative.
--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
richard
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
news:zB0Lh.9947$m7....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
What does "the dogs rushed toward the man in a threatening manner" mean?
Were the dogs barking and showing their teeth as in an attack stance?
The gun totitng hiker was within his rights to defend himself against the
dogs. He did the right thing by firing a warning shot into the ground. Which
also indicates he had ample time to reach into his pocket, and make a
decision to fire or not to fire and where.
The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker. Now does this
threat give the gun toter the right to "shoot and kill"? No it does not and
doing so without even a struggle, is not self defense.
Just because someone is running towards you in an irate condition does not
give you the right to shoot and kill and claim self defense.
If that were true, then every gun toter in the country would be justified
for shooting down anyone that simply got in their way.
You stated that the gun toter was licensed to carry. In most states, to do
so, one must take a certified class in order to get the license. Maybe the
gun toter did not understand the definition of self defense and when he
could legally use the weapon.
2nd degree murder? Sounds about right.
No parole though sounds a bit stiff considering the man's age.
But even Al Capone was sentenced to jail about that age. For a lessor crime.
Bo Raxo
On a site called HikeArizona.com they have a discussion about this
case.
I found this post quoted belowquite interesting, it's by someone who
worked with the victim. Of course, there's always some question
whether these things are true, but to my ear I think this guy really
did know the victim, and offers an informative portrait:
Bo Raxo
http://hikearizona.com/dex2/viewtopic.php?t=1992&start=0
I too hold an Arizona CCW permit. A person is well within their legal
right to use deadly force when a serious disparity of force is
present, such as a wheelchair-bound person versus a physically capable
person with intent, a single person versus a group of people with
intent, OR a single person versus an enraged man and three vicious
dogs.
I have a somewhat unique viewpoint on all of this, though. I knew the
deceased, Grant Kuenzli. I worked with him for a year and half. I
don't know much about Harold Fish, but I can tell you about Grant
Kuenzli. Grant Kuenzli was a strong guy; he was in top physical
condition for someone in his age group. He had a great deal of
strength. Grant was a former firefighter; a profession that is not
generally known for slackers. In addition he was an avid outdoorsman
which only furthered his physical fitness. If I was Harold Fish I
wouldn't have faced an engraged Grant in single combat either (which
is a misnomer, since there were still some very pissed off dogs to
worry about).
I'm not sure where all these 'friends' of Grant are coming from. If
you ask me they're not really his friends, but rather they are his
'marks'. When I worked with Grant he was something of a loner. No one
at work wanted to associate with him due to his abrasive personality
and unusual behavior. He made many of his coworkers downright uneasy,
and many refused to work alone with him. Grant's work history was
unstable due to his interactions and attitudes towards others.
I have absolutely no problems believing that Grant assaulted another
person in such a manner that the other person feared for their life .
The idea that the Friends of Grant Kuenzli Club, the local media,
prosecutor, and others here and there are trying to make Grant out to
be some kind of misunderstood hermit with a heart of gold is outright
laughable to me.
When I first read about the incident, my first thought when I found
out that Grant was killed was "that's not surprising." I guess Harold
Fish found out that 10mm does the job. Too bad he's ruined financially
for it though.
Fred G. Mackey
>
> I hope some legal experts or law officers will pipe in on this.
>
>
Unless they are familiar with the case, they can only speak generally.
I'm just hearing about it for the first time, but I did find a link to
the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
Based on all the "evidence" discussed in that article, I would have
voted to acquit because the prosecution didn't prove their case...
BUT
The last paragraph is very revealing:
<quote>
Arizona law was changed recently, in part, because of this case. Now,
instead of a defendant having to prove he acted in self-defense, the
burden is on the prosecutors. They must prove a defendant did not act in
self-defense. Arizona’s Supreme Court is expected to rule later this
month on whether the new law applies to a similar case. That ruling
could affect Harold Fish’s appeal.
</quote>
Huh? You mean Fish was put in a position of having to prove his innocence?
WTF?
I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
Bo Raxo
Look up the legal principle of an "affirmative defense". It means the
defendant says that the prosecution has the bare facts right: yes, I
did the act - but that it wasn't a crime because the law specifically
provides requirements that aren't met, or exceptions that are.
An example is an insanity defense: if the accused uses that as a
defense, the burden is on the defense to show that the person was
insane at the time of the crime, or is too insane now to assist with
his/her defense. So yeah, it would be up to the person to, in a
sense, prove their innocence, or at least their non-guilt.
> I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
I would have voted to acquit and not as jury nullification - angry guy
charging at him, *plus* the charging-at-him guy's three snarling dogs
which are off-leash, it seems pretty reasonable the shooter had a
reasonable fear he was about to be assaulted. Classic self-defense.
Bo Raxo
Fred G. Mackey
> On Mar 17, 9:24 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
>
>
>
> Look up the legal principle of an "affirmative defense". It means the
> defendant says that the prosecution has the bare facts right: yes, I
> did the act - but that it wasn't a crime because the law specifically
> provides requirements that aren't met, or exceptions that are.
>
Ah, but the act of shooting someone is NOT a crime if it is done in
self-defense.
> An example is an insanity defense: if the accused uses that as a
> defense, the burden is on the defense to show that the person was
> insane at the time of the crime, or is too insane now to assist with
> his/her defense. So yeah, it would be up to the person to, in a
> sense, prove their innocence, or at least their non-guilt.
>
Insanity is not the same thing. In that case, the crime is still a
crime, but if the person could not distinguish between right and wrong
at the time, they cannot be found guilty.
>
>>I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
>
>
> I would have voted to acquit and not as jury nullification - angry guy
> charging at him, *plus* the charging-at-him guy's three snarling dogs
> which are off-leash, it seems pretty reasonable the shooter had a
> reasonable fear he was about to be assaulted. Classic self-defense.
>
Well, there were 2 dogs (not three) who both scattered after a warning
shot was fired. Testimony provided at trial was that neither dog was
aggressive. As the prosecutor stated, why give the dogs a warning shot,
but not the Kuenzli, who an ME testified had wound consistent with a
defensive stance?
(Granted, all that was as reported by MSNBC, so it could be off).
If the burden of proof is on Fish to PROVE that he acted in
self-defense, such a thing would be very difficult, if not impossible to
prove, especially given inconsistencies in his story.
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
tinydancer
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174197101.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The program said there were *two* dogs, not three. At least that's what I
heard. And mr. raxo, IIRC we had a discussion similar to this in the past
where I believe you chastized me, something about 'over-reacting' to an
*assault*. By the time Fish shot the guy, the dogs were no longer a threat
to him, they had each retreated off to their respective sides after Fish
fired the warning shot into the ground. So, in reference to a previous
opinion of yours, I'd assume you to say that Fish 'didn't need to shoot the
guy, in the stomach, *three* times to 'defend' himself.' And furthermore,
he didn't render assistance *after* shooting the victim. Me thinks that
because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have suddenly
softened a bit.
td
>
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
>
> The program said there were *two* dogs, not three. At least that's what I
> heard.
I stand corrected.
> And mr. raxo, IIRC we had a discussion similar to this in the past
> where I believe you chastized me, something about 'over-reacting' to an
> *assault*. By the time Fish shot the guy, the dogs were no longer a threat
> to him, they had each retreated off to their respective sides after Fish
> fired the warning shot into the ground.
Sure they were a threat. You're about to get in a physical fight with
a guy, and he has two dogs that are off the leash and that you've
already seen willing to act aggressive not seconds before. What do
you think the dogs are going to do when they see you in a fight with
their alpha male? It's obvious that if some guy is about to kick your
ass (or try), and he has two off-leash dogs, they figure in to the
risk equation.
Duh.
> So, in reference to a previous
> opinion of yours, I'd assume you to say that Fish 'didn't need to shoot the
> guy, in the stomach, *three* times to 'defend' himself.'
If you're going to shoot someone, shoot them more than once. That's
what police officers are taught (it's called the double tap - always
shoot the perp twice, not once). Once the guy is one the ground you
don't need to be shooting him, so for me it would be important whether
the shots hit the guy while he was standing or once he was on the
ground. As long as he's on his feet, he's a threat.
> And furthermore,
> he didn't render assistance *after* shooting the victim.
If I see someone lying on the ground injured, it's a moral nicety for
me to assist them, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for not doing so. In
this day and age, you don't want to get someone stranger's blood on
you for fear of several diseases, for one thing.
> Me thinks that
> because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have suddenly
> softened a bit.
>
Only in that the dogs make for an added threat: dogs will defend their
owner, maybe you're not aware of this little fact. Or maybe you don't
realize the dogs don't know that their owner is being an asshole and
attacking someone for no good reason. You expect the doggies to pick
the correct side for moral reasons?
No, the dogs added to the threat Fish was faced with, and they are
another reason he had to put down his attacker thoroughly. It's
reasonable to assume that the owner would order these dogs to attack
after being shot by Fish, so it' reasonable that for self-defense to
be effecive - IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION - you needed to render him
unconcious. If that takes three rounds, then so be it.
Bo Raxo
Kent Wills
Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
Fish had gone with an affirmative defense. It has always been
the case that the defense must prove an affirmative defense. The
recent law change in Arizona changes this.
>WTF?
>
>I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
I don't see how JN would have fit in. I don't see anything
about the law that would be viewed as wrong.
--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
Kent Wills
Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
>Bo Raxo wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 9:24 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Look up the legal principle of an "affirmative defense". It means the
>> defendant says that the prosecution has the bare facts right: yes, I
>> did the act - but that it wasn't a crime because the law specifically
>> provides requirements that aren't met, or exceptions that are.
>>
>
>Ah, but the act of shooting someone is NOT a crime if it is done in
>self-defense.
But it does befall the accused to PROVE it was self-defense.
>
>> An example is an insanity defense: if the accused uses that as a
>> defense, the burden is on the defense to show that the person was
>> insane at the time of the crime, or is too insane now to assist with
>> his/her defense. So yeah, it would be up to the person to, in a
>> sense, prove their innocence, or at least their non-guilt.
>>
>
>Insanity is not the same thing. In that case, the crime is still a
>crime, but if the person could not distinguish between right and wrong
>at the time, they cannot be found guilty.
It, like self defense, is an affirmative defense, and must be
proved by the defense.
>
>>
>>>I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
>>
>>
>> I would have voted to acquit and not as jury nullification - angry guy
>> charging at him, *plus* the charging-at-him guy's three snarling dogs
>> which are off-leash, it seems pretty reasonable the shooter had a
>> reasonable fear he was about to be assaulted. Classic self-defense.
>>
>
>Well, there were 2 dogs (not three) who both scattered after a warning
>shot was fired. Testimony provided at trial was that neither dog was
>aggressive. As the prosecutor stated, why give the dogs a warning shot,
>but not the Kuenzli, who an ME testified had wound consistent with a
>defensive stance?
Actually, the ME pointed out under cross that all he was
saying was that Kuenzli's hand was in front of his torso. That aside,
a warning shot would have been a good idea.
Of course, it's real easy to sit here, years later, and say
that X and Y would have been better.
>
>(Granted, all that was as reported by MSNBC, so it could be off).
>
>If the burden of proof is on Fish to PROVE that he acted in
>self-defense, such a thing would be very difficult, if not impossible to
>prove, especially given inconsistencies in his story.
Yes. Generally, an affirmative defense is very difficult to
prove.
--
Kent
No todos los que ven tus obras ven tus virtudes.
Kent Wills
<tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The program said there were *two* dogs, not three. At least that's what I
>heard. And mr. raxo, IIRC we had a discussion similar to this in the past
>where I believe you chastized me, something about 'over-reacting' to an
>*assault*. By the time Fish shot the guy, the dogs were no longer a threat
>to him, they had each retreated off to their respective sides after Fish
>fired the warning shot into the ground.
The dogs still served as a very real threat. If Kuenzli and
Fish got into a physical altercation, the dogs would have reacted. At
least Fish's personal dog would have.
Seeing his human in a fight would give the dog reason to
attack Kuenzli.
>So, in reference to a previous
>opinion of yours, I'd assume you to say that Fish 'didn't need to shoot the
>guy, in the stomach, *three* times to 'defend' himself.'
He may have, he may not have. Since we weren't there, we
can't KNOW which is the case. We can only go with the evidence
presented to us.
>And furthermore,
>he didn't render assistance *after* shooting the victim.
Testimony presented at trial indicates that he did render what
assistance he could at the time. Fish then went to get help.
>Me thinks that
>because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have suddenly
>softened a bit.
Deadly force should always be a last resort, of course. I
don't think an animal being involved should matter.
Bill of Wright
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ivdpv2d1aml0d0e93...@4ax.com...
>
> The man must be an idiot. He knows the hiker has a weapon.
> Even so, they hiker could have fired a warning shot into the
> ground as he did with the dogs.
Actually IIRC, the hiker says he did fire a warning shot into the air
as the guy was running toward him.
Bill of Wright
"Pneuma Pelosi" <frank...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:etie1...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:29:15 -0400, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con>
> wrote:
>
>>I just did something pretty rare. I watched a current TV show. I
>>think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
>>who didn't see it, here goes...........
>
>
> way
> the defense or prosecutor likes.
> Frankly I saw the show and I think the warning shot accidentally hit the
> victim then the killer finished the job and cooked up a self defense
> story.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Bill of Wright
> On Mar 17, 5:29 pm, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote:
>
> On a site called HikeArizona.com they have a discussion about this
> case.
>
> I found this post quoted belowquite interesting, it's by someone who
> worked with the victim. Of course, there's always some question
> whether these things are true, but to my ear I think this guy really
> did know the victim, and offers an informative portrait:
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
> http://hikearizona.com/dex2/viewtopic.php?t=1992&start=0
<snip for space>
What this person claims about the guy jibes perfectly with
what about 6 or 7 people who had known and worked with
him said. I still don't understand this jury's thinking. Scary.
But the truth is, when I first started watching this story,
I was inclined to think that the hiker was trigger-happy
and over-reacted (I'm talking the very beginning, during
the teaser). I think the hiker was railroaded. BTW, this
"loving" sister of the deceased had a mug that belonged
on a mugshot.
Bill of Wright
"richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
news:etie4...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> What does "the dogs rushed toward the man in a threatening manner" mean?
> Were the dogs barking and showing their teeth as in an attack stance?
Apparently so. It doesn't sound like they were sauntering toward him with
tail wagging.
> The gun totitng hiker was within his rights to defend himself against the
> dogs. He did the right thing by firing a warning shot into the ground.
> Which also indicates he had ample time to reach into his pocket, and make
> a decision to fire or not to fire and where.
My point of being killed by one's own gun has not been addressed.
My guess is that cops encounter this problem frequently.
> The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker. Now does
> this threat give the gun toter the right to "shoot and kill"? No it does
> not and doing so without even a struggle, is not self defense.
> Just because someone is running towards you in an irate condition does not
> give you the right to shoot and kill and claim self defense.
> If that were true, then every gun toter in the country would be justified
> for shooting down anyone that simply got in their way.
>
> You stated that the gun toter was licensed to carry. In most states, to do
> so, one must take a certified class in order to get the license. Maybe the
> gun toter did not understand the definition of self defense and when he
> could legally use the weapon.
>
> 2nd degree murder? Sounds about right.
> No parole though sounds a bit stiff considering the man's age.
> But even Al Capone was sentenced to jail about that age. For a lessor
> crime.
Poor analogy. Capone was sentenced for tax evasion, because it was all they
could actually nail the vicious and infamously murderous mobster with.
Bill of Wright
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote in message
news:fZednbA66borSmHY...@comcast.com...
>
> Well, there were 2 dogs (not three) who both scattered after a warning
> shot was fired. Testimony provided at trial was that neither dog was
> aggressive.
Testimony for the prosecution, yes. But there was also testimony for the
defense from people who'd worked with one of the dogs, who said
the dog WAS aggressive. But this is funny anyway. Even vicious,
dangerous dogs are friendly toward their owners and people
they know. But when it comes to strangers, they are regular
Jekyll and Hyde. I've seen it a thousand times.
Bill of Wright
> If you're going to shoot someone, shoot them more than once. That's
> what police officers are taught (it's called the double tap - always
> shoot the perp twice, not once). Once the guy is one the ground you
> don't need to be shooting him, so for me it would be important whether
> the shots hit the guy while he was standing or once he was on the
> ground. As long as he's on his feet, he's a threat.
A man I always looked up to as a kid always said that if he ever had to
shoot anyone--period--it would be shoot to kill. I can see a lot of
logic in that.
>> And furthermore,
>> he didn't render assistance *after* shooting the victim.
