jerkface11
Member
Let's see Mr. Ayoob says not to use HANDLOADS for self defense. I've never heard anything about him saying not to use HOLLOW POINTS. So how exactly does that pertain to this case?
Ridiculous Conviction--AZ Dog Walker Shooter
- Thread starter HarryB
- Start date
- Status
Let's see Mr. Ayoob says not to use HANDLOADS for self defense. I've never heard anything about him saying not to use HOLLOW POINTS. So how exactly does that pertain to this case?
Beren...
I watched the special on TV last night at a Bro's house. Fish's entire story reeked when the physical evidence is taken into account.
Of the two dogs, one was described as "passive" and the other was a "fear biter". Fear biters do not attack, they flee and bite only when cornered.
The attacker had gunshot wounds in his hands that would indicate that he was covering up when shot.
Do we really want to live in a society in which a man can be shot for yelling because he was in fear for his dog's life, said dogs who were no real threat to begin with?
Fish did not act in a manner that another reasonable man might act. Would a reasonable person shoot another man for yelling at him?
*That's* the salient point in this case.
Biker
I watched the special on TV last night at a Bro's house. Fish's entire story reeked when the physical evidence is taken into account.
Of the two dogs, one was described as "passive" and the other was a "fear biter". Fear biters do not attack, they flee and bite only when cornered.
The attacker had gunshot wounds in his hands that would indicate that he was covering up when shot.
Do we really want to live in a society in which a man can be shot for yelling because he was in fear for his dog's life, said dogs who were no real threat to begin with?
Fish did not act in a manner that another reasonable man might act. Would a reasonable person shoot another man for yelling at him?
*That's* the salient point in this case.
Biker
Why should that say anything at all? You can defend yourself...but don't be too good at it.
I hope not to be injured if I have to use deadly force to protect myself. That is the point isn't it? To keep from being injured? Couldn't the 1st injury you sustain be a fatal one?He could have gunned this guy down just because he was mad...he could have been in fear for his life, either way a lack of injury to him doesn't mean much. This reasoning could result in a lot of good people going to jail for manslaughter just because they can effectively protect themselves.
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Biker,
If one dog was passive and the other was a "fear biter" what would cause them to go running after Fish?
Wouldn't they have been running away?
So I suspect that because of the character of the dogs that this is what really happened.
Fish comes hiking down out of the woods.
The two weenie dogs see him, panic and run away.
Kuenzli sees his dogs run away and feels so bad that he tries to run away too and as a result Fish feels so overconfident that he hauls out his piece and whacks Kuenzli, who is prolly on his knees and holding his hands up in a defensive manner.
I figgered this all out by knowing that passive and fear biting dogs will not pack up and attack.
If one dog was passive and the other was a "fear biter" what would cause them to go running after Fish?
Wouldn't they have been running away?
So I suspect that because of the character of the dogs that this is what really happened.
Fish comes hiking down out of the woods.
The two weenie dogs see him, panic and run away.
Kuenzli sees his dogs run away and feels so bad that he tries to run away too and as a result Fish feels so overconfident that he hauls out his piece and whacks Kuenzli, who is prolly on his knees and holding his hands up in a defensive manner.
I figgered this all out by knowing that passive and fear biting dogs will not pack up and attack.
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Strambo
My primary home defense weapon is a 12 guage shottie. but I am semi proficient with many handguns.
If I was attacked by dogs, followed by a man. I would handle first things first. The nearest threat gets handled first. There would be at least one dead dog on the ground before the dog owner was shot.
The defensive wounds that were incurred by the actual victim say a lot.
The story does not stand up to scrutiny based on the evidence.
This is not an argument about being too good about shooting. If it were, the dogs would have been dead.
My primary home defense weapon is a 12 guage shottie. but I am semi proficient with many handguns.
If I was attacked by dogs, followed by a man. I would handle first things first. The nearest threat gets handled first. There would be at least one dead dog on the ground before the dog owner was shot.
The defensive wounds that were incurred by the actual victim say a lot.
The story does not stand up to scrutiny based on the evidence.
This is not an argument about being too good about shooting. If it were, the dogs would have been dead.
cropcirclewalker
member
I can only assume that you did not see the piece last night.
According to Fish, the dogs started running toward him, barking and flashing teeth. Fish being reasonable and not interested in killing strange dogs, fired one shot into the ground. The dogs, being reasonable and not wanting to get shot, peeled off.