I heard one of the jurors peeping about this I think. Makes no
sense. The hiker was not even a trained paramedic. A guy with
three bullets in him need professional medical atttention. There
was nothing much the hiker could've done but make him comfortable
as possible and go get help.
> Only in that the dogs make for an added threat: dogs will defend their
> owner, maybe you're not aware of this little fact. Or maybe you don't
> realize the dogs don't know that their owner is being an asshole and
> attacking someone for no good reason. You expect the doggies to pick
> the correct side for moral reasons?
Not to mention of course the added possibility of being shot by his
own weapon.
Fred G. Mackey
>>Insanity is not the same thing. In that case, the crime is still a
>>crime, but if the person could not distinguish between right and wrong
>>at the time, they cannot be found guilty.
>
>
> It, like self defense, is an affirmative defense, and must be
> proved by the defense.
>
According to the artcile, Arizona has changed their law to put the
burden of proof on the prosecutor.
I also recall a case in Texas where a homeowner shot through the back
door of his home, killing a drunk Scot. Apparently, the drunk was not
trying to break in but had become paranoid in his drunkenness while
being given a ride back to his hotel because he did not recognize the
area (imagine that). In that case, charges were never even brought - a
grand jury failed to indict.
>
>>>>I still would have voted to acquit - jury nullification.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would have voted to acquit and not as jury nullification - angry guy
>>>charging at him, *plus* the charging-at-him guy's three snarling dogs
>>>which are off-leash, it seems pretty reasonable the shooter had a
>>>reasonable fear he was about to be assaulted. Classic self-defense.
>>>
>>
>>Well, there were 2 dogs (not three) who both scattered after a warning
>>shot was fired. Testimony provided at trial was that neither dog was
>>aggressive. As the prosecutor stated, why give the dogs a warning shot,
>>but not the Kuenzli, who an ME testified had wound consistent with a
>>defensive stance?
>
>
> Actually, the ME pointed out under cross that all he was
> saying was that Kuenzli's hand was in front of his torso.
True, but if the burden of proof is supposed to be on the defense, it
doesn't really matter unless he can prove it.
> That aside,
> a warning shot would have been a good idea.
> Of course, it's real easy to sit here, years later, and say
> that X and Y would have been better.
>
Agreed.
Fred G. Mackey
Well, the dog catcher said one of the dogs was a "fear biter". I don't
equate that with aggressiveness. Why (from such a distance) would Fish
inspire fear? It would seem that such a dog would attack anyone within
sight that he didn't know if that were the case.
Fred G. Mackey
Given what you and others are saying about the burden of proof being on
the defense, I think it is. Sending someone to prison is quite serious
and if I'm not convinced by the prosecution that self-defense was not
the case, I wouldn't vote to convict.
I would have nullified the law that the AZ legislature recently changed.
Fred G. Mackey
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174193855.8...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Mar 17, 5:29 pm, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote:
>>
>>On a site called HikeArizona.com they have a discussion about this
>>case.
>>
>>I found this post quoted belowquite interesting, it's by someone who
>>worked with the victim. Of course, there's always some question
>>whether these things are true, but to my ear I think this guy really
>>did know the victim, and offers an informative portrait:
>>
>>
>>Bo Raxo
>>
>>http://hikearizona.com/dex2/viewtopic.php?t=1992&start=0
>
>
> <snip for space>
>
> What this person claims about the guy jibes perfectly with
> what about 6 or 7 people who had known and worked with
> him said. I still don't understand this jury's thinking. Scary.
>
> But the truth is, when I first started watching this story,
> I was inclined to think that the hiker was trigger-happy
> and over-reacted (I'm talking the very beginning, during
> the teaser).
NBC (and other "newsmagazines") love to do that. Get the audience to
think one thing, then present the other side. It's what they call
"compelling".
tinydancer
> On Mar 17, 10:16 pm, "tinydancer" <tinydancer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The program said there were *two* dogs, not three. At least that's what
I
> > heard.
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> > And mr. raxo, IIRC we had a discussion similar to this in the past
> > where I believe you chastized me, something about 'over-reacting' to an
> > *assault*. By the time Fish shot the guy, the dogs were no longer a
threat
> > to him, they had each retreated off to their respective sides after Fish
> > fired the warning shot into the ground.
>
> Sure they were a threat.
It has never been established that the dogs were *any* threat to begin with.
All that has been established is that there were two dogs *present*, and
that those dogs were doing *something*. For all you know, those dogs were
'running to greet' the hiker as he approached.
You're about to get in a physical fight with
> a guy, and he has two dogs that are off the leash and that you've
> already seen willing to act aggressive not seconds before.
Exactly *who* says the dogs were 'willing to act aggressive'? Lets see, as
far as witnesses go, there's the *shooter* and then there is the *dead guy*.
Now we know what the shooter has testified to, but as for the *dead guy*, we
don't at all know his side of the story.
What do
> you think the dogs are going to do when they see you in a fight with
> their alpha male?
In your vast experience in dog psychology, are you telling me *you* assume
to know what those dogs *might* do?
It's obvious that if some guy is about to kick your
> ass (or try), and he has two off-leash dogs, they figure in to the
> risk equation.
If that were the case, why was 'no mention' of dogs' actions *after* the
shooting made? The shooter didn't say a word about 'still feeling in fear
of the dogs *after* he shot the guy. Were the dogs truly vicious, they
wouldn't have 'retreated completely' and posed no further threat to the
shooter what so ever. The shooter didn't testify that 'the dogs were still
stalking him', or that the dogs were regrouping and contemplating a further
assault upon his person. In fact the shooter did say that he approached the
dead guy, put his back pack under his head after he shot him, etc. Were
those dogs truly vicious, they would not have allowed the shooter to
'approach' dead guys body. Dogs don't KNOW the guy they were with is now
*dead* and in no further need of protection *immediately*.
DUH.
>
> Duh.
>
>
>
> > So, in reference to a previous
> > opinion of yours, I'd assume you to say that Fish 'didn't need to shoot
the
> > guy, in the stomach, *three* times to 'defend' himself.'
>
> If you're going to shoot someone, shoot them more than once.
Shoot an unarmed man 'more than once', AH, I see.........Sheesh! Three gut
shots with hollow point bullets to an unarmed man is acceptable in your
world.
That's
> what police officers are taught (it's called the double tap - always
> shoot the perp twice, not once).
Since when did 'unarmed guy' become a *perp*? I must have missed that
part?
Once the guy is one the ground you
> don't need to be shooting him, so for me it would be important whether
> the shots hit the guy while he was standing or once he was on the
> ground. As long as he's on his feet, he's a threat.
Let's see, an unarmed guy, you come upon while hiking, is a threat, a
*perp*, and ripe for three gut shots with hollow point bullets from a large
caliber gun. I didn't realize those were the 'rules of hikers'.
>
> > And furthermore,
> > he didn't render assistance *after* shooting the victim.
>
> If I see someone lying on the ground injured, it's a moral nicety for
> me to assist them, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for not doing so.
He didn't 'come upon someone lying on the ground injured', he shot the guy
three times, with hollow point bullets, from point blank range. Lets keep
the facts of the story straight.
In
> this day and age, you don't want to get someone stranger's blood on
> you for fear of several diseases, for one thing.
You are really stretching here bo. Sheesh!
>
> > Me thinks that
> > because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have suddenly
> > softened a bit.
> >
>
> Only in that the dogs make for an added threat: dogs will defend their
> owner, maybe you're not aware of this little fact.
Only one of the dogs was owned by this guy. Dogs do take a while to *bond*
with someone you know. Only one of these dogs was owned by the dead guy.
They other was a 'loaner' from a shelter.
Or maybe you don't
> realize the dogs don't know that their owner is being an asshole and
> attacking someone for no good reason.
Man, for someone who is continually saying that *I* distort facts, you've
come up with some real whoppers here, bo. Remember, the only *facts* of
this whole incident are those given by the shooter. Dead guy has no way of
telling his side of the story, see how *that* works. Since the shooter had
not one *scratch* from these two vicious dogs, not one bite, not one slight
*injury* to show to the deputies as *evidence* of the dogs having shown
aggression, I'd find his story to be a bit suspect. Remember, *after* the
shooting, Fish didn't say anything about the dogs 'attempting to attack him
again'. He didn't say 'he had to also turn around and shoot those
aggressive dogs to save his life.' He didn't say "I was still in fear of
my life because the dogs were *lurking* there on the edge, ready to attack
me yet again, yadda yadda, yadda.......... Suddenly the dogs as a threat
became non-existent.
You expect the doggies to pick
> the correct side for moral reasons?
>
> No, the dogs added to the threat Fish was faced with, and they are
> another reason he had to put down his attacker thoroughly. It's
> reasonable to assume that the owner would order these dogs to attack
> after being shot by Fish, so it' reasonable that for self-defense to
> be effecive - IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION - you needed to render him
> unconcious. If that takes three rounds, then so be it.
As for this last paragraph, that crap you state is *reasonable* only to
someone who despises dogs the way you do. No *normal* person would surmise
all this from what occured and the story given by the shooter.
As for a previous comment by you, this didn't happen in the center of a
town. It happened 'out hiking', where you haven't presented any sort of law
or evidence that a 'leash law' is even in effect. Most cities have some
sort of 'leash law', while most *counties* don't.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
tinydancer
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
news:IbbLh.10177$m7....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
I didn't hear that. I heard he fired a warning shot 'into the ground' as
the dogs approached, whereupon the dogs each veered off and no longer were a
threat to him.
td
>
>
Fred G. Mackey
> I just did something pretty rare. I watched a current TV show. I
> think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
> who didn't see it, here goes...........
One thing I keep forgetting to put in my replies is that it seems way
too much importance was attached to the type of weapon and bullets that
Fish was carrying with him.
I don't know about the particular area FIsh was hiking in, but there are
plenty of places in the southwest where you could encounter an animal
that is not going to be taken down easily (bear, mountain lion,
javelina, bark scorpion (okay - not the bark scorpion)) and I would
think you'd want some serious artillery on your side if you were attacked.
tinydancer
"richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
news:etie4...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> news:zB0Lh.9947$m7....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> What does "the dogs rushed toward the man in a threatening manner" mean?
> Were the dogs barking and showing their teeth as in an attack stance?
Exactly. We have no information that these dogs were rushing forward in a
threatening manner. *Most* dogs will run towards someone approaching them.
Just because a dog is running up to somone, doesn't make them *a threat*.
My neighborhood dogs always 'run up to me' to greet me, get pets, perhaps
get a treat if they are *lucky* and I happened to come outside with a pocket
full of dog biscuits.
> The gun totitng hiker was within his rights to defend himself against the
> dogs. He did the right thing by firing a warning shot into the ground.
Which
> also indicates he had ample time to reach into his pocket, and make a
> decision to fire or not to fire and where.
Again, exactly. He fired the warning shot into the ground, and these
*threatening* dogs immediately retreated and left the scene.
>
> The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker.
Remember, the *nutcase* obviously wasn't close enough to the hiker to even
see what had happened because the hiker testified that he told the *nutcase*
"I didn't shoot your dogs, I only fired a warning shot" yadda yadda yaddda
If the nutcase had been close enough to do any harm to the hiker, he would
have SEEN that his dogs hadn't been shot, hiker wouldn't have had to tell
him that. That tells me that hiker had ENOUGH TIME to take other action,
rather than three hollow point guy shots to the nutcase IMO.
Now does this
> threat give the gun toter the right to "shoot and kill"? No it does not
and
> doing so without even a struggle, is not self defense.
> Just because someone is running towards you in an irate condition does not
> give you the right to shoot and kill and claim self defense.
> If that were true, then every gun toter in the country would be justified
> for shooting down anyone that simply got in their way.
Exactly, again.
td
richard
"tinydancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4cLh.2073$8s....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
As I understood the wording, the "nutcase" could clearly see the approach
gun toter. As the nutcase spoke to the hiker indicating that he was there
for some reason. The dogs simply reacted to the presence of a stranger and
moved to investigate as dogs will do.
Being some 60 yards away, even at full throttle, it would take the nutcase
more than 6 seconds to get to the hiker. This is ample time for the hiker to
make a decision. Unfortunately, he made the wrong one.
We do not know if there was physical contact between the two or not. Had
there been, then yes, self defense could possibly be claimed. But not with
the weapon already drawn and fired.
Bill of Wright
"tinydancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4cLh.2073$8s....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> threatening manner. *Most* dogs will run towards someone approaching
> them.
> Just because a dog is running up to somone, doesn't make them *a threat*.
> My neighborhood dogs always 'run up to me' to greet me, get pets, perhaps
> get a treat if they are *lucky* and I happened to come outside with a
> full of dog biscuits.
Being a hiker/runner myself, I have a good deal of experience with strange
dogs.
I--and I'd bet this hiker too--can tell a friendly approach vs. a hostile
one.
It's not hard to figure out which is which. This hiker did not at all seem
like
a loose cannon with an itchy trigger finger. But your response is typical
of
the ones that come out in cases like this. I saw it on the story last night
too.
The case itself becomes secondary--an incidental really--to people who
simply are interested in using it to promote their own pet (no pun intended)
agendas.
You're obviously a "dog person." And I'd bet my left nut you're also a gun
control
fanatic who hates the idea of a person owning/carrying a firearm. So your
biased mindset causes a slant in your opinions on such cases. I've seen it
before:
Dog owner: I love to let my dogs run wild and free in the woods. I/they
have that right! The gun-nut, dog-hater deserves DEATH for murdering
the kind dog owner who was just concerned about his gentle, fun-loving
pets..
(Never mind that you are often breaking park rules, that your dog/s
are harassing other visitors, and damaging the natural setting, YOU
want your dogs to run free dammit!)
Go buy your own land.
> Again, exactly. He fired the warning shot into the ground, and these
> *threatening* dogs immediately retreated and left the scene.
Charging grizzley bears often will veer off after a warning shot.
You don't consider a charging grizzley threatening?
> Remember, the *nutcase* obviously wasn't close enough to the hiker to even
> see what had happened because the hiker testified that he told the
> *nutcase*
"Nutcase" is the word I used because he fit my definition of nutcase, as he
would
fit many people's definition, I suspect. He wasn't called that in the
program.
> "I didn't shoot your dogs, I only fired a warning shot" yadda yadda yaddda
> If the nutcase had been close enough to do any harm to the hiker, he would
> have SEEN that his dogs hadn't been shot, hiker wouldn't have had to tell
> him that. That tells me that hiker had ENOUGH TIME to take other action,
> rather than three hollow point guy shots to the nutcase IMO.
Are you half zonked on head drugs or something? This nutcase was
charging the hiker, probably looking quite vicious and insane, from
all indications. The hiker also didn't know that the guy wasn't a
deranged ex-green beret with deadly physical skills, that he
didn't have a hunting knife in his pocket or around back, etc.,
etc.
>> Just because someone is running towards you in an irate condition does
>> not
>> give you the right to shoot and kill and claim self defense.
>> If that were true, then every gun toter in the country would be justified
>> for shooting down anyone that simply got in their way.
Perfect example of strawman technique. A charging madman is hardly someone
simply getting "in the way." Sheeesh.
richard
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote in message
news:POqdnTbG5vdXUWHY...@comcast.com...
I would have voted in favor of the 2nd degree murder charge.
You must understand that deadly force was used, handgun, when the other
party was unarmed.
As there was some distance between the two, the defendant had ample time to
secure his weapon and defend himself without it. You may use deadly force
only when your life is being threatened with equal deadly force. Had the
victim been brandishing a firearm, then yes, self defense would be
justified.
Acquittal? That would send a signal to other persons with CCW licenses that
it's ok to shoot and kill anybody anywhere that approaches you in a manner
you don't like.
The defendant was guilty of his actions pure and simple.
Bill of Wright
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote in message
>
> One thing I keep forgetting to put in my replies is that it seems way too
> much importance was attached to the type of weapon and bullets that Fish
> was carrying with him.
>
>
> I don't know about the particular area FIsh was hiking in, but there are
> plenty of places in the southwest where you could encounter an animal that
> is not going to be taken down easily (bear, mountain lion, javelina, bark
> scorpion (okay - not the bark scorpion)) and I would think you'd want some
> serious artillery on your side if you were attacked.
My point exactly. The hollow point "point" was no point at all.
As I said, scary.
tinydancer
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
>
> "tinydancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_4cLh.2073$8s....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Exactly. We have no information that these dogs were rushing forward in
a
> > threatening manner. *Most* dogs will run towards someone approaching
> > them.
> > Just because a dog is running up to somone, doesn't make them *a
threat*.