Kuenzil, not being very reasonable, freaks and starts running toward Fish, shouting inintelligible threatening like comments and waving his arms.
After Fish stops the most iminent threat was he then supposed to hunt down and shoot the dogs?
That doesn't sound very reasonable.
cropcirclewalker...
According to Fish's own testimony, the dogs weren't running *after* Fish, they were running *to* him - in other words, doing what dogs do. If he felt threatened by the dogs, he would've shot them judging by his actions as they concern the deceased.
Let me know when you decide to post something worth reading.
I'm guessing that your previous post was made in jest.
Biker
According to Fish's own testimony, the dogs weren't running *after* Fish, they were running *to* him - in other words, doing what dogs do. If he felt threatened by the dogs, he would've shot them judging by his actions as they concern the deceased.
Let me know when you decide to post something worth reading.
I'm guessing that your previous post was made in jest.
Biker
WayneConrad
Member
At the time Fish was convicted, Arizona law had a horrible provision that placed the burden of proof on Fish. Yep, you heard that right. In self defense cases, you first had to admit to the murder, and then prove that it was justified.
We've since gotten rid of that. The burden of proof is once again on the state. Fish appealed on the basis that the the new law should apply to his case. I believe that the court rejected his application.
So, before you're quick to judge Fish because a jury found him guilty, remember that the deck was stacked in favor of the prosecution.
We've since gotten rid of that. The burden of proof is once again on the state. Fish appealed on the basis that the the new law should apply to his case. I believe that the court rejected his application.
So, before you're quick to judge Fish because a jury found him guilty, remember that the deck was stacked in favor of the prosecution.
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Biker,
Yes, I try at times to be Jesty.
But....I know what dogs do. I don't know if you are the same kind of biker as me, but I have ridden thousands (maybe 10s of thousands) of miles on my bicycle. I have been chased (maybe miles) by dogs. I have only been bitten once.
I can tell when a dog just wants to be friends and when it is protecting it's turf and or when it wants to bite me.
The dog running up to you with a stick in it's mouth is not going to bite. The dog showing you his teeth might. Most people can tell the difference.
I also own dogs which I like to keep around the home place to let me know when we have company coming down the drive.
Normal reasonable dogs will not run at a stranger barking and flashing their teeth unless they think they can get away with it. My dogs stand on the porch or in the drive and bark and raise their danders (Fur on the back of their necks).
They do not attack. Sometimes they growl when a stranger walks up to the porch but they don't flash their teeth.
I am of the opinion that discharging one round into the ground was a very reasonable response.
Finally, whether the dogs were attacking or playing fetch doesn't matter. They were not under control, Fish turned them and they went away.
The only part they played in this tradgedy is that because of their actions, a reasonable guy made a reasonable response which pushed a guy with questionable "Reason" over the edge.
In conclusion, I won't say that your posts are "Not worth reading", but perhaps they could have been better reasoned.
Yes, I try at times to be Jesty.
But....I know what dogs do. I don't know if you are the same kind of biker as me, but I have ridden thousands (maybe 10s of thousands) of miles on my bicycle. I have been chased (maybe miles) by dogs. I have only been bitten once.
I can tell when a dog just wants to be friends and when it is protecting it's turf and or when it wants to bite me.
The dog running up to you with a stick in it's mouth is not going to bite. The dog showing you his teeth might. Most people can tell the difference.
I also own dogs which I like to keep around the home place to let me know when we have company coming down the drive.
Normal reasonable dogs will not run at a stranger barking and flashing their teeth unless they think they can get away with it. My dogs stand on the porch or in the drive and bark and raise their danders (Fur on the back of their necks).
They do not attack. Sometimes they growl when a stranger walks up to the porch but they don't flash their teeth.
I am of the opinion that discharging one round into the ground was a very reasonable response.
Finally, whether the dogs were attacking or playing fetch doesn't matter. They were not under control, Fish turned them and they went away.
The only part they played in this tradgedy is that because of their actions, a reasonable guy made a reasonable response which pushed a guy with questionable "Reason" over the edge.
In conclusion, I won't say that your posts are "Not worth reading", but perhaps they could have been better reasoned.
I believe the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws, laws that apply retroactively, regardless of what the state of AZ says. Judge, or appellate level, are likely NOT going to get overturned.