> > My neighborhood dogs always 'run up to me' to greet me, get pets,
perhaps
> > get a treat if they are *lucky* and I happened to come outside with a
> > full of dog biscuits.
>
> Being a hiker/runner myself, I have a good deal of experience with strange
> dogs.
> I--and I'd bet this hiker too--can tell a friendly approach vs. a hostile
> one.
Really? Well could you describe to me the specific *signs* a dog gives off
that would characterize it as 'friendly' vs. 'hostile'?
> It's not hard to figure out which is which. This hiker did not at all
seem
> like
> a loose cannon with an itchy trigger finger.
And you surmised this 'how'? Remember, we only have 'his word' on any and
all details given.
But your response is typical
> of
> the ones that come out in cases like this. I saw it on the story last
night
> too.
>
> The case itself becomes secondary--an incidental really--to people who
> simply are interested in using it to promote their own pet (no pun
intended)
> agendas.
> You're obviously a "dog person."
Yes, as a matter of fact I am a 'dog person'.
And I'd bet my left nut you're also a gun
> control
> fanatic who hates the idea of a person owning/carrying a firearm.
What a shame for you. I hope you are a bit 'older' already. I'd hate to
think of you having to go through your 'entire' life minus your left nut. I
happen to own my own Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. It's a bit smaller than my
husbands and holds one less bullet than his does. We also own a Remington
12 gauge, pump action that as my dh puts it, 'would stop a bear, any bear.'
Now can I expect 'your left nut' to arrive via Fed Ex or UPS?
So your
> biased mindset
You make incorrect assumptions about me, yet you call me *biased*? Wow,
that's really something.
causes a slant in your opinions on such cases. I've seen it
> before:
Uh huh, sure you have.
>
> Dog owner: I love to let my dogs run wild and free in the woods. I/they
> have that right!
Wrong again, my dogs are never off-leash off my property. I value their
lives too much to allow them to perhaps get hit by a car or injure
themselves in any preventable way.
The gun-nut, dog-hater deserves DEATH for murdering
> the kind dog owner who was just concerned about his gentle, fun-loving
> pets..
>
> (Never mind that you are often breaking park rules, that your dog/s
> are harassing other visitors, and damaging the natural setting, YOU
> want your dogs to run free dammit!)
>
> Go buy your own land.
We have, a fenced in acre of land, in the country, plenty of room for my
dogs to roam, safely enclosed in a six foot tall privacy fenced surrounding.
And when we walk, hike, etc., my dogs are leashed and under control at all
times.
>
> > Again, exactly. He fired the warning shot into the ground, and these
> > *threatening* dogs immediately retreated and left the scene.
>
> Charging grizzley bears often will veer off after a warning shot.
> You don't consider a charging grizzley threatening?
Cite where these vicious dogs were ever again even *mentioned* by the
shooter? A charging grizzley will *return*, the dogs didn't.
remaining gibberish removed.
Chas
> You must understand that deadly force was used, handgun, when the other
> party was unarmed.
The nutcase charged him *after* he knew the defender was armed- giving ample
notice that he thought he was sufficiently 'armed' to confront a firearm and
do physical damage to the hiker.
> As there was some distance between the two, the defendant had ample time
> to secure his weapon and defend himself without it.
You posit some sort of 'fair fight' requirement?
What if the hiker had reserved shooting, but clubbed the attacker dead with
the pistol?
Do you think a defender should divest himself of any weapon, in order to be
at parity with the attacker?
> You may use deadly force only when your life is being threatened with
> equal deadly force.
No; you can use it when you have a reasonable belief that your life is in
danger, or the lives of others. Determined aggression on the part of an
attacker is sufficient to give reason to a defender to defend.
> Had the victim been brandishing a firearm, then yes, self defense would be
> justified.
Determined aggression in the face of a couple of significant warnings (the
ground shot and 'explanation') is sufficient to justify defense.
What if it had been a woman hiker, an old man or a handicapped person?
Should they be subject to a physical beating from a nutter, or a robber, or
a rapist in order to give him a 'fair chance'?
> Acquittal? That would send a signal to other persons with CCW licenses
> that it's ok to shoot and kill anybody anywhere that approaches you in a
> manner you don't like.
Well; yeah.
That's what 'approaches me in a manner I don't like' means.
Are you afraid that you and your dogs can't attack people with impunity
anymore?
--
Chas
Do the Right Thing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, massage tools, practice and conditioning tools)
Bill of Wright
> Really? Well could you describe to me the specific *signs* a dog gives
> off
> that would characterize it as 'friendly' vs. 'hostile'?
Certainly. If a dog jogs up with tail wagging, tongue hanging loosly out
his mouth, I would characterize that as "friendly."
OTOH, if it's approaching--usually at somewhat faster pace--with
rigid appearance--stiff tail, rigid facial expression with locked eyes
and perhaps showing teeth, I'd definitely call this hostile.
What a stupid question.
> And you surmised this 'how'?
His background. People generally don't live to be 57 without
any history of similar incidents or trouble with the law without
being level-head, law-abiding citizens.
> You make incorrect assumptions about me, yet you call me *biased*? Wow,
> that's really something.
Okay, you have guns, but you are definitely a biased thinker when it comes
to dog matters. It shows like a supernova.
tinydancer
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
>
> "tinydancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fXcLh.18591$Wc....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> > Really? Well could you describe to me the specific *signs* a dog gives
> > off
> > that would characterize it as 'friendly' vs. 'hostile'?
>
> Certainly. If a dog jogs up with tail wagging, tongue hanging loosly out
> his mouth, I would characterize that as "friendly."
>
> OTOH, if it's approaching--usually at somewhat faster pace--with
> rigid appearance--stiff tail, rigid facial expression with locked eyes
> and perhaps showing teeth, I'd definitely call this hostile.
I don't think so. My wagging tailed barking dogs zoom up to greet people,
barking and yapping with excitement. A dog that is perhaps 'not friendly'
*usually* approaches at a much slower rate of speed, eyes fixed on the
*stranger* sizing up the situation. Remember, neither of these dogs were
*fighting dogs* per se. I have seldom had any dog that wasn't friendly
approach me 'at a somewhat faster pace'. Usually dogs that aren't friendly
will *lurk*, eyes fixed on their target. You did get the 'stiff tail' right
though. Thanks for playing.
>
> What a stupid question.
Uh huh.
>
> > And you surmised this 'how'?
>
> His background. People generally don't live to be 57 without
> any history of similar incidents or trouble with the law without
> being level-head, law-abiding citizens.
>
> > You make incorrect assumptions about me, yet you call me *biased*? Wow,
> > that's really something.
>
> Okay, you have guns, but you are definitely a biased thinker when it comes
> to dog matters.
'fraid not. I speak from experience and intelligence in the matter of dog
behavior. Apparently that intimidates you for some reason. I own two large
dogs, a Rottweiler/German Shepherd mix and a Catahoula Leopard Dog possibly
mixed with a Great Dane. Unsure of lineage as he's a rescue from a shelter.
Were these two dogs in the story to approach me on a hiking trail, I would
stop, and in a strong controlled voice I would command them "NO". You don't
turn around, retreat in any way. You stand your ground and firmly, without
stress, fear, anxiety in ones voice, command the dogs to STOP. When I walk
my dogs, there is occasionally a Pit Bull that will approach us. I use this
method every time. I stop in my tracks and order the Pit Bull *NO*. He
stops about ten feet away from us, sometimes circles a quarter way around
us, by always retreats, after letting us know 'he doesn't like us one little
bit'.
Check out 'The Dog Whisperer' on The National Geographic Channel sometime.
You could get some pointers on how to react to dogs in general.
hth
It shows like a supernova.
You forgot to mention how I am to recieve your left nut, mr. unbiased, *I'm
always right*.
>
>
>
Fred G. Mackey
> "richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
> news:etie4...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>>The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker.
>
>
>
> Remember, the *nutcase* obviously wasn't close enough to the hiker to even
> see what had happened because the hiker testified that he told the *nutcase*
> "I didn't shoot your dogs, I only fired a warning shot" yadda yadda yaddda
> If the nutcase had been close enough to do any harm to the hiker, he would
> have SEEN that his dogs hadn't been shot, hiker wouldn't have had to tell
> him that.
Not necessarily. It sounds to me like Kuenzli would have reacted
aggressively even if he knew that only a warning shot had been fired.
Fish was trying to tell the guy he wasn't trying to kill the dogs, but
Kuenzli might not have cared.
> That tells me that hiker had ENOUGH TIME to take other action,
> rather than three hollow point guy shots to the nutcase IMO.
What does the type of ammo have to do with anything?
Surely Fish didn't have time to reload his weapon with more "friendly"
bullets.
>
Fred G. Mackey
>
> Acquittal? That would send a signal to other persons with CCW licenses
> that it's ok to shoot and kill anybody anywhere that approaches you in a
> manner you don't like.
>
You shouldn't convict people simply to "send a signal". Defendants
should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
If you were arrested tomorrow for killing and raping Jon Benet Ramsey,
should we convict you simply because someone felt that to acquit you
would be to send a message that it's okay to kill and rape 5 year old girls?
I would hope the trial would be based on evidence rather than the an
emotional prosecutor and jury who were afraid of sending the wrong "signal".
> The defendant was guilty of his actions pure and simple.
>
I'm not convinced - I would not be able to convict him based on the
facts as have been presented.
tinydancer
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote in message
> tinydancer wrote:
> > "richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
> > news:etie4...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
>
> >
> >
> >>The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember, the *nutcase* obviously wasn't close enough to the hiker to
even
> > see what had happened because the hiker testified that he told the
*nutcase*
> > "I didn't shoot your dogs, I only fired a warning shot" yadda yadda
yaddda
> > If the nutcase had been close enough to do any harm to the hiker, he
would
> > have SEEN that his dogs hadn't been shot, hiker wouldn't have had to
tell
> > him that.
>
> Not necessarily. It sounds to me like Kuenzli would have reacted
> aggressively even if he knew that only a warning shot had been fired.
> Fish was trying to tell the guy he wasn't trying to kill the dogs, but
> Kuenzli might not have cared.
The only version of events we have is Fishes' version, because unfortunately
Kuenzli is dead and unable to give a *version*.
>
> > That tells me that hiker had ENOUGH TIME to take other action,
> > rather than three hollow point guy shots to the nutcase IMO.
>
> What does the type of ammo have to do with anything?
>
> Surely Fish didn't have time to reload his weapon with more "friendly"
> bullets.
The type of ammo tells us that Fish meant to kill whatever he shot at. We
don't usually load our weapons with black talons. Is LE even allowed to use
hollow points? I don't know? It also tells us that Fish 'should have
known' he wouldn't need three shots to the gut to stop Kuenzli. One shot
would have sufficed when confronted by an unarmed man on a hiking trail.
After all, he could have retreated. Isn't that one of the criteria for
using 'deadly force'? If one is able to retreat?
td
>
> >
tinydancer
argued that Kuenzli's death was not an act of self defense.
Lessler (in court): By his own account, Mr. Fish had not been threatened
with any weapon - not a knife, not a gun, not a stick.
The prosecutor realized this would be an emotional case. After all, the
defendant was a retired high school teacher, father of seven, and had no
criminal record. But, he told the jury, this case is not about Harold Fish's
character. It's about behavior and about accountability for the choices we
make.
Lessler: This case and the evidence you will see and hear is not about a
bad man doing evil things. This case in short is not about character. It is
about behavior.
What behavior exactly? Well, prosecutors suggested that Fish, angered by the
victim's dogs, overreacted on that trail, using way too much force, then
covered his tracks and lied about the threat he'd faced to save his own
skin.
Lessler: Mr. Fish is, in my judgment, an extraordinarily self-righteous
man.
Larson: You think there's an arrogance there?
Lessler: Absolutely. Mr. Fish believes that life should be lived by the
way that Mr. Fish lives his life, and by his sense of morality, and that if
people violate that they should be dealt with sternly.
The prosecution zeroed in on Fish's story, starting to pick it apart,
beginning with the timeline.
Fish told the original lead detective on the case that he shot Grant Kuenzli
about 6:30 p.m. A woman, camping with her friends about a half a mile away,
told police on the scene that she heard the shots much earlier-somewhere
around 5:30 p.m.
And the man Fish flagged down on the highway said Fish waved him down at
about 6:40 p.m..
The prosecutor wanted the jury to ponder the question: If the shooting did
happen at 5:30, why did it take more than an hour for Fish to get help? Had
he intentionally lied about what time the shooting happened in order to help
his claim of self-defense?
Lessler: Mr. Fish knew darn well that he had shot an unarmed man and that
he could not justify the shooting. He made a strategic decision to stay and
spin the case his way, as opposed to leaving, probably getting away with it,
but running the risk that if he ever were caught he couldn't ever claim self
defense.
Prosecutor Lessler then pointed out Fish had different versions of exactly
what Kuenzli had said to him on the trail. Did Fish make up a tale about
threats from the victim to justify the shooting, then have trouble keeping
his stories straight?
This sergeant took Fish's first statement at the scene:
Sergeant who took Fish's first statement: He reiterated to me he was in
fear for his life because the person running at him was saying, 'I'm going
to kill you, you son of a b*tch!"
But later that night, Fish said he couldn't remember what Kuenzli had said
to him. The prosecutor played a tape from an interview with Fish-
"I'm trying to remember exactly what he said, you know, whether he said 'I
'm going to kill you' or. he said something I can't remember what it is."
And Fish later told a grand jury something else. He said Kuenzli may have
said "I'm going to kill you, I'm going to hurt you, or I'm going to shoot
you."
Lessler: He took time to think that through. The problem is that when you
do that under that kind of stress, it's extraordinarily difficult to keep
your story straight.
Next, the medical examiner's testimony called into question Fish's
description of an enraged stranger charging at him.
The witness explained that Grant Kuenzli was shot three times in the chest,
and one of those bullets went through his right hand before hitting his
chest.
Medical examiner: This wound to forearm and the wound of the hand would
necessitate the arms to be in front of the torso and those are the types of
wounds we've described in other cases as a defensive type posture.
Was Kuenzli actually trying to defend himself from Fish, rather than the
other way around as Fish claimed?
And then, a shocking statement from the medical examiner: He said the
position of Kuenzli's arm may prove he was actually standing still when he
got shot-not running towards Fish as he had claimed.
Medical examiner: It would be an unusual position for someone walking or
running to have a right hand across body like that.
Could Fish have shot a man standing still?
And the jury had another issue to think about: Fish's gun.
The firearms investigator said that Fish's gun - a 10mm - is more powerful
than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal
protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times,
called "a hollow-point bullet," is made to expand when it enters the body.
When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have
known what the consequences would be.
Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.
Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?
Lessler: Yes.
And what about Fish's argument that those dogs that charged him were
aggressive and violent? The prosecutor argued this was just not true.
A veterinarian neutered Hank, the chow mix. She says she will not neuter an
aggressive dog.
Vet: If I have an aggressive animal from the Humane Society I recommend
euthanasia.
A woman got to know Sheba, the Shepherd mix, while working at the Payson
Humane Society.
Witness: She's not aggressive at all.
The prosecutor said the evidence in the case can be best summed up by one
question: "Why warn the dogs and shoot the human being?"
The prosecutor was confident about his case. He believed Kuenzli's death was
unnecessary-and Harold Fish should be found guilty of second degree murder.
But the defense was about to make it's case. And they would argue character,
not behavior, was the key to proving Harold Fish acted in self defense.
CONTINUED: The defense-- Harold Fish as a victim
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/2/
Bill of Wright
>
> Larson: You think there's an arrogance there?
> Lessler: Absolutely. Mr. Fish believes that life should be lived by the
> way that Mr. Fish lives his life, and by his sense of morality, and that
> if
> people violate that they should be dealt with sternly.
I remember this bit of infuriating bullshit from the show. The dumbass
"hollow point things" jury people apparently swallowed it hook, line
and sinker. All Fish was trying to do was stop a crazed maniac
(backed up by many who knew him) from getting to him and
his pistol. Some spin from the sleazy prosecutor, but
it worked so I guess he's proud.
tinydancer
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
Sounds like *somebody* is speaking from bias, mind already made up prior to
*you* initiating this thread. With a deceptive *subject line* "hoping
someone can set you straight on this." Initially that subject line
suggested to me an unbiased mind searching for *discussion*. I see now that
isn't the case.
****And the two days of deliberations came down to one crucial witness --
the medical examiner who examined Kuenzli's body, Nelson said. If Fish's
claim of self-defense were true, why did Kuenzli's body have "defensive
wounds" as the medical examiner testified?****
and:
****Additionally, the jury was troubled by several discrepancies in Fish's
version of what happened that varied from separate investigator interviews
and grand jury testimony.