I have a hard time with this one. If the dogs had bit Fish, better case. How big are the dogs? The fact that they turned, and didn't attack, makes it hard to believe he felt the dogs threatened his life.
I've often felt I might have to take actual physical harm to justify the use of a firearm to defend myself, particularly in Kali. Also, it's about the only way to know if the guy is just running his mouth, or intent on doing you bodily harm.
Besides, getting punched is a bit different from being in fear for your life.
My girlfriend hates homeless people. She's walking down 7th street in San Francisco, and some guy steps out, and punches her in the face, for no reason. He wasn't trying to kill her, just felt like punching a 95 pound, 5'2" girl in the face today. Maybe figured it was better in jail then on the street, and was trying to get there. He got away with it.
There are some VERY scary people on the street. One guy I tried to keep incarcerated, shot a police officer, and, shot and killed a police dog in Golden Gate park. 20+ pages of rap sheet. Pretty much said if he gets off his meds, he goes crazy, on a consistent basis. Psychiatrist, and defense attorney STILL wanted the guy free after 6 years, so he could go out, get off his meds, and go crazy again. Guess you have to kill someone before they keep you in for life...
Told both the shrink and the defense attorney, same guy that got Dan White off with the twinkie defense, I'd like the guy to move in next door to them...
All that said, I suspect the physical evidence might have told a different story then the TV show, concerning Fish. I sure hope so...
The issue really is if Fish had a reasonable fear for his life, I guess. Having to prove that is NOT a position he should have been in, in the first place.
MOST laws are written that self-defense is either based on a reasonable person standard, it's reasonable for you to believe your life is threatened, based on what a normal person would believe in the situation, or, the lower standard, that all you have to believe is that your life is threatened, and only your state of mind matters.
Appears AZ had a much higher one, that you have to PROVE that your life was threatened. NOW, the question becomes what the standard of proof is.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Which is like 75% certain? That's the usual
level of proof required for the state to convict.
That's VERY hard to do, with no weapon, in play, no dog attack, etc.
S
PS
Picked Socrates, because I'm a teacher, Special ed. I've had to face a number of irate students, that came very close, and, appeared intent on attacking me. NONE have. (High school level, San Francisco, Balboa High School, takes all the worst kids in the Bay area, that have been kicked out for guns, and drugs, who take BART to school, or, local gang kids, mainly).I have little doubt that I would have to be struck, at least, prior to being able to defend myself. I also have little doubt a weapon would have to be present, as well.
I have a hard time with this one. If the dogs had bit Fish, better case. How big are the dogs? The fact that they turned, and didn't attack, makes it hard to believe he felt the dogs threatened his life.
I've often felt I might have to take actual physical harm to justify the use of a firearm to defend myself, particularly in Kali. Also, it's about the only way to know if the guy is just running his mouth, or intent on doing you bodily harm.
Besides, getting punched is a bit different from being in fear for your life.
My girlfriend hates homeless people. She's walking down 7th street in San Francisco, and some guy steps out, and punches her in the face, for no reason. He wasn't trying to kill her, just felt like punching a 95 pound, 5'2" girl in the face today. Maybe figured it was better in jail then on the street, and was trying to get there. He got away with it.
There are some VERY scary people on the street. One guy I tried to keep incarcerated, shot a police officer, and, shot and killed a police dog in Golden Gate park. 20+ pages of rap sheet. Pretty much said if he gets off his meds, he goes crazy, on a consistent basis. Psychiatrist, and defense attorney STILL wanted the guy free after 6 years, so he could go out, get off his meds, and go crazy again. Guess you have to kill someone before they keep you in for life...
Told both the shrink and the defense attorney, same guy that got Dan White off with the twinkie defense, I'd like the guy to move in next door to them...
All that said, I suspect the physical evidence might have told a different story then the TV show, concerning Fish. I sure hope so...
The issue really is if Fish had a reasonable fear for his life, I guess. Having to prove that is NOT a position he should have been in, in the first place.
MOST laws are written that self-defense is either based on a reasonable person standard, it's reasonable for you to believe your life is threatened, based on what a normal person would believe in the situation, or, the lower standard, that all you have to believe is that your life is threatened, and only your state of mind matters.
Appears AZ had a much higher one, that you have to PROVE that your life was threatened. NOW, the question becomes what the standard of proof is.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Which is like 75% certain? That's the usual
level of proof required for the state to convict.
That's VERY hard to do, with no weapon, in play, no dog attack, etc.
S
PS
Picked Socrates, because I'm a teacher, Special ed. I've had to face a number of irate students, that came very close, and, appeared intent on attacking me. NONE have. (High school level, San Francisco, Balboa High School, takes all the worst kids in the Bay area, that have been kicked out for guns, and drugs, who take BART to school, or, local gang kids, mainly).I have little doubt that I would have to be struck, at least, prior to being able to defend myself. I also have little doubt a weapon would have to be present, as well.
Apologies, cropcirclewalker, of course your posts are "worth reading". Poor choice of words on my part.
Chalk it up to frustration - shootings such as this make it harder for all of us, IMO.
It seems that many on this board only have hammers and every problem is a nail.
BTW, I ride a Harley and have owned dogs all my life although I enjoy my bicycle.
I still disagree with you, but I figure I owe ya a brew...
Biker
Chalk it up to frustration - shootings such as this make it harder for all of us, IMO.
It seems that many on this board only have hammers and every problem is a nail.
BTW, I ride a Harley and have owned dogs all my life although I enjoy my bicycle.
I still disagree with you, but I figure I owe ya a brew...
Biker
Nio
Member
It seems to me that this case is a very good argument for pepper spray. If Mr. Fish had an intermediate weapon, he might not be in prison today.
Nio
Nio
cropcirclewalker
member
Yo, Mr. Biker,
Hey, no problemo.........except NO DIET BEER.
I watched the piece twice because I was trying to see if there was an underlying anti-gun theme and since the show was also dealing with the CO and PA school shootings.
The most immediate conclusion I drew from the hiker piece was that it was an excellent argument for the Three S principle (shoot, shovel and shut up) or at least Fish would have been better off if he just went on down the path since his cell wouldn't work.
I guess then I sort of got contrary when there were posts here demanding that the only proof that a person is reasonable is if there is a trail of dead bodies (both dog and man), blood and tooth marks.
Fish walks along and encounters the guy camping with his dogs.
He (Fish) holds up his hand with an open palm toward as a symbol of peace (for thousands of years recognized as such) and non aggression.
The dogs attack (dogs are pack animals and will develope a pack mentality regardless of their individual characteristics) and Fish makes a reasonable response and successfully turns away the attack.
The crazy guy erupts as he had apparently done before and breaks the law of natural selection.
Fish gets to go to the slammer.
Too bad.
Hey, no problemo.........except NO DIET BEER.
I watched the piece twice because I was trying to see if there was an underlying anti-gun theme and since the show was also dealing with the CO and PA school shootings.
The most immediate conclusion I drew from the hiker piece was that it was an excellent argument for the Three S principle (shoot, shovel and shut up) or at least Fish would have been better off if he just went on down the path since his cell wouldn't work.
I guess then I sort of got contrary when there were posts here demanding that the only proof that a person is reasonable is if there is a trail of dead bodies (both dog and man), blood and tooth marks.
Fish walks along and encounters the guy camping with his dogs.
He (Fish) holds up his hand with an open palm toward as a symbol of peace (for thousands of years recognized as such) and non aggression.
The dogs attack (dogs are pack animals and will develope a pack mentality regardless of their individual characteristics) and Fish makes a reasonable response and successfully turns away the attack.
The crazy guy erupts as he had apparently done before and breaks the law of natural selection.
Fish gets to go to the slammer.
Too bad.
River Wraith
Member
What a load of garbage. I hope it's overturned on appeal. Looks like the prosecutor had rather the guy let the so called "victim" sic his dogs on the man and stab him to death with the screwdriver.
This is exactley what the jury wanted him to do. As well as the guy from NBC who was doing the interview. He asked Fish, "The gun is heavy, why didn't you hit him with it instead of shooting him?" (although that statement seems totally insane, I did not make it up). To which Fish replied, "I didn't think of that." Not a good response.
I too have ridden tens of thousands of miles on a bicycle in my life. And I have been chased many, many, many times and bitten once by dogs. On a bike, I can out run any dog (the one time I was bit was on a super steep hill). I've also run many many miles in my life (when I have no chance of out running a dog). Nothing will make your blood turn ice cold like the sudden realization that a dog has just decided to have you for lunch. Maybe the adrenaline rush of the charging dogs angered Fish and made him shoot the guy. I doubt it, though. He's what happened:
-Fish came around a ben on a trail and startled Kuenzil and his dogs.