"We came to distrust his testimony," Nelson said. "I wish he had gotten onto
the stand to explain the discrepancies."***
Arizona Daily Sun
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
The jury did not make a hasty decision when it convicted Harold Fish of
second-degree murder despite accusations from the defense, said jury foreman
Michael Nelson.
In fact, he said, the jury rigorously deliberated the evidence and testimony
given at trial regarding the shooting death of Grant Kuenzli.
And the two days of deliberations came down to one crucial witness -- the
medical examiner who examined Kuenzli's body, Nelson said. If Fish's claim
of self-defense were true, why did Kuenzli's body have "defensive wounds" as
the medical examiner testified?
Fish, a retired Valley schoolteacher and father of seven, was accused of the
May 11, 2004, shooting death of Kuenzli at a trailhead near Pine. The two
men met in the late afternoon. Fish claimed that Kuenzli and two dogs in his
care rushed at him.
Although he fired a warning shot at the dogs, he shot Kuenzli three times in
the chest at close range. Fish, unharmed in the incident, maintained he
fired in self-defense.
The Fish trial ended in conviction in mid-June.
New trial sought
After Fish's conviction, the defense filed a motion seeking a new trial,
citing Fish deserved a new trial, in part, because one of the jurors
appeared to make a hasty decision of "guilty" in order to open a new
business.
Nelson said the juror in question actually requested the jury think about
their decision another day, which would have been the day her new store was
to open.
When the jury was released to begin deliberating, Nelson said, the whole
first day was spent talking about the jurors' perceptions and concerns
regarding the case. No vote was taken that day.
Nelson said he felt that talking that first day was important, because none
of the jurors had been allowed to talk about the case.
"We hadn't been able to talk about it for six weeks and some of us were just
burning up," Nelson said. "Finally, we were able to pop that bubble and talk
about it."
The second day of deliberations began with the jury going over the evidence
and the testimony.
First vote split, 4-4
The first vote revealed the jury was split, four to four. Some of the
jurors, because of the defense testimony, saw Grant Kuenzli as an
aggressive, violent "monster" rushing at Fish that day.
"Then there were some of us who just didn't buy it," Nelson said, adding
that Kuenzli was a dog lover, a volunteer for the animal shelter in Payson
and had friends in the community.
Nelson said the jury decided to review what the medical examiner had to say
on the subject. Fish's version was that Kuenzli was rushing at him and he
feared for his life, which is why he shot Kuenzli three times in the chest,
one of the bullets hitting Kuenzli's hand.
"(The medical examiner) said Mr. Kuenzli was (sideways) to Mr. Fish when the
first shot occurred," Nelson said. "I thought that was pretty remarkable
testimony."
The medical examiner explained that Kuenzli was not facing Fish at the time
of the first shot, and actually had his hands out in front of him.
"So (Kuenzli) was like protecting himself, and they were defensive wounds,"
Nelson said. "They were not antagonistic. That's really what swayed the
jury."
Additionally, the jury was troubled by several discrepancies in Fish's
version of what happened that varied from separate investigator interviews
and grand jury testimony.
"We came to distrust his testimony," Nelson said. "I wish he had gotten onto
the stand to explain the discrepancies."
Had Fish testified, it might have had an impact, Nelson said.
And the fact that Fish didn't remember pulling the trigger suggested a
reaction to circumstance, Nelson added. For Fish to claim self-defense, he
needed to feel imminent danger of harm or death. Instead, he just reacted.
"If he had just waited another five seconds, if he could have stepped to the
side, if he could have crouched down and taken the brunt on his shoulder --
I wish he would have waited another five seconds," Nelson said.
Second vote unanimous
Deliberations centered on Kuenzli's last seconds, Nelson said. He heard a
shot, looked up and saw a man shooting the dogs he was walking.
"We figured he was running down to save his dog," Nelson said.
In the end, the jurors relied on their own experiences, Nelson said.
"We were supposed to think about what a reasonable man in the exact same
situation as Mr. Fish would have done," Nelson said.
"And that's what we did."
The vote in the afternoon the second day revealed a unanimous decision for
conviction, Nelson said.
But even after that vote, he and other jurors took another half-hour to
review notes, go through evidence to ensure he and the other jurors had made
up their minds.
"His actions weren't allowed under the law," Nelson said.
"I stand by our verdict. Mr. Fish is guilty."
Self-defense law
The self-defense law in the state changed during the course of Fish's trial
and makes a claim of self-defense easier for defendants to prove.
The defense alleged that jurors spoke of this during deliberations,
suggesting that jurors read media accounts and tainted their proceedings.
Nelson said the new law was never discussed during deliberations among the
jurors.
Immediately after the trial, the jury was "slammed right out of the gate
because of the original verdict," Nelson said of letters to the editor
criticizing the jury.
Though he decided Fish was guilty, Nelson said he has reservations about
Fish's punishment. Defendants convicted of second-degree murder face between
10 and 22 years in prison.
"I think he's guilty, but I don't know that he deserves 22 years in prison,"
Nelson said.
Fish is scheduled to be sentenced Thursday in Flagstaff unless Judge Mark
Moran decides to hear the motions for a new trial.
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/24567
>
>
tjab
It disturbs me that you present only one side of the story. And it
disturbs me that you would convict a man of murder because you think
he *might* be guilty. Do you think it's better to convict a hundred
innocent men than to let one guilty one go free?
Quite the humanitarian you are.
I'm glad you have so far been able to stand down the loose pit
bull you sometimes run into when your walking your dogs. I hope that
we do do not some day go back and read this and reflect on the irony.
Now, in fairness to Mr. Fish, here's the part of the story you chose
to ignore:
The victim's supporters- including his sister Linda
Almeter- insisted he would never hurt anyone.
Linda Almeter, Grant Kuenzli's sister:
Grant's an honorable, noble, responsible,
caring, loving person.
But not long after the shooting, a darker side of Grant
Kuenzli emerged. While some saw him as a gentle,
dog-loving volunteer, there were reports of an
unstable, violent past.
Ernie Encinas, fire marshal for Gilbert,
Arizona: He would go from zero to hot in a
very short amount of time.
Ernie Encinas is the fire marshal for the Gilbert,
Arizona fire department. He hired Kuenzli as a fire
inspector in 1997. At first, he seemed like a good
employee. But he says things changed quickly.
Encinas: He would get mad, he would
clench his fist, he would hit the table, he
would pace back and forth, his voice would
elevate.
Encinas says when he read Harold Fish's account of
what happened on that hiking trail when he
encountered Kuenzli, it was almost like a flashback for
him.
Encinas: I could actually see in my mind's
eye Grant's fist. I could see his face. I could
see how he acted with me. So it wasn't
hard for me to imagine what Mr. Fish might
have seen.
Steve Corich is the director of public safety at Mesa
Community College. One morning in 2003, a security
officer found Kuenzli walking his dog on campus
without a leash. When the officer confronted him,
Kuenzli became agitated.
Steve Corich, director of public safety at
Mesa Community College: He was loud. His
fists were clenched. All of his body
language essentially conveyed that he was
extremely angry. And it took quite a while
to calm him down.
In his 26-year career, Corich says Grant Kuenzli stands
out.
Corich: He had one of the hottest and
quickest boiling points of any of the people
I've ever dealt with.
Clayton Hamblen, justice of the peace: His
look was one of "I would like to rip your
throat out."
Clayton Hamblen has been a justice of the peace in
West Mesa for 15 years. One day, Grant Kuenzli showed
up for a court hearing with his dog, when Hamblen
suggested he leave the dog outside. He says the dog
owner became aggressive.
Hamblen: He began to clench his fists. His
eyes got a look that was just almost
downright scary.
Hamblen says Kuenzli seemed more concerned for the
well being of his dog than people.
Hamblen: I said "The man is either going to
kill somebody or somebody is going to kill
him." And that was my feeling. that was
just a gut reaction.
Then there are police reports from an ex-girlfriend,
who says when she tried to break up with Kuenzli, he
stalked her and broke into her house. She wrote in a
court affidavit that Kuenzli once attacked a male friend
of hers and she even told police Kuenzli sexually
assaulted her. She obtained two orders from the court
to keep him away.
And there is evidence that Kuenzli was mentally
unstable in the past. A police report from 2002 says he
threatened to commit suicide with a knife. And mental
health records indicate that Kuenzli received
treatment for a panic disorder, post traumatic stress
disorder and a mood disorder.
The defense attorneys believed Kuenzli's history was
relevant and should be heard by the jury.
Mel McDonald, defense attorney: This
character evidence corroborated to the
letter every point that Harold Fish had
given to police that night. Everybody that
dealt with Kuenzli knew that he was a
ticking time bomb.
But the judge in this case limited what the witnesses
could say, ruling they could only speak in general terms.
The victim's mental health records were ruled
inadmissible as well.
Still, the defense was able to put on a series of
witnesses whose descriptions of Kuenzli made him
sound potentially threatening- including the justice of
the peace from Mesa, Kuenzli's former boss the fire
marshal, and the director of public safety at the
community college.
In all, 10 people took the stand to talk about Kuenzli's
reputation for aggression and violence.
For Kuenzli's sister though, none of these things matter.
Linda Almeter, Grant Kuenzli's sister: His
character for better or worse is irrelevant
in this whole situation as far as I'm
concerned. He was shot and killed by a total
stranger.
Although Kuenzli's mental health records were not
entered into the trial, the medical examiner did tell
the jury that the anti-depressant Effexor was found in
Kuenzli's system at the time of his death. The amount
of the drug in his system was in the normal therapeutic
range.
The defense believed it had built a case to prove
Harold Fish was legitimately fearful of Grant Kuenzli,
and that his actions were justified when he shot him.
McDonald (in court): If we believe
reasonably that we are about to lose our
lives, we have the right to say no and to
stop that threat.
tjab
tinydancer <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>****And the two days of deliberations came down to one crucial witness --
>the medical examiner who examined Kuenzli's body, Nelson said. If Fish's
>claim of self-defense were true, why did Kuenzli's body have "defensive
>wounds" as the medical examiner testified?****
Really? Be honest.
Defense lawyer: You're not trying to say by your
answer you can go into mind of Mr. Kuenzli and
interpret what his action was at the time, can you
sir?
Dr. Horn, medical examiner: Absolutely not.
Defense lawyer: And what you were intending to
say was that simply the hands were in front of
torso.
Dr. Horn: Yes.
Defense lawyer: We could just have easily said
offensive as defensive and in fact in your answer
you can't say which one.
Dr. Horn: That's correct.
Bill of Wright
>
> "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
> news:0_eLh.21477$68.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "tinydancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fKeLh.5848$nV1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > Larson: You think there's an arrogance there?
>> > Lessler: Absolutely. Mr. Fish believes that life should be lived by
>> > the
>> > way that Mr. Fish lives his life, and by his sense of morality, and
>> > that
>> > if
>> > people violate that they should be dealt with sternly.
>>
>> I remember this bit of infuriating bullshit from the show. The dumbass
>> "hollow point things" jury people apparently swallowed it hook, line
>> and sinker. All Fish was trying to do was stop a crazed maniac
>> (backed up by many who knew him) from getting to him and
>> his pistol. Some spin from the sleazy prosecutor, but
>> it worked so I guess he's proud.
>
>
> Sounds like *somebody* is speaking from bias, mind already made up prior
> to
> *you* initiating this thread. With a deceptive *subject line* "hoping
> someone can set you straight on this." Initially that subject line
> suggested to me an unbiased mind searching for *discussion*.
I was hoping someone could explain to me how shooting a raging
anonymous maniac before he got to a man and his pistol is not
self defense. My guess is you're just defending the judgement
from a dog person perspective, nothing more; or, you're
just passing time here.
Bill of Wright
"tjab" <tj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:etjvgu$7...@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
>
> It disturbs me that you present only one side of the story. And it
> disturbs me that you would convict a man of murder because you think
> he *might* be guilty. Do you think it's better to convict a hundred
> innocent men than to let one guilty one go free?
The way it's *supposed* to be in America is: It is better to let
a hundred guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.
> Quite the humanitarian you are.
Unfortunately, her kind are as common as dirt. People like her made
up the jury in this case. The evidence is in the outcome.
tinydancer
I posted the first page of the article, complete with the line *Continued*
and the link at which to read the rest of the four or five remaining pages.
I wasn't about to copy and paste all those remaining pages here. But by
posting the fact that the article was *continued* and providing the link,
anyone can and should read the remaining article.
As for 'me posting only one side, I felt that most of those disagreeing with
the decision, were also posting only *one* side, that of Mr. Fish. I am
merely pointing out articles that state *why* the jury came to the decision
it did. The fact that the jury *did* deliberate, and had rational reasons
why they decided the case as they did, to me is also important information.
Do you think it's better to convict a hundred
> innocent men than to let one guilty one go free?
I will tell you what I think, I find it hard to blanketly agree with the
killing of an unarmed man, one who isn't able to give his side of how the
encounter played out. We here have discussed cases where homeowners have
shot and killed burglers who were actively in the process of breaking into
their dwellings, being held responsible for their actions. This incident
involved the killing of an unarmed man, out in the open, by someone who did
not have any sort of injuries to himself by either dogs or man.
>
> Quite the humanitarian you are.
Quite the humanitarian *I* am. What if it was you, out walking with your
dogs in a *very* rural area? Can you state for sure that the man who was
killed, was not advancing in an effort to restrain his dogs, which in the
opinion of most would have been a far more likely occurance than the one
given by Mr. Fish. How many people do you think would advance on someone
who had already fired his weapon once at the advancing dogs? Do you truly
think it is *reasonable* to infer that an unarmed man would advance on
someone who had already fired their weapon, if not for the reason to regain
control over their dogs?
>
> I'm glad you have so far been able to stand down the loose pit
> bull you sometimes run into when your walking your dogs. I hope that
> we do do not some day go back and read this and reflect on the irony.
I was simply explaining the proper way to react when one encounters a loose
dog. I certainly don't go out of my way to encounter this dog. But I also
will not refrain from ever taking my dogs out for walks because I *might*
encounter this Pit Bull. It belongs to someone who lives in the house where
the dog is sometimes loose in their driveway. I walk my dogs in the middle
of the street, so as to *not* appear that they are infringing upon pit bulls
said *territory*. Pit bull advances to the end of *his* driveway and five
or six feet out into the road. At which time I stop, put my dogs in a
stay/sitting command. Were I to appear frightened, panicked, shrieking,
etc., it would only go to *excite* said pit bull and *possibly* entice a
different reaction from him.
And this all has what to do with the specific incident in question? In a
trial, a jury is always supposed to take each incident on it's own. The
reason why an attorney can not bring into court prior *crimes* committed by
a defendant. Is not a *victim* afforded the same? There is nothing to
state that on this particular day, in this particular incident, Kuenzli
behaved in any such fashion, is there, other than the word of Fish? I'd
hazard a guess that the incidents spoken of by these witnesses hardly make
up a majority of this mans *life*. There were an equal number of people who
had vastly different encounters with Kuenzli. He *volunteered* for various
causes involving dogs, and was at the time volunteering to exercise shelter
dogs, hence his presence out there to begin with.
What about looking at it this way. What if I had my dogs out in an
uninhabited area, and they somehow managed to get free from their leashes.
Would not my *natural* instinct be, when I saw them chasing towards someone,
to run after them, in an effort to get them back under control? Is this
person then allowed to shoot me down, in cold blood, me, an unarmed person
not breaking any laws? Because so far I haven't seen that there was any
'leash law' in effect in these rural surroundings? What I haven't *seen*
though is where exactly this took place? Because, if I'm not mistaken, it
is *illegal* to carry a weapon into National Forests/Parks etc. I am
curious about that. And not in any other way as simple curiosity because
we have checked into where we can and cannot *legally* have a weapon with us
for protection.
td
tjab
tinydancer <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think it's better to convict a hundred
>> innocent men than to let one guilty one go free?
>
>
>I will tell you what I think,
I'm sure you will, but how about answering the question first?
>I find it hard to blanketly agree with the
>killing of an unarmed man, one who isn't able to give his side of how the
>encounter played out.
You don't have to blanketly agree with anything. But again, it is wrong
to convict a man of murder when by your own admission you don't have the
whole story.
>We here have discussed cases where homeowners have
>shot and killed burglers who were actively in the process of breaking into
>their dwellings, being held responsible for their actions. This incident
>involved the killing of an unarmed man, out in the open, by someone who did
>not have any sort of injuries to himself by either dogs or man.