-The dogs charged Fish.
-Fish fired a shot and the dogs got scared and peeled off. At this point, both parties are fired up.
-Kuenzil was enraged by this (he was prone to sudden fits of rage) and charged Fish.
-Fish feared for his life and shot Kuenzil.
One key bit that was missing from the show was how far Fish & Kuenzil were apart when Fish shot. Was Kuenzil close enough to Fish for Fish to fears for his life?
You can get more details after 24 hours from this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15174955/
I came in late on the show and unfortunately didn't get to see all of it. However, one of the main things that caught my attention was Dateline's interview with a couple of the jury members after the fact. The shooter used a 10mm pistol with hollowpoints. The lady jury member was a bit horrified that someone should use such a powerful weapon loaded with bullets that were obviously meant to kill....
*** lady?.. There's another kind?
At any rate, without trying to recreate the whole show with what portion I saw, this conviction demonstrated to me that even if you are involved in a righteous shooting (I believe this one was - and there's a poll on the link where 75% of the viewers agree) you can not necessarily expect to receive justice from a jury of your "peers".
What really sucks is that the deceased had a well-documented history of violent outbursts and behavior, but that was not admissible because it wasn't relevant to this instance - so sayeth the legal system.....
A father of 7, a school teacher with no criminal record whatsoever now goes to jail for 10 years for defending his life (so he claims to have believed) with a firearm.
Food for thought to those who carry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15174955/
I came in late on the show and unfortunately didn't get to see all of it. However, one of the main things that caught my attention was Dateline's interview with a couple of the jury members after the fact. The shooter used a 10mm pistol with hollowpoints. The lady jury member was a bit horrified that someone should use such a powerful weapon loaded with bullets that were obviously meant to kill....
*** lady?.. There's another kind?
At any rate, without trying to recreate the whole show with what portion I saw, this conviction demonstrated to me that even if you are involved in a righteous shooting (I believe this one was - and there's a poll on the link where 75% of the viewers agree) you can not necessarily expect to receive justice from a jury of your "peers".
What really sucks is that the deceased had a well-documented history of violent outbursts and behavior, but that was not admissible because it wasn't relevant to this instance - so sayeth the legal system.....
A father of 7, a school teacher with no criminal record whatsoever now goes to jail for 10 years for defending his life (so he claims to have believed) with a firearm.
Food for thought to those who carry.
MDG1976:
So maybe he hits him with the pistol. The pistol goes off and once again, the assailant ends up dead. Fish gets charged with negligent homicide most likely.
Win/win for the DA. He still gets to prosecute and receive publicity for his valiant crime fighting stance.
On the other hand, if the nutjob gained control of the pistol, killed Fish - likely he's going on his merry freaking violence-prone way and saying nothing to anyone. Poor Fish..... loses yet again.
:banghead:
I know, I know. Lots of speculation on my part. I just think justice was poorly served in this instance.
Agreed... that is an insane statement, for a number of reasons. And for Fish, just another potential lose/lose situation in this scenario.
So maybe he hits him with the pistol. The pistol goes off and once again, the assailant ends up dead. Fish gets charged with negligent homicide most likely.
Win/win for the DA. He still gets to prosecute and receive publicity for his valiant crime fighting stance.
On the other hand, if the nutjob gained control of the pistol, killed Fish - likely he's going on his merry freaking violence-prone way and saying nothing to anyone. Poor Fish..... loses yet again.
:banghead:
I know, I know. Lots of speculation on my part. I just think justice was poorly served in this instance.
m1aman
Member
what bugs me is the idea that because the attacker wasn't armed fish shouldn't have used his weapon to defend himself.
are people saying that if your attacker isn't armed than you have to keep your pistol holstered and take a beating?
are people saying that if your attacker isn't armed than you have to keep your pistol holstered and take a beating?
Warren
Member
Why is it that a strong defense of Fish, equates in some posters' minds, with a desire to be be 'Batman' or to to see every problem as a 'nail'?
This is not the case AT ALL.
I wish that Grant Kuenzli had not been harmed that day. However he created the circumstances that led to his demise. It was his fault.
The prosecutor was not pursuing justice he was just after a conviction. He had help with the gullible jurors whim he misled into voting his way.