And who could have ended up dead had he not taken the course that he did.
>Quite the humanitarian *I* am. What if it was you, out walking with your
>dogs in a *very* rural area? Can you state for sure that the man who was
>killed, was not advancing in an effort to restrain his dogs, which in the
>opinion of most would have been a far more likely occurance than the one
>given by Mr. Fish.
A man in the grasp of his senses does not run towards someone who is pointing a
gun at him, notwithstanding the famous quote from the long missing Jimmy Hoffa.
>How many people do you think would advance on someone
>who had already fired his weapon once at the advancing dogs? Do you truly
>think it is *reasonable* to infer that an unarmed man would advance on
>someone who had already fired their weapon, if not for the reason to regain
>control over their dogs?
Where you there? Are you willing to put a man in prison for what you think
*might* have happened?
You seem to take for granted that the dog owner was a reasonable man
(in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary), but you are more
than willing to assume that Mr. Fish, a man with no prior record, shot
another man dead simply because he was annoyed by that man's dogs.
>> I'm glad you have so far been able to stand down the loose pit
>> bull you sometimes run into when your walking your dogs. I hope that
>> we do do not some day go back and read this and reflect on the irony.
>
>
>I was simply explaining the proper way to react when one encounters a loose
>dog. I certainly don't go out of my way to encounter this dog. But I also
>will not refrain from ever taking my dogs out for walks because I *might*
>encounter this Pit Bull. It belongs to someone who lives in the house where
>the dog is sometimes loose in their driveway. I walk my dogs in the middle
>of the street, so as to *not* appear that they are infringing upon pit bulls
>said *territory*. Pit bull advances to the end of *his* driveway and five
>or six feet out into the road. At which time I stop, put my dogs in a
>stay/sitting command. Were I to appear frightened, panicked, shrieking,
>etc., it would only go to *excite* said pit bull and *possibly* entice a
>different reaction from him.
You should not have to do any of these things. It is up to the dog owner to
make sure the dog is under control. It is not up to every other resident on the
street, from 5 to 90, to know what *sometimes* works to stand down an advancing
pit bull. Every child on that street has a right to run down that street
without facing the risk that the dog will see him or her as prey and rip
his/her throat out. If you were a responsible person and a genuine dog lover,
you would take into account that children probably walk to school along this
same street, and do something to proactively deal with this situation before
tragedy strikes.
In short, no. A man is on trial with his freedom at stake. As you yourself have
repeatedly pointed out, there were no witnesses to the alleged crime except the
defendant. Would you really deprive the jury of information that would help
them to weigh the believability of his version of events?
If so, why?
And btw, calling the dead man a "victim" begs the question. Unless of course
you include the possibility that he might be a victim of his own problems
with anger management and impulse control.
tinydancer
"Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
The shooting of an *unarmed man* by anyone is most often found to be a
chargeable crime. We have no one's word other than Fish that *anything*
happened other than the dogs running towards him. No injuries to Fish, not
a mark on him. And *inconsistent* statements he made, some of which differed
from those given by other *unbiased* witnesses in the area on the time line.
By your way of thinking, I could go out somewhere and blast the shit out of
anyone and then *claim* I was in fear for my life and it was self-defense.
And you question my humanity. SHEESH
Fred G. Mackey
>
> "(The medical examiner) said Mr. Kuenzli was (sideways) to Mr. Fish when the
> first shot occurred," Nelson said. "I thought that was pretty remarkable
> testimony."
>
> The medical examiner explained that Kuenzli was not facing Fish at the time
> of the first shot, and actually had his hands out in front of him.
>
I'm not a medical expert, but how could the ME tell the order in which
the shots hit Kuenzli?
>
> Deliberations centered on Kuenzli's last seconds, Nelson said. He heard a
> shot, looked up and saw a man shooting the dogs he was walking.
>
> "We figured he was running down to save his dog," Nelson said.
>
I wonder if the jury knew these weren't actually his dogs, but dogs he
had volunteered to walk for the humane society.
I can understand risking one's own life to save their own pet, but not
to save the lives of a couple of dogs that were merely on loan from the
humane society.
Bo Raxo
>
> The type of ammo tells us that Fish meant to kill whatever he shot at.
Yes, that's the idea in general with guns. Especially larger caliber
ones you're carrying when out in the wilderness alone.
> We
> don't usually load our weapons with black talons. Is LE even allowed to use
> hollow points? I don't know?
Irrelevant. They were legal for Fish to own at the time.
Though I think it would be illegal for Fish to have sold them after a
certain date, a fact that will no doubt puzzle our friend flick.
> It also tells us that Fish 'should have
> known' he wouldn't need three shots to the gut to stop Kuenzli.
Nonsense. He had no way of knowing the guy was stopped until he was on
the ground. A guy is running at you when he already knows you have a
loaded gun, 'cause you just fired two warning shots. Could be on PCP,
could just be a lunatic. And remember, hollow points make an entrance
wound no bigger than any other round, it's the exit wound that's
huge. So as Fish is firing off three rounds, he sees at most a couple
of spots of blood appearing on the front of the guy running towards
him.
> One shot
> would have sufficed when confronted by an unarmed man on a hiking trail.
If you hit him with the first shot. If you're in fear for your life,
would you fire, stop, and see how it worked out? Or would you keep
firing until the guy went down?
> After all, he could have retreated. Isn't that one of the criteria for
> using 'deadly force'? If one is able to retreat?
>
He did retreat. Keunzli was still alive, Fish didn't try to "finish
him off". He didn't shoot the dogs, either. He retreated once
Kuenzli was on the ground. Classic self-defense.
So why did Fish end up in prison? I think he got convicted because the
victim was a local, older, and white. If that had been some 20 year
old black kid from L.A. who was out there hiking, betcha Fish would
have never been charged, much less convicted. But this paragraph,
obviously, is pure speculation,
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:33:37 -0400, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Pneuma Pelosi" <frank.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:etie1...@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:29:15 -0400, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>I just did something pretty rare. I watched a current TV show. I
> >>>think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
> >>>who didn't see it, here goes...........
>
> >> People are entitled to a jury trial and the jury doesn't always vote the
> >> way
> >> the defense or prosecutor likes.
> >> Frankly I saw the show and I think the warning shot accidentally hit the
> >> victim then the killer finished the job and cooked up a self defense
> >> story.
>
> >That makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Either a ricochet when he was shooting at the dog or he missed the dog
> hitting the victim.
The M.E. would be able to tell if the wound was from a ricochet - the
entrance wound would be larger and the bullet velocity much lower
(thus doing more damage as it passes through). I'm guessing with a
hollow point this would be even more the case than with a regular
round.
> How many people do you know charge a person waving there
> arms after someone has shot a gun?
IF he thought the guy was shooting the dogs, he might have been trying
to protect the animals. It may never have occurred to Kuenzli in
fraction of a minute this transpired that Fish would actually shoot
*him*.
> The victim saw him pull out the gun and ran
> to tell him that the dogs were not a threat and was accidentally shot, then
> our wonderful teacher finished the job and cooked up his story.
Fish also placed his backpack under Kuenzli's head and put a blanket
over him. Kuenzli was alive when Fish left him.
Does this sound like he finished him off? Quite the opposite.
> That is why
> there is 70 minutes between the shooting and the killer going for help on the
> highway.
Or Fish thought it was 5:30 when it was actuallhy 6:30, which would
make it ten minutes from shots fired to flagging down help - and that
includes putting the backpack under Kuenzli's head and getting a
blanket out of his pack to put over him. This happened on May 11th
2004, Daylight Savings time had ended a month before, with the clocks
moving an hour forward.
So Fish being wrong about the time isn't exactly proof he sat around
for an nour plotting his story.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote:
>
> >You're obviously a "dog person." And I'd bet my left nut you're also a gun
> >control
> >fanatic
>
> Oh No! TD is now a gun control fanatic!
>
Enough of your silliness, let's focus on the important question:
When they remove the testicle, does he get some kind of anasthetic?
And what in the world will Tiny do with it?
Bo Raxo
tinydancer
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174253716.0...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 6:23 am, "tinydancer" <tinydancer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174201831.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Sure they were a threat.
> >
> > It has never been established that the dogs were *any* threat to begin
with.
>
> 1. They were off the leash
We have not established there was any sort of leash law to begin with.
>
> 2. Fishj felt the need to fire *two* warning shots in to the ground.
> You think he did this because the dogs were friendly?
Perhaps because *he* panicked.
>
> 3. You are knowledgable abot dogs. We've seen what kinds of dogs tend
> to be vicious from reports in a.t-c. One of the dogs was a chow mix -
> gee, would that be one of your more aggressive breeds, IIRC?
I don't care for chow's myself. Depends upon what this dog was mixed with.
The other dog was a lab mix, hardly considered to be aggressive. I believe
it was said the chow mix was a *fear biter*. Usually a *fear biter* means
the dog will bite if it feels threatened. By threatened I mean, 'if it's
chained up and has no escape possible'. A dog that is *fearful* *usually*
doesn't approach anyone it doesn't know. Hence the 'fear biter' moniker.
You leave it alone, it leaves you alone. Myself, I wouldn't expect a 'fear
biter' to be running towards anyone to make contact with them. It could
have been following the first dog, but a fear biter will usually run around
and bark, but they don't like to get too close to strangers. Both these
dogs ran off, as stated by Fish, to opposite sides and didn't return. Not a
sign of an attacking mode dog.
>
> 4. Both dogs have shown aggressive tendencies. The chow mix was
> vicious enough to prompt a Sheriff's deputy to draw his weapon:
>
See *fear biter* above:
> http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special21/articles/0325trailshooter.html
>
> According to Moran's ruling, the grand jury was not told that one of
> Kuenzli's dogs, a Labrador retriever mix, was aggressive toward a
> patron of West Mesa Justice Court on Dec. 22, 2003.
>
> The grand jury also heard "limited testimony" about the other dog, a
> chow mix, previously attacking a sheriff's deputy, causing the officer
> to draw his weapon and contemplate shooting the dog.
>
>
> > All that has been established is that there were two dogs *present*, and
> > that those dogs were doing *something*. For all you know, those dogs
were
> > 'running to greet' the hiker as he approached.
> >
>
> Okay, let's say a couple seperates. There is a history of the guy
> smacking his wife around. He shows up at her house, she claims he
> started hitting her and she fired two arning shots in to the ground,
> and then she shot him. I guess you would ignore the prior history and
> the warning shots and say that all that has been established was that
> the guy was at her house....right?
Bo, do you really think, given all the testimony we've read about here, the
*distance* between these men, the fact that Fish himself told the officers
that the other guy 'wasn't jogging' towards him, he was loping, do you
really think it's *okay* to shoot down an unarmed guy knowing three shots to
the gut will kill him? After all the times you've argued with me about
shooting intruders and such? I think the dogs are coloring your whole
thought process here.
>
>
> > You're about to get in a physical fight with
> >
> > > a guy, and he has two dogs that are off the leash and that you've
> > > already seen willing to act aggressive not seconds before.
> >
> > Exactly *who* says the dogs were 'willing to act aggressive'?
>
> See above for documented instances of both dogs acting aggressive -
> and that is seperately, never mind the tendency to pack behavior when
> you have multiple dogs and their owner/alpha.
You can't take a couple prior incidents, out of context, and ASSume either
one of these dogs are normally aggressive. There are no descriptions as to
what occurred to cause the reactions stated above. The vet testifed that
she would never neuter a dog that has aggressive tendancies. She neutered
this dog. The shelter people said 'they never hang onto dogs that are
considered aggressive', they put them down. Neither one of these dogs was
considered to be *aggressive* by those people who are trained to access a
dogs behavior. Not the shelter workers nor the vet.
>
> > Lets see, as
> > far as witnesses go, there's the *shooter* and then there is the *dead
guy*.
> > Now we know what the shooter has testified to, but as for the *dead
guy*, we
> > don't at all know his side of the story.
> >
>
> No, we also have the testimony of Deputy Jeff Palmer about the speed
> at which Kuenzli approached Fish.
Fish *changed* his story on that a number of times. One of the reasons the
jury didn't believe Fish, because his stories *changed* too frequently.
>
>
>
> > What do
> >
> > > you think the dogs are going to do when they see you in a fight with
> > > their alpha male?
> >
> > In your vast experience in dog psychology, are you telling me *you*
assume
> > to know what those dogs *might* do?
>
> Yes, I know they act like pack animals, and when they see someone
> "attacking" their owner, they "might" try to help. You like to post
> stories about how someobdy is getting mugged and the dog attacks the
> mugger, so you do know it's possible.
Fish shot the *owner* dead, yet neither dog *attacked* him. He NEVER
mentioned the dogs again, after the first claim of them aggressively
approaching him. How AGGRESSIVE do you think these dogs were? If they were
AGGRESSIVE, they wouldn't have retreated completely and disappeared off the
scene. And they wouldn't have allowed Fish to approach the fallen owner,
put a back pack under his head, cover him with a blanket, etc. If these
dogs had been showing aggression, they would not have allowed Fish near the
fallen guy AT ALL. Fish would certainly have *mentioned that* "hell, after
I shot the guy the dogs were frothing at the mouth, snarling and growling at
me, forcing me to keep my distance away from the other guy." "Hell, I had
to shoot 'em, I had to fire my gun at 'em and shoot 'em for my own safety."
There was NO MENTION of the dogs again after Fish shot the guy, NONE.
>
> As I said, the off-leash dogs added to the risk equation Fish had to
> evaluate, as Kuenzli is running towardws him shouting death threats.
Fishes story about these threats changed numerous times. You don't think
it's at all possible that Fish made them up? You don't find it far more
likely that after Fish fired his warning shot, Kuenzli, dog lover that he
was, began running to get hold of his dogs to keep them away from the nut
job with the gun?
>
>
> >
> > It's obvious that if some guy is about to kick your
> >
> > > ass (or try), and he has two off-leash dogs, they figure in to the
> > > risk equation.
> >
> > If that were the case, why was 'no mention' of dogs' actions *after* the
> > shooting made?
>
> Perhaps because after the shooting Fish was able to withdraw, and the
> dogs stayed with the owner.
If he *withdrew* as you said, how'd he manage to stuff the back pack under
the guys head? He NEVER mentioned the dogs again. And when help came, they
never mentioned they had to restrain the dogs, couldn't approach because of
the dogs, etc. None of that was ever mentioned. It sounds more likely to
me that the dogs were 'excited' to greet someone, and terrifed by the
gunshots, and ran off in fear. No the traits of aggression.
>
> > The shooter didn't say a word about 'still feeling in fear
> > of the dogs *after* he shot the guy.
>
>
> Which doesn't matter. What matters is how threatened he felt *before*
> shooting the guy. Duh.
Of course it matters. He claimed these dog were very aggressive.
Aggressive dogs don't just up and leave, especially with their owner down.
>
>
> > Since when did 'unarmed guy' become a *perp*? I must have missed that
> > part?
> >
>
> When he ran at Kuenzli shouting death threats, with his two dogs off-
> leash.
Fish said he ran at him shouting threats, no independent version of that,
see above: If you had just shot somebody down in cold blood, wouldn't you
make up a story about 'hey, the guy was threatening me?"
That would be the lab mix that threatened someone at the
> courthouse, and the chow mix that was threatening enough a Sheriff's
> Deputy contemplated shooting it.
>
>
> > Once the guy is one the ground you
> >
> > > don't need to be shooting him, so for me it would be important whether
> > > the shots hit the guy while he was standing or once he was on the
> > > ground. As long as he's on his feet, he's a threat.
> >
> > Let's see, an unarmed guy, you come upon while hiking, is a threat, a
> > *perp*, and ripe for three gut shots with hollow point bullets from a
large
> > caliber gun. I didn't realize those were the 'rules of hikers'.
>
> You leave out all kinds of facts here: off leash dogs acting
> aggressive,
According to the shooter
warning shots, the victim running towards the shooter
> shouting death threats.
Again, according to the shooter.
Add those together and yes, the guy running
> at you out in the wilderness, the guy who *already* knows you have a
> gun and are willing to shoot, and he's threatening to kill you.
Man you certainly lapped up everything Fish/the shooter said, hook line and
sinker. I never realized how gullible you are.
snipped> >
> > > > Me thinks that
> > > > because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have
suddenly
> > > > softened a bit.
> >
> > > Only in that the dogs make for an added threat: dogs will defend their
> > > owner, maybe you're not aware of this little fact.
> >
> > Only one of the dogs was owned by this guy. Dogs do take a while to
*bond*
> > with someone you know. Only one of these dogs was owned by the dead
guy.
> > They other was a 'loaner' from a shelter.
> >
>
> Oh, well, Fish should have used his dog telepathy to detect that only
> one of the dogs was owned by the guy. And a dog that's come out of a
> shelter, why, they are the safest ones, riiiiight?
>
>
> >
> > Man, for someone who is continually saying that *I* distort facts,
you've
> > come up with some real whoppers here, bo. Remember, the only *facts* of
> > this whole incident are those given by the shooter. Dead guy has no way
of
> > telling his side of the story, see how *that* works.
>
> But dead guy's footprints can be measured to figure out how fast he
> was moving - which was done. He was moving at a "lope", as the
> testimony went.
IIRC, Fish had to change his story yet again for that fact. Dead guy wasn't
'charging at him full steam', he was loping, slower than a jog IIRC.
>
> > Since the shooter had
> > not one *scratch* from these two vicious dogs, not one bite, not one
slight
> > *injury* to show to the deputies as *evidence* of the dogs having shown
> > aggression, I'd find his story to be a bit suspect.
>
> But both dogs have other evidence of aggression - you handily ignore
> these facts. One dog came from a shelter, so was around unfamiliar
> people and many dogs come out of shelters not very well socialized.
> One dog was a chow mix - take in to account the breed's personality.
>
>
> > Remember, *after* the
> > shooting, Fish didn't say anything about the dogs 'attempting to attack
him
> > again'.
>
> So you want Fish's actions *before* the shooting to be influenced by
> the dog's behavior *after* the shooting? You'd be happier with his
> account if he'd also shot the dogs?
No, I'm saying I don't believe Fishes account of what happened before the
shooting concerning the dogs, because their behavior afterwards doesn't
coincide with how he said they behaved prior. The dogs behavior *after* the
shootings does not match aggression stated by Fish.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Fish used the minimum force he felt neccesary. He didn't feel it
> neccesary to shoot the dogs, only the guy rapidly moving towards him,
> with at least one hand up in the air,
His hand wasn't 'up in the air', it was near his chest, hence the shot
through it, as the coroner stated.
both items supported by
> forensics. That he didn't shoot either dog shows to me Fish only shot
> when he felt he *had* to.
>
>
> >
> > As for this last paragraph, that crap you state is *reasonable* only to
> > someone who despises dogs the way you do. No *normal* person would
surmise
> > all this from what occured and the story given by the shooter.
> >
>
> Anyone familiar with the behavior of dogs in the slightest knows that
> they protect their owner.
Yes, but these dogs didn't, they ran. Were they aggressive, they would have
stayed and not allowed Fish to approach their owner after he fell.
As far as Fish could possibly know, the guy
> owned both dogs (it's a reasonable assumption: guy is with two dogs,
> under his control, he is the owner). You get in a confrontation with
> the owner, the dogs may protect him - again, everybody knows this
> about dogs. Did you forget your "dog attacks mugger" story?!?
These dogs ran, they didn't stay and protect. Were they displaying
aggression, they would have stayed to protect their owner.
>
>
> > As for a previous comment by you, this didn't happen in the center of a
> > town. It happened 'out hiking', where you haven't presented any sort of
law
> > or evidence that a 'leash law' is even in effect.
>
> It was federal park property. There is a leash law that covers all
> federal parks.
More importantly than leash laws, around here anyway, there are big signs
saying it is illegal to carry fire arms onto Federal property, even if one
has a CC permit. I see the signs all the time. No weapons allowed.
td
Fred G. Mackey
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174253716.0...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Mar 18, 6:23 am, "tinydancer" <tinydancer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:1174201831.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >
>>
>>>>Sure they were a threat.
>>>
>>>It has never been established that the dogs were *any* threat to begin
>
> with.
>
>>1. They were off the leash
>
>
>
> We have not established there was any sort of leash law to begin with.
>
>
Have we established that unleashed dogs can only be a threat if there's
no law requiring them to be on a leash?
>
>
>>2. Fishj felt the need to fire *two* warning shots in to the ground.
>>You think he did this because the dogs were friendly?
>
>
>
> Perhaps because *he* panicked.
>
Or perhaps Kuenzli was charging at him like a homicidal maniac.
>
>
>>3. You are knowledgable abot dogs. We've seen what kinds of dogs tend
>>to be vicious from reports in a.t-c. One of the dogs was a chow mix -
>>gee, would that be one of your more aggressive breeds, IIRC?
>
>
>
> I don't care for chow's myself. Depends upon what this dog was mixed with.
> The other dog was a lab mix, hardly considered to be aggressive.
I've seen aggressive labs. In fact, the only dog that ever attacked me
was a lab.
The NBC article claimed it was a shepherd though.
>
>
> Bo, do you really think, given all the testimony we've read about here, the
> *distance* between these men, the fact that Fish himself told the officers
> that the other guy 'wasn't jogging' towards him, he was loping,
That was not Fish's testimony. That was testimony from law enforcment
based on the Kuenzli's tracks.
>
>
> Fish *changed* his story on that a number of times.
What changed besides the exact wording of what he claimed Kuenzli said?
>
>
What motive would Fish have to kill this guy other than self defense?
>
>>As I said, the off-leash dogs added to the risk equation Fish had to
>>evaluate, as Kuenzli is running towardws him shouting death threats.
>
>
>
> Fishes story about these threats changed numerous times.
How so? There's nothing in any of the articles that have been linked
that indicates any change in his story.
>
>
>
> Fish said he ran at him shouting threats, no independent version of that,
> see above: If you had just shot somebody down in cold blood, wouldn't you
> make up a story about 'hey, the guy was threatening me?"
>
>
Why would Fish shoot him in cold blood?
It doesn't maake any sense.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker. Now does this
> threat give the gun toter the right to "shoot and kill"? No it does not and
> doing so without even a struggle, is not self defense.
You're supposed to wait and give some nutcase the opportunity to
overpower you, take your weapon and kill you with it?
Bullshit.
> Just because someone is running towards you in an irate condition does not
> give you the right to shoot and kill and claim self defense.
> If that were true, then every gun toter in the country would be justified
> for shooting down anyone that simply got in their way.
Bullshit, there's a huge difference between someone "getting in your
way" and someone advancing on you in an angry, threatening manner.
This guy's not a mind reader. He has no way of knowing what this
clown's ultimate intentions are. He does know the guy is still
advancing on him knowing he's got a loaded weapon and after verbal
warnings and having already fired a warning shot.
As it turns out, this clown DID have a history of mental instability
and violent behavior.
> You stated that the gun toter was licensed to carry. In most states, to do
> so, one must take a certified class in order to get the license. Maybe the
> gun toter did not understand the definition of self defense and when he
> could legally use the weapon.
>
> 2nd degree murder? Sounds about right.
That's a crock of shit. This man got railroaded by bunch of pansy,
liberal asswipes. That one woman who said it "bothered" her that he
had hollow points was a typical fat-assed liberal. Is he supposed to
talk nice to a grizzly bear or the like? The whole point of a weapon
is to kill. He wanted to stop attacking animals, not tickle them.
Steve Furbish
> "Bill of Wright" <b...@nospam.con> wrote in message
> news:zxcLh.22896$sC.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...>> news:_4cLh.2073$8s....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>> Exactly. We have no information that these dogs were rushing forward in
> a
>>> threatening manner. *Most* dogs will run towards someone approaching
>>> them.
>>> Just because a dog is running up to somone, doesn't make them *a
> threat*.
>>> My neighborhood dogs always 'run up to me' to greet me, get pets,
> perhaps
>>> get a treat if they are *lucky* and I happened to come outside with a
>>> full of dog biscuits.
>> Being a hiker/runner myself, I have a good deal of experience with strange
>> dogs.
>> I--and I'd bet this hiker too--can tell a friendly approach vs. a hostile
>> one.
>
>
> Really? Well could you describe to me the specific *signs* a dog gives off
> that would characterize it as 'friendly' vs. 'hostile'?
For me a sign of a FRIENDLY dog is one that is properly leashed or under
the direct immediate control of it's owner. A sign of potential
hostility is one that is allowed to charge at strangers in public
places. Sounds like the hiker would have been better served shooting the
dogs and evading their owner.
>> You're obviously a "dog person."
>
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact I am a 'dog person'.
Whereas a 'dog lover' might take precautions that insulate their K9
friends from potentially dangerous situations - 'dog persons' often
treat their pets as little people and allow them to do things which get
them into problem situations.
>> Dog owner: I love to let my dogs run wild and free in the woods. I/they
>> have that right!
>
> Wrong again, my dogs are never off-leash off my property. I value their
> lives too much to allow them to perhaps get hit by a car or injure
> themselves in any preventable way.
So you are a 'dog lover' and have the good sense to protect your dogs.
You might not want to project such acts of responsibility onto all dog
owners however, since many do simply let their K9s run free in
situations that endanger both the dog and others. One should not have to
be in a position of having to determine whether that strange dog running
at them is going to sniff their crotch or tear their face off. Sad that
a couple of $5 leashes probably could have helped avoid this whole
situation.
That being said - what could a gun owner be thinking when he choses to
shoot an apparently unarmed man on a wooded trail? All I've heard of
this incident is from the newsgroups, but it seems that the shooter at
least had a duty to attempt retreat before killing an unarmed person
who's intentions can only be speculated on at this point.
Steve
Darryl
> Charging grizzley bears often will veer off after a warning shot.
> You don't consider a charging grizzley threatening?
For this reason, I wonder why he had hollow points. Anything large
enough to be a threat would require penetration from FMJs, not a
hollow point. In my opinion. But I'm used to thinking "bears", and
while an FMJ doesn't have much stopping power, a HP that doesn't
penetrate a bear's skull has even less. Perhaps AZ has smaller,
softer predators on their hiking trails.
That being said, the notion that a 10mm is overkill because it's
"bigger than what the police have", as the prosecutors claimed,
doesn't explain why the FBI uses it as their standard round. I find
it distasteful when prosecutors attempt to use juror's ignorance of
guns to feed them a line of complete crap.
I also found it funny that the guy's 7 kids were supposed to make him
a "normal" guy. To me, seven kids from a 60 year old guy (one of them
freshly minted) suggests religious cult. My own prejudice, I know,
but large families under white-haired armed patriarchs who live in the
desert make me nervous.
I would have acquitted simply because even under the most guilty
scenario, it would be manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder.
Darryl
> That's a crock of shit. This man got railroaded by bunch of pansy,
> liberal asswipes. That one woman who said it "bothered" her that he
> had hollow points was a typical fat-assed liberal. Is he supposed to
> talk nice to a grizzly bear or the like? The whole point of a weapon
> is to kill. He wanted to stop attacking animals, not tickle them.
All the grizzlies in AZ were killed long ago. Zero danger from
grizzly bears.
Darryl
> That being said - what could a gun owner be thinking when he choses to
> shoot an apparently unarmed man on a wooded trail? All I've heard of
> this incident is from the newsgroups, but it seems that the shooter at
> least had a duty to attempt retreat before killing an unarmed person
> who's intentions can only be speculated on at this point.
It's undisputed that a warning shot had already been fired for the
dogs.
When you move toward an armed individual (who knows how to use his
weapon, and has just demonstrated this seconds before) in such a
manner that retreat would be NECESSARY, you've already declared your
intentions toward them.
If you find an intruder in your child's darkened bedroom at 2am, their
intentions can only be "speculated", but that doesn't change your
response. Same deal with charging an armed man who has JUST FIRED HIS
GUN. Perhaps he was only going to high-five him?
tinydancer
"Darryl" <Dar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174317149.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Or perhaps he was trying to get control over his dogs. The shooter fired a
warning shot concerning the dogs already. Were they my dogs, I'd be rushing
to get hold of them before the guy decides to shoot my dogs. I'd probably
be yelling "don't shoot my dogs, I will get them, don't shoot my dogs."
Which coincidentally *could* correspond with the shooter having stated he
said, "I didn't shoot your dogs."
>
>
>
>
>
tinydancer
Good to know, then it appears his *fire power* was a bit excessive for what
is necessary for a day hike IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chas
>....Perhaps AZ has smaller,
> softer predators on their hiking trails.
Feral pigs/javalina will come after you if you startle them- so will feral
dogs, for that matter.
> I also found it funny that the guy's 7 kids were supposed to make him
> a "normal" guy. To me, seven kids from a 60 year old guy (one of them
> freshly minted) suggests religious cult. My own prejudice, I know,
> but large families under white-haired armed patriarchs who live in the
> desert make me nervous.
Old bulls throw good calves-
you just have to change women every once in a while.
And, you can be religious if you want as well.
Chas
Chas
> Good to know, then it appears his *fire power* was a bit excessive for
> what
> is necessary for a day hike IMO.
Not at all- feral animals are probably his biggest worry; dogs and pigs;
wild pigs are dangerous (peccary/javalina); black bear, cougar/wild cat,
rutting animals, rabid animals-
.40 cal. is just sufficient for smaller thin-skinned animals-
Chas
Steve Furbish
Different situation entirely. A person found uninvited inside a darkened
room in your home would have already committed at least one felony. I'm
not saying that running towards someone who has just fired his weapon is
a good idea, but without more info than I've seen posted in this thread
it should not have been fatal.
Steve
Fred G. Mackey
> "Darryl" <Dar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1174316820....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Mar 19, 6:54 am, muzicia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's a crock of shit. This man got railroaded by bunch of pansy,
>>>liberal asswipes. That one woman who said it "bothered" her that he
>>>had hollow points was a typical fat-assed liberal. Is he supposed to
>>>talk nice to a grizzly bear or the like? The whole point of a weapon
>>>is to kill. He wanted to stop attacking animals, not tickle them.
>>
>>All the grizzlies in AZ were killed long ago. Zero danger from
>>grizzly bears.
>
>
>
> Good to know,
You "know" this because someone told you on usenet?
I don't know if there were EVER grizzly bears in Arizona, but there ARE
Black Bears.
There are also coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and javelina.
HTH.
> then it appears his *fire power* was a bit excessive for what
> is necessary for a day hike IMO.
>
>
Hey, there aren't any elephants, lions or tigers in Arizona either.
muzic...@yahoo.com
Whatever, just an example. The point being, if your goal is to defend
your life, logic dictates you use an effective tool. That stupid
woman was essentially whimpering that she didn't like the inherent
effectiveness of the weapon/ammo.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> Not at all- feral animals are probably his biggest worry; dogs and pigs;
> wild pigs are dangerous (peccary/javalina); black bear, cougar/wild cat,
> rutting animals, rabid animals-
> .40 cal. is just sufficient for smaller thin-skinned animals-
Some people talk like he's supposed to know exactly what he's going to
run across. They also seem to discount the possibility of running into
dangerous humans - which it sounds like he did. You're out there
alone, that weapon might be all that's between you and Sid the Serial
Killer and a couple of his friends.
Even if your intentions *aren't* malicious, if someone brandishes a
firearm and tells you to back off, if you don't you're too stupid to
be in the gene pool anyway.
Bo Raxo
> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174253716.0...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:23 am, "tinydancer" <tinydancer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1174201831.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Sure they were a threat.
>
> > > It has never been established that the dogs were *any* threat to begin
> with.
>
> > 1. They were off the leash
>
> We have not established there was any sort of leash law to begin with.
>
Okay, I have to google everything for you, don't I?
This was the Coconino National Forest.
http://www.aztourist.com/aztouristnews/january/Pet_Friendly.pdf
"Coconino National Forest - Dogs must be caged or on a leash."
And in general:
National Parks In general, pets are permitted but must be restrained
either on a leash not exceeding 6 feet in length or caged at all
times.
Some parks have further restrictions. You can access information on
the parks you
plan to visit at http://www.nps.gov/parks.html. Some
park webpages have lists of nearby kennels where you can leave your
pet during
your stay in the park.
Arizona State Parks
Dogs are allowed on trails if leashed, with the exception of Red Rock
State Park.
They are not allowed in historic parks.
>
>
> > 2. Fishj felt the need to fire *two* warning shots in to the ground.
> > You think he did this because the dogs were friendly?
>
> Perhaps because *he* panicked.
>
Perhaps. Doesn't matter. The reason he shot Kuenzli was because
Kuenzli was a threat.
>
>
> > 3. You are knowledgable abot dogs. We've seen what kinds of dogs tend
> > to be vicious from reports in a.t-c. One of the dogs was a chow mix -
> > gee, would that be one of your more aggressive breeds, IIRC?
>
> I don't care for chow's myself. Depends upon what this dog was mixed with.