And I agree this is bad for us because it shows prosecuters that if they just bend the facts enough and introduce enough non relevant information they can get a conviction.
This is not the case AT ALL.
I wish that Grant Kuenzli had not been harmed that day. However he created the circumstances that led to his demise. It was his fault.
The prosecutor was not pursuing justice he was just after a conviction. He had help with the gullible jurors whim he misled into voting his way.
And I agree this is bad for us because it shows prosecuters that if they just bend the facts enough and introduce enough non relevant information they can get a conviction.
I forgot to add: one juror suggested that Fish should have done more to save the guy after he shot him. ***? He's not a doctor. What have we learned from this case?
-Carry a .22 loaded with FMJs
-Use the gun as a club before firing it
-always have a witness around when you have to defend yourself
-go to med school & learn to care for gun shot wounds
One legitamite statement: my CCW instructor said NEVER talk to the cops if you have to shoot. Always get a lawyer first.
-Carry a .22 loaded with FMJs
-Use the gun as a club before firing it
-always have a witness around when you have to defend yourself
-go to med school & learn to care for gun shot wounds
One legitamite statement: my CCW instructor said NEVER talk to the cops if you have to shoot. Always get a lawyer first.
River Wraith...
Where did you get the impression that Kuenzil sicced his dogs on Fish and threatened Fish with a screwdriver? No evidence exists to indicate that either happened, according to Fish.
Folks, it's a sad state of affairs when an American male feels justified in shooting another man just because he's being yelled at.
When out in the boonies, it's normal to meet unleashed dogs and most will run up to you as dogs do. If you shoot at my dog for doing so, you can bet your keester I'm going to get in your face and you'd *best not* draw a gun on me.
What the hell ever happened to common sense and testicles? It's alright to shoot a man because he's yelling at you?
Good Lord...Fish's story is a sad one but the fact is, he put three bullets in a man who was pissed at him because he shot at his dogs.
Have we become such a pussified nation that shooting a man who is verbally confronting you is an accepted practice?
Unbelievable...
Biker
Where did you get the impression that Kuenzil sicced his dogs on Fish and threatened Fish with a screwdriver? No evidence exists to indicate that either happened, according to Fish.
Folks, it's a sad state of affairs when an American male feels justified in shooting another man just because he's being yelled at.
When out in the boonies, it's normal to meet unleashed dogs and most will run up to you as dogs do. If you shoot at my dog for doing so, you can bet your keester I'm going to get in your face and you'd *best not* draw a gun on me.
What the hell ever happened to common sense and testicles? It's alright to shoot a man because he's yelling at you?
Good Lord...Fish's story is a sad one but the fact is, he put three bullets in a man who was pissed at him because he shot at his dogs.
Have we become such a pussified nation that shooting a man who is verbally confronting you is an accepted practice?
Unbelievable...
Biker
progunner1957
member
If an unarmed attacker charges me when I have my weapon pointed at him, this tells me one thing: He intends to take the weapon away from me and kill me with it. Why Fish did not scream this from the rooftops is beyond me.
And...
That was exactly my take on it.
The prosecutor sang and danced about the HydraShok HPs; if Fish's gun had been loaded with FMJ and he would have had to shoot the attacker 6 or 8 times to stop him, the prosecutor would have sang and danced about that instead.
What "message" did this sleazy prosecutor and the ignorant, gullible jury send? This: "You may get a CCW permit and have the 'right' to use deadly force to defend your life, but if you do so, you'll wish you had just endured the attack instead."
I'm taking Masaad Ayoob's "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" (LFI-1) class ASAP.
Brass Fetcher
Member
OK, I'm gonna say it...
Not passing judgement on Fish's actions (or the lunatic idea that he should have used his gun as a hammer) , but are there times in your opinion when hand-to-hand is more appropriate?
Having been in two fair fights with no weapons, I recall getting about as much beating as I gave.
Would the jury have looked at this case differently if Fish had used his weak arm as a 'chew toy' for the dogs while pulling his gun?
Not passing judgement on Fish's actions (or the lunatic idea that he should have used his gun as a hammer) , but are there times in your opinion when hand-to-hand is more appropriate?
Having been in two fair fights with no weapons, I recall getting about as much beating as I gave.
Would the jury have looked at this case differently if Fish had used his weak arm as a 'chew toy' for the dogs while pulling his gun?
- Status