> The other dog was a lab mix, hardly considered to be aggressive. I believe
> it was said the chow mix was a *fear biter*. Usually a *fear biter* means
> the dog will bite if it feels threatened. By threatened I mean, 'if it's
> chained up and has no escape possible'. A dog that is *fearful* *usually*
> doesn't approach anyone it doesn't know. Hence the 'fear biter' moniker.
> You leave it alone, it leaves you alone. Myself, I wouldn't expect a 'fear
> biter' to be running towards anyone to make contact with them. It could
> have been following the first dog, but a fear biter will usually run around
> and bark, but they don't like to get too close to strangers. Both these
> dogs ran off, as stated by Fish, to opposite sides and didn't return. Not a
> sign of an attacking mode dog.
>
Doesn't matter at that point: the threat was Kuenzli. Fish didn't
shoot the dogs, what matters is the threat from Kuenzli.
Duuuuuuuhhhhhhhh
>
>
>
> > Okay, let's say a couple seperates. There is a history of the guy
> > smacking his wife around. He shows up at her house, she claims he
> > started hitting her and she fired two arning shots in to the ground,
> > and then she shot him. I guess you would ignore the prior history and
> > the warning shots and say that all that has been established was that
> > the guy was at her house....right?
>
Note that you don't answer my question.
> Bo, do you really think, given all the testimony we've read about here, the
> *distance* between these men, the fact that Fish himself told the officers
> that the other guy 'wasn't jogging' towards him, he was loping, do you
> really think it's *okay* to shoot down an unarmed guy knowing three shots to
> the gut will kill him?
Yes, if he is shouting threats at you. Should you wait until the guy
grabs your gun?
If I've just fired warning shots and someone is moving rapidly towards
me, I figure either they are about to pull out their own gun, or they
are crazy. Either way, shoot.
> After all the times you've argued with me about
> shooting intruders and such?
When have I said you shouldn't shoot an intruder breaking in to your
home? Never.
>
>
>
>
> > > Lets see, as
> > > far as witnesses go, there's the *shooter* and then there is the *dead
> guy*.
> > > Now we know what the shooter has testified to, but as for the *dead
> guy*, we
> > > don't at all know his side of the story.
>
> > No, we also have the testimony of Deputy Jeff Palmer about the speed
> > at which Kuenzli approached Fish.
>
> Fish *changed* his story on that a number of times. One of the reasons the
> jury didn't believe Fish, because his stories *changed* too frequently.
>
The sunstantive story was the same. The only thing that changed was
the exact words he said Kuenzli shouted as he came towards him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > What do
>
> > > > you think the dogs are going to do when they see you in a fight with
> > > > their alpha male?
>
> > > In your vast experience in dog psychology, are you telling me *you*
> assume
> > > to know what those dogs *might* do?
>
> > Yes, I know they act like pack animals, and when they see someone
> > "attacking" their owner, they "might" try to help. You like to post
> > stories about how someobdy is getting mugged and the dog attacks the
> > mugger, so you do know it's possible.
>
> Fish shot the *owner* dead, yet neither dog *attacked* him.
It was Kuenzli whose behavior threatened him so that's who he shot.
The fact that he didn't shoot the dogs suggest restraint and use of
minimal force.
> He NEVER
> mentioned the dogs again, after the first claim of them aggressively
> approaching him. How AGGRESSIVE do you think these dogs were?
And if he'd shot the dogs you would probably say that is proof he went
on a shooting spree.
> If they were
> AGGRESSIVE, they wouldn't have retreated completely and disappeared off the
> scene.
Who said they did? Are you just making this up?
>And they wouldn't have allowed Fish to approach the fallen owner,
> put a back pack under his head, cover him with a blanket, etc.
Sheesh, are you really this out of it? Here's the sequence:
Dogs act aggressively.
Fish fires two warning shots.
Dogs are now not aggressive, they are scared off. Keunzli is
aggressive and rapidly moves towards Fish, reportedly shoutiong at
him.
So Fish shoots Kuenzli. Is that simple enough for you? Do you see
it doesn't matter that the dogs were no longer aggressive: their
aggression set events in motion, but it was Kuenzli who was the
immediate threat to Fish.
> If these
> dogs had been showing aggression, they would not have allowed Fish near the
> fallen guy AT ALL. Fish would certainly have *mentioned that* "hell, after
> I shot the guy the dogs were frothing at the mouth, snarling and growling at
> me, forcing me to keep my distance away from the other guy." "Hell, I had
> to shoot 'em, I had to fire my gun at 'em and shoot 'em for my own safety."
> There was NO MENTION of the dogs again after Fish shot the guy, NONE.
>
>
Because - DUUUUHHHHHHHHH - it was KUENZLI who was aggressive and the
threat at that moment, so he ONLY shot KUENZLI.
>
> > As I said, the off-leash dogs added to the risk equation Fish had to
> > evaluate, as Kuenzli is running towardws him shouting death threats.
>
> Fishes story about these threats changed numerous times.
The only change was the exact words he said Kuenzli yelled at him.
That's natural; his story didn't change substantively. If he'd quoted
the exact same words from Kuelzli every time, you'd probably say his
story sounded rehearsed.
>You don't think
> it's at all possible that Fish made them up? You don't find it far more
> likely that after Fish fired his warning shot, Kuenzli, dog lover that he
> was, began running to get hold of his dogs to keep them away from the nut
> job with the gun?
>
>
>
> > > It's obvious that if some guy is about to kick your
>
> > > > ass (or try), and he has two off-leash dogs, they figure in to the
> > > > risk equation.
>
> > > If that were the case, why was 'no mention' of dogs' actions *after* the
> > > shooting made?
>
> > Perhaps because after the shooting Fish was able to withdraw, and the
> > dogs stayed with the owner.
>
> If he *withdrew* as you said, how'd he manage to stuff the back pack under
> the guys head?
Because duh he put the backpack under the guy's head, put a blanket
over him, and then went for help. Jeez, you are arguing with me about
the establshed facts of the case. Sheesh
He NEVER mentioned the dogs again. And when help came, they
> never mentioned they had to restrain the dogs, couldn't approach because of
> the dogs, etc. None of that was ever mentioned. It sounds more likely to
> me that the dogs were 'excited' to greet someone, and terrifed by the
> gunshots, and ran off in fear. No the traits of aggression.
>
>
>
>
> Of course it matters. He claimed these dog were very aggressive.
> Aggressive dogs don't just up and leave, especially with their owner down.
>
No, it matters how much he felt threatened by Kuenzli. The dogs
*added* to the risk equation, potentially, but if they weren't
aggressive it doesn't make Kuenzli any less dangerous.
>
>
>
> Fish said he ran at him shouting threats, no independent version of that,
> see above: If you had just shot somebody down in cold blood, wouldn't you
> make up a story about 'hey, the guy was threatening me?"
>
If I had just shot a guy in cold blood, I wouldn't put my backpack
under his head and put a blanket over him. Nor would I leave him
alive when I left, and tell a fake story to the police, because if the
guy lived I'd be toast.
So your scenario doesn't make sense.
>
>
> > > > > Me thinks that
> > > > > because 'dogs' are involved, your views on 'deadly force' have
> suddenly
> > > > > softened a bit.
>
> > > > Only in that the dogs make for an added threat: dogs will defend their
> > > > owner, maybe you're not aware of this little fact.
>
> > > Only one of the dogs was owned by this guy. Dogs do take a while to
> *bond*
> > > with someone you know.-
But Fish didn't know that.
Bo Raxo
> "Darryl" <Darr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So there are two entirely plausible and very different scenarios.
Sounds like the very definition of reasonable doubt to me.
Is it *possible* Fish killed Kuenzli for no good reason? Yes.
Is it established beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
I can't believe the jury convicted him. I have to think his attorney
did a poor job.
Bo Raxo
Fred G. Mackey
Or the jury consisted of 4 locals sympathetic to Kuenzli and 4 sheep who
were easily persuaded because they felt getting back to their lives was
more important than the next ten (to 22) years of Fish's life.
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
> warning shot concerning the dogs already. Were they my dogs, I'd be rushing
> to get hold of them before the guy decides to shoot my dogs. I'd probably
> be yelling "don't shoot my dogs, I will get them, don't shoot my dogs."
> Which coincidentally *could* correspond with the shooter having stated he
> said, "I didn't shoot your dogs."
>
If Kuenzli was trying to control his dogs when he was shot, why did
the medical examiner conclude the distance from which the shots were
fired was one foot. That's right, ONE FOOT:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/21480
BEGIN QUOTE
A Coconino County Medical Examiner report compiled just after the
shooting concluded Kuenzli was almost on top of Fish when the shots
were fired.
"All three wounds appear to be at very close range, approximately one
foot away from the shooter," it states
END QUOTE
Bonus points: According to the appeal filed by Fish's attorneys,
Kuenzli had a seven inch long screwdriver in his back pocket. Gee,
you think he had that in case he found a loose door he needed to fix
out on a nature trail?
Source: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/ See the Motion for New
Trial Section II : EXCLUSION OF REFERENCE TO THE SCREWDRIVER
Kuenzli charged towards Fish, was right on top of him, with a weapon
in his back pocket, when Fish shot him. Fish then did what he could
to make Kuenzli more confortable (put his backpack under his head, put
a blanket over him) and went for help. He was wrong about what time
it was by an hour, and changed what he said the exact words Kuenzli
was yelling at him, although the different versions of the words he
claims Keunzli said are quite similar.
That's this case in a nutshell. On that evidence, you're going to
convict Fish of manslaughter, much less second degree murder?
Unbelievable.
Tell me Tiny: You're out on a hiking trail, alone. You're holding a
gun, in fact you've just fired a couple of warning shots. Some
strange man is moving towards you, at a speed less than a run but
faster than a normal walk. He won't stop. He's getting closer. He's
right on top of you. You're holding a loaded gun.
Do you pull the trigger?
Don't duck the question: tell us what you would do in that exact
situation.
Bo Raxo
hondo
Bill of Wright wrote:
> I just did something pretty rare. I watched a current TV show. I
> think it was DateLine NBC or something. Anyway, for those
> who didn't see it, here goes...........
>
> Back in spring 2004, a hiker has an unfortunate meeting with
> a stranger on a trail in AZ. The hiker is 57 years old, married
> with 7 kids, retired teacher, salt of the earth type, no criminal
> record. He is also carrying a 10 mm automatic pistol loaded
> with hollow point bullets. He carries it for protection, mainly
> against wild animals he might encounter, he has a license to
> carry, and all this is completely understandable in my mind,
> as I would probably want to do same if I hiked in the wilderness
> for many many miles. So he's walking along, and he sees
> a guy maybe 50-60 yards away I guess, standing by his
> car, with two dogs. The hiker raises his hand and says
> "hey I'm just hiking by" or something similar to let the guy
> know he's no threat of any kind. The unleashed dogs
> then rush toward hiker in threatening manner. Hiker yells
> for him to control his dogs, he then fires a shot into the
> ground, and the dogs veer off, but the guy then rushes
> toward the hiker allegedly yelling he's gonna kill the hiker,
> etc., and the hiker is yelling back that he didn't hurt the
> dogs. Anyway, the man keeps charging, and ends up
> catching three shots to the chest. Hiker then puts his
> backpack under the guy's head and goes to the nearest
> road for help, etc., etc. He cooperates fully with police
> and they initally conclude self-defense. But the local
> folk go apeshit and say this wonderful dog lover was
> no threat, and long story short, hiker ends up being
> found guilty of 2nd degree murder and gets 10 years
> in stir w/o possibility of parole!
>
> Turns out that the guy was a bit of a loose cannon nutcase,
> apparently living out of his car. Of course, a few of his
> "friends" and his sister of course say wonderful things about
> him, etc., but other who've known him say he's an extremely
> volatile type. They don't paint a pretty picture. Okay,
> there's the background. I have a couple of comments.
>
> First, a big deal was that the hiker had shot an unarmed
> man. Uh, maybe I'm stupid, but this was not once
> brought up: If a person has a firearm, and another
> doesn't, but is charging at the one who does, doesn't it seem
> reasonable that the one who does could easily be killed with
> his own weapon if he waits till there's actual hand-to-hand
> combat, leaving the hiker with good reason for stopping
> the charger before he gets to hiker? Another brilliant comment
> from a woman juror was that these "hollow point things" are meant
> to kill and why would he be loaded with such deadly ammo if he
> were such a nice person?!!! (I'm paraphrasing, but what she
> said was similar.) DUH!!! If a person is going out into the
> wild with a handgun, wouldn't it make sense that he would want
> deadly, effective ammo in the event that a large or vicious animal
> began charging? Wouldn't a person want to drop the animal
> before it had a chance to, perhaps infect him with rabies or something?
>
> I hope some legal experts or law officers will pipe in on this.
without knowing more details maybe the yocal was on the guy with the gun
before either of them knew what was happening. Some
people just react and attack, no time to think about gun or no gun
or even see a gun.
The issue is why did the hiker pull the gun out in the first place?
Was that really necessary for his self defense from the dogs?
No proof was shown he was actually attacked by the dogs
and then in fear of his life, to then pull the gun out. That may be
the basis on which he was convincted.
This should be a case of manslaughter, possibly accidental.
When you carry a gun you always run a risk, especially if
you pull the damned thing out. I am an experienced hunter.
I would never have pulled the gun out until my leg was being
eaten! Dumb me?
klm
Bo Raxo
>
> The issue is why did the hiker pull the gun out in the first place?
No, the issue was whether Fish shot Kuenzli because he thought Kuenzli
was a danger to him. It's called self-defense.
*Why* he pulled the gun out in the first place has nothing to do with
whether it was self-defense or murder.
> Was that really necessary for his self defense from the dogs?
*if* you believe it wasn't, then ticket Fish for illegal discharge of
a firearm. But that still has *nothing* to do with whether he shot
Kuenzli in self-dfense or not. The question is whether a reasonable
person would find Kuenzli a threat at that moment, not *why* Fish was
standing there holding a gun.
> No proof was shown he was actually attacked by the dogs
> and then in fear of his life, to then pull the gun out. That may be
> the basis on which he was convincted.
>
> This should be a case of manslaughter, possibly accidental.
>
Okay, so you're saying if a person is carrying a gun legally, they
pull it out for no valid reason, and then a seond person starts
charging at them declaring they are going to kill the guy holding the
gun. Gets right on top of the person holding the gun, within a foot,
and is shot to death. You think that's manslaughter? What in the
world would it take to establish self-defense, if this isn't it?
> When you carry a gun you always run a risk, especially if
> you pull the damned thing out.
When you charge towards a person holding a loaded gun, angrily
declaring you're going to kill them, you run the risk of getting three
shots in the gut.
>I am an experienced hunter.
> I would never have pulled the gun out until my leg was being
> eaten! Dumb me?
>
Irrelevant. What would you do if some hiker came charging at you and
wouldn't stop? Got right on top of you? Would you shoot the person
coming at you? Or would you just stand there and hope they don't
wrestle your own gun out of your hands?
Bo Raxo
muzic...@yahoo.com
> without knowing more details maybe the yocal was on the guy with the gun
> before either of them knew what was happening. Some
> people just react and attack, no time to think about gun or no gun
> or even see a gun.
He was some distance away, he had plenty of time to think. He was a
raging nut.
> The issue is why did the hiker pull the gun out in the first place?
> Was that really necessary for his self defense from the dogs?
> No proof was shown he was actually attacked by the dogs
Would you like to take a statement from the mutts? Maybe get their
pawprints? There actually was a statement that at least one of the
dogs was known to be a biter.
> and then in fear of his life, to then pull the gun out. That may be
> the basis on which he was convincted.
He was convicted on the basis of there being a bunch of idiot liberals
on the jury.
> I would never have pulled the gun out until my leg was being
> eaten! Dumb me?
Pretty much. However, I'd see you as much a victim of asinine laws
making you have to think twice before defending yourself as of the
attacker.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> Different situation entirely. A person found uninvited inside a darkened
> room in your home would have already committed at least one felony. I'm
> not saying that running towards someone who has just fired his weapon is
> a good idea,
It's an excellent way to convey that you're an angry nut with intent
to do harm.
> but without more info than I've seen posted in this thread
> it should not have been fatal.
What is it with you people who seem to think a defender is supposed to
be a mind reader and further make the welfare of the attacker their
first priority?
Bill of Wright
"hondo" <vale...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:45FF8D07...@aol.com...
>
> without knowing more details maybe the yocal was on the guy with the gun
> before either of them knew what was happening. Some
> people just react and attack, no time to think about gun or no gun
> or even see a gun.
Maybe you could re-read the description of the chain of events
and try again
> The issue is why did the hiker pull the gun out in the first place?
As a precaution against two charging dogs that he had no information
at all on, other than that they were charging toward him.
> Was that really necessary for his self defense from the dogs?
> No proof was shown he was actually attacked by the dogs
Again, re-read the chain of events. Hint: he was never actually
attacked by the dogs. He fired a warning shot into the ground
and they veered off.
> and then in fear of his life, to then pull the gun out. That may be
> the basis on which he was convincted.
>
> This should be a case of manslaughter, possibly accidental.
Dude, you could use some reading classes..just a friendly reminder.
> When you carry a gun you always run a risk, especially if
> you pull the damned thing out. I am an experienced hunter.
> I would never have pulled the gun out until my leg was being
> eaten! Dumb me?
Yeah, dumb you. You could just wait till a rabid animal tears into
your flesh, then you could shoot while you're bleeding to death, or
at best, you could then live to endure that series of rabies shots
into the stomach that are so much fun, not to mention stitches,
possibley surgery, etc., etc.
Bill of Wright
<snip>
Give it up Bo. Most of these people in this thread appear quite
brain-dead.
I'm afraid your intelligent, thought-out responses are falling on mostly
deaf
ears. Needless to say, I agree with you 100%.
Bill of Wright
<muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174392387.7...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 2:28 am, hondo <valen...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> without knowing more details maybe the yocal was on the guy with the gun
>> before either of them knew what was happening. Some
>> people just react and attack, no time to think about gun or no gun
>> or even see a gun.
>
>
> He was some distance away, he had plenty of time to think. He was a
> raging nut.
And there was plenty of evidence to support this, given his reputation,
and actions that day.
> He was convicted on the basis of there being a bunch of idiot liberals
> on the jury.
It's troubling that he was charged only after the some locals started
howling
for his skin. This is what bothers me about "law" and "justice." It seems
to rest to too large a degree on public feeling, emotion, pejudice, etc.
Steve Furbish
> On Mar 19, 3:28 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Different situation entirely. A person found uninvited inside a darkened
>> room in your home would have already committed at least one felony. I'm
>> not saying that running towards someone who has just fired his weapon is
>> a good idea,
>
>
> It's an excellent way to convey that you're an angry nut with intent
> to do harm.
Or a distraught pet owner who simply thinks his dog has just been shot..
>> but without more info than I've seen posted in this thread
>> it should not have been fatal.
>
>
> What is it with you people who seem to think a defender is supposed to
> be a mind reader and further make the welfare of the attacker their
> first priority?
28 years as a law enforcement officer have shown me that justifying the
use of deadly force based on the threat of imminent bodily harm means
that you had better be able to demonstrate very clearly that the dead
guy intended and had the means to do harm or you're gonna go to jail. As
far as I'm concerned it doesn't appear that was proven in this case and
apparently a jury felt the same way?
Had I shot every person who ran in my direction with what looked like
anger in his eyes there would have been a long string of dead bodies to
explain. You needn't be a mindreader, but you had better be very
articulate when you attempt to explain a corpse with no weapon and when
there seems to have been no real attempt on your part to evade. Just
because you employ the word "attacker" here doesn't mean that it applies.
Steve
Bill of Wright
"Steve Furbish" <sfur...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8rudnZD2Toa1emLY...@comcast.com...
>
> Or a distraught pet owner who simply thinks his dog has just been shot..
Or a raging nut hanging around in the woods with his similarly aggressive
dogs on the loose.
> 28 years as a law enforcement officer have shown me that justifying the
> use of deadly force based on the threat of imminent bodily harm means that
> you had better be able to demonstrate very clearly that the dead guy
> intended and had the means to do harm or you're gonna go to jail.
Okay, if you really are who you say you are, you're just the man who can
answer my foundation question. Doesn't it seem quite likely that this
individual, with a reputation of being a volative loose cannon, and
a physically strong individual, would've perhaps killed Fish with
his own pistol in a hand-to-hand attack, had Fish not dropped him
as he was charging? As I said before, I would think cops would
have this situation fairly often.
>As far as I'm concerned it doesn't appear that was proven in this case and
>apparently a jury felt the same way?
But the local police DIDN'T feel this way on initial investigation.
This jury of idiots apparently tried to--and bought into the prosecutor's
yarns--make big issues out of nothing, e.g. hollow point ammo, the
supposed time discrepancy, etc. Meaningless in my view.
> Had I shot every person who ran in my direction with what looked like
> anger in his eyes there would have been a long string of dead bodies to
> explain. You needn't be a mindreader, but you had better be very
> articulate when you attempt to explain a corpse with no weapon and when
> there seems to have been no real attempt on your part to evade. Just
> because you employ the word "attacker" here doesn't mean that it applies.
Yeah, we all can see that this "dog lover" was just a plain ol'd nice guy,
maybe a little upset, that's all.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> The jury did not make a hasty decision when it convicted Harold Fish of
> second-degree murder despite accusations from the defense, said jury foreman
> Michael Nelson.
Whether or not it was hasty, it was certainly biased. And utterly
wrong.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> I was hoping someone could explain to me how shooting a raging
> anonymous maniac before he got to a man and his pistol is not
> self defense.
It sounded like there was a brief flash of rational thinking in the
jury room when supposedly someone said "If this isn't self-defense,
what is?"
Apparently this was beaten out of whoever said it.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> The "nutcase" over reacts and lunges at the gun toting hiker. Now does this
> threat give the gun toter the right to "shoot and kill"? No it does not and
> doing so without even a struggle, is not self defense.
Hey "Dick", try this kind of thinking with a cop who's got their
weapon drawn and ordered you to stop advancing on them, see how far it
gets you.
tinydancer
>
> Tell me Tiny: You're out on a hiking trail, alone. You're holding a
> gun, in fact you've just fired a couple of warning shots. Some
> strange man is moving towards you, at a speed less than a run but
> faster than a normal walk. He won't stop. He's getting closer. He's
> right on top of you. You're holding a loaded gun.
>
> Do you pull the trigger?
>
> Don't duck the question: tell us what you would do in that exact
> situation.
I won't duck the question. But remember, I am certainly nowhere near as
strong or able to defend myself than a male. You've got *me* up against a
'strange man'. ;)
If I was in that situation, I would probably, (knowing me), first say "stop
you son of a bitch or I'll blow your fucking head off." I have done
something similar in the past, although my *weapon* that time was a sponge
mop. ;] And I recall my words exactly, it's a situation one doesn't
easily forget. I said "listen you son of a bitch, you take one step
closer to me and I'm calling the cops" with my sponge mop raised up 'weapon
like', both feet planted firmly, and a look of *determination* about me, my
voice/tone very harsh, for lack of a better word, as he was advancing upon
me. *We* locked eyes and had probably a 5 second 'show down' of *looks*.
Although, at the time, it most likely seemed like a much longer time frame
to me.
Now to your scenario, I wouldn't have my gun loaded with hollow points. I
know that. Although we do own some, they aren't an ammo *I* personally
would load my gun with. I didn't *acquire* them, dh did, over my objection.
Yes, I would shoot, one time, one shot. And I wouldn't be standing there,
in place, with my gun out wobbling in front of me. I'd have a two hand grip
on it, and back myself up enough to keep out of range of him being able to
reach out and try to get my gun. Were he to 'keep advancing', I'd probably
shoot again. But I truly *feel* that by retreating, since I'm not backed up
into a corner if I'm outside in the open, having shot an unarmed man once,
in the gut, with my .357, that I would see him fall before he got to me.
I don't object to Fish *defending* himself, but I do *object to* the type of
ammo and the three gut shots. That's where he *lost* me. The screwdriver
in the 'back pocket' doesn't play into this, because it wasn't *drawn* on
Fish. As far as Fish knew, he had no weapon. As for the screw driver, who
know's why it was there. My husband does lots of woodworking type work, and
he often times has the odd tool on him, be it a tile cutter, screw driver,
utility knife, etc.
td
>
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chas
> Even if your intentions *aren't* malicious, if someone brandishes a
> firearm and tells you to back off, if you don't you're too stupid to
> be in the gene pool anyway.
Certainly a common defense for police-shootings.
Chas
obbz...@yahoo.com
> > It's an excellent way to convey that you're an angry nut with intent
> > to do harm.
>
> Or a distraught pet owner who simply thinks his dog has just been shot..
A large man you don't know from Adam is charging at you making
threats. You've drawn your weapon and warned him to back off but he
keeps coming. You're not going to fire? You're either a liar or a
fool.
> 28 years as a law enforcement officer have shown me that justifying the
> use of deadly force based on the threat of imminent bodily harm means
> that you had better be able to demonstrate very clearly that the dead
> guy intended and had the means to do harm or you're gonna go to jail.
If you're a former cop, you must be aware of cops who were killed with
their own weapon. Or killed before they had a chance to draw their
weapon.
Is Fish supposed to know whether Kuenzli was carrying a knife or other
weapon?
Armed or not, you must also know that a person, particularly a large
man in a state of irrational rage is capable of inflicting serious
harm or death with their bare hands. I'm sure you know of "it took 5
cops to subdue him" (or her) scenarios, which is supposedly why they
have tasers/pepper spray now. Fish could have sustained serious injury
or died even if Kuenzli pushed him down and he hit his head on a rock.
Or he could have left Fish to die in the middle of nowhere with a
broken leg/concussion etc. You think he'd have shown as much concern
as Fish did?
You're outlining the asinine part of the law as it was before. How
"clear" is it supposed to be? As I'm always hearing cops say in
defending their shoots, they have seconds to decide. Your stance
sounds like he's supposed to wait for the attacker to harm or kill
him, then take action. Ridiculous.
> As
> far as I'm concerned it doesn't appear that was proven in this case and
> apparently a jury felt the same way?
Sure, and O.J. didn't do it. The "unbiased" first jury said so.
> You needn't be a mindreader, but you had better be very
> articulate when you attempt to explain a corpse with no weapon
Fish was quite articulate. He explained his situation very clearly and
to my full satisfaction. The jury was a bunch of fools. The kind of
Kumbaya-singing idiots who hold vigils outside prisons when a serial
killer is executed.
> and when there seems to have been no real attempt on your part to evade.
These "attempt to retreat" statutes are asinine. Fortunately, they
changed it here in Florida.
Where exactly was Fish supposed to "retreat" to? This clown was
running down the hill at him. He was told to back off, he didn't.
The blame rests squarely and solely on Kuenzli.
Steve Furbish
> "Steve Furbish" <sfur...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:8rudnZD2Toa1emLY...@comcast.com...
>> Or a distraught pet owner who simply thinks his dog has just been shot..
>
> Or a raging nut hanging around in the woods with his similarly aggressive
> dogs on the loose.
While a possibility, you'd have to demonstrate facts which would lead an
ordinary individual to reasonably believe this was the case before
shooting him.
>> 28 years as a law enforcement officer have shown me that justifying the
>> use of deadly force based on the threat of imminent bodily harm means that
>> you had better be able to demonstrate very clearly that the dead guy
>> intended and had the means to do harm or you're gonna go to jail.
>
> Okay, if you really are who you say you are, you're just the man who can
> answer my foundation question. Doesn't it seem quite likely that this
> individual, with a reputation of being a volative loose cannon, and
> a physically strong individual, would've perhaps killed Fish with
> his own pistol in a hand-to-hand attack, had Fish not dropped him
> as he was charging? As I said before, I would think cops would
> have this situation fairly often.
Unless the shooter knows or knows of the person he encounters ahead of
time his (the target's) reputation means little in determining the
reasonableness of their (the shooter's) fear of imminent bodily harm.
What counts is what is said and done just prior to the shooting.
Possibilities are endless, but the decision to shoot another person
needs to be based on more than vague possibilities. I'm not saying that
the shooting in this instance couldn't be justified - only that it
doesn't appear to have been and the arguments I'm seeing here with
regard to the dead man's reputation are solidly based in hindsight.
>> As far as I'm concerned it doesn't appear that was proven in this case and
>> apparently a jury felt the same way?
>
> But the local police DIDN'T feel this way on initial investigation.
Individual police investigators typically disagree in this type of
situation, but eventually someone calls the shot (pun intended) and it's
given to a grand jury and prosecutor to make or break.
> This jury of idiots apparently tried to--and bought into the prosecutor's
> yarns--make big issues out of nothing, e.g. hollow point ammo, the
> supposed time discrepancy, etc. Meaningless in my view.
I agree that hollow point ammo is just as much of a non-issue as is the
reputation of the dead man in this situation. I carry hollow point ammo
as well because if dealy force is justified it's the best thing to use.
>> Had I shot every person who ran in my direction with what looked like
>> anger in his eyes there would have been a long string of dead bodies to
>> explain. You needn't be a mindreader, but you had better be very
>> articulate when you attempt to explain a corpse with no weapon and when
>> there seems to have been no real attempt on your part to evade. Just
>> because you employ the word "attacker" here doesn't mean that it applies.
>
> Yeah, we all can see that this "dog lover" was just a plain ol'd nice guy,
> maybe a little upset, that's all.
The truth is nobody but the two people who were there really knows what
went down and one of them isn't talking. That pretty much means that the
other had better be VERY convincing.
Steve
Steve Furbish
> On Mar 20, 8:52 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> Or a distraught pet owner who simply thinks his dog has just been shot..
>
>
> A large man you don't know from Adam is charging at you making
> threats. You've drawn your weapon and warned him to back off but he
> keeps coming. You're not going to fire? You're either a liar or a
> fool.
Insufficient data exists for me to make that call. I don't believe in
warning shots and I'd have shot the dogs outright, but I wouldn't have
hung around to explain the pros of a leash law to the owner either. I'd
have expected them to be upset and I'd have at least made an attempt to
retreat.
>> 28 years as a law enforcement officer have shown me that justifying the
>> use of deadly force based on the threat of imminent bodily harm means
>> that you had better be able to demonstrate very clearly that the dead
>> guy intended and had the means to do harm or you're gonna go to jail.
>
>
> If you're a former cop, you must be aware of cops who were killed with
> their own weapon. Or killed before they had a chance to draw their
> weapon.
Of course, but that doesn't mean I condone a shoot first ask questions
later policy either. The use of deadly force is a huge decision to make
and when you strap on your firearm you had better know that making that
choice is going to be second guessed by people who weren't there in your
shoes.
> Is Fish supposed to know whether Kuenzli was carrying a knife or other
> weapon?
He's supposed to know whether or not deadly force is justifiable under
the circumstances. The presence of a weapon helps but is not always
required.
> Armed or not, you must also know that a person, particularly a large
> man in a state of irrational rage is capable of inflicting serious
> harm or death with their bare hands. I'm sure you know of "it took 5
> cops to subdue him" (or her) scenarios, which is supposedly why they
> have tasers/pepper spray now. Fish could have sustained serious injury
> or died even if Kuenzli pushed him down and he hit his head on a rock.
> Or he could have left Fish to die in the middle of nowhere with a
> broken leg/concussion etc. You think he'd have shown as much concern
> as Fish did?
Could haves and might haves do not add up to legal justification in most
instances.
> You're outlining the asinine part of the law as it was before. How
> "clear" is it supposed to be? As I'm always hearing cops say in
> defending their shoots, they have seconds to decide. Your stance
> sounds like he's supposed to wait for the attacker to harm or kill
> him, then take action. Ridiculous.
Reasonable fear is not all fear. You'll have to make your own decision.
>> As
>> far as I'm concerned it doesn't appear that was proven in this case and
>> apparently a jury felt the same way?
>
>
> Sure, and O.J. didn't do it. The "unbiased" first jury said so.
I think the state proved it's case in the OJ trial, but that's really
not relevant to this discussion.
>> You needn't be a mindreader, but you had better be very
>> articulate when you attempt to explain a corpse with no weapon
>
>
> Fish was quite articulate. He explained his situation very clearly and
> to my full satisfaction. The jury was a bunch of fools. The kind of
> Kumbaya-singing idiots who hold vigils outside prisons when a serial
> killer is executed.
I'm sure he wishes that you'd been in that jury then. Juries don't have
it easy in every case. I'd imagine this case wasn't easy to call for anyone.
>> and when there seems to have been no real attempt on your part to evade.
>
>
> These "attempt to retreat" statutes are asinine. Fortunately, they
> changed it here in Florida.
Better make sure your right before shooting. There's no duty to retreat
in my state either if you're talking about being attacked in your own
home, but if you shoot an unarmed person without attempting to retreat
in somewhat open spaces you are going to risk a manslaughter charge.
> Where exactly was Fish supposed to "retreat" to? This clown was
> running down the hill at him. He was told to back off, he didn't.
>
> The blame rests squarely and solely on Kuenzli.
Not having been there myself I can only offer speculation. Perhaps a
simple sidestep...
Steve