Dog walker shot dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this changes if there were powder burns on the dead man's shirt - but if not I would want to hear a better case of self-defense. Good thing I'm not the prosecutor there, eh?
patentnonsense ~

From the latest Arizona Republic article about the incident:
"Kuenzli was 8 feet away when Fish fired his first shot, and 6 inches away when he fired his third."

I'd say that meets your criteria...

pax
 
New Article -- more information

From http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0601hikershooting01.html -- posted under fair use rules for purposes of discussion only.
Coconino trail killing puts heat on official

County attorney decries 'mob' rule

Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 1, 2004 12:00 AM


Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance said he cannot let a "lynch-mob mentality" sway his judgment in deciding the case of a hiker who claims self-defense in gunning down an unarmed man in the woods north of Payson.

Hance is being besieged by Arizonans demanding that charges be filed against Harold "Hal" Fish, 57, in the May 11 shooting of Grant Kuenzli.

The killing has sparked more public response in his northern Arizona county than any other case in recent memory, said Hance, who pledged to consider the case on its merits.

Fish admits he shot the 43-year-old Payson man three times in the chest along a Coconino National Forest trail after he said Kuenzli and his three dogs attacked him.

Kuenzli's family, friends and supporters say Fish overreacted to the snarling dogs.

Hance could get the case this week from Coconino County sheriff's investigators. He then must determine whether a reasonable person, under the same circumstances Fish encountered, would believe it necessary to use deadly force in self-defense.

That is no easy task.

"Anybody who shoots an unarmed man three times has a lot of explaining to do," Hance said. "That's just the way it is."

Fish could face charges ranging from aggravated assault to first-degree murder, Hance said.

Fish and his attorney, Reed King, did not return calls seeking comment. In his only public statements last week, Fish told The Arizona Republic that he feared for his life when Kuenzli charged at him with "this look in his eyes" and swinging his fists.

But the retired Phoenix teacher would not say why he shot Kuenzli three times in the chest instead of shooting the dogs. Fish was not hurt by the dogs, which scattered after the shooting. They now are in a Flagstaff dog pound.

The shooting has drawn national attention since Coconino County sheriff's Detective Scott Feagan called it justified.

Feagan's conclusion angered Kuenzli's sister, Linda Altmeter, 46, of Fowler, Ill., who met with the detective.

Altmeter said investigators told her:

• Fish had been carrying a hiking stick that he dropped when a chow-mix dog named Hank charged him.

• He pulled a 10mm semiautomatic pistol out of his backpack and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dog.

• Kuenzli was 8 feet away when Fish fired his first shot, and 6 inches away when he fired his third.

Altmeter, a drug and alcohol counselor, said her brother would not have attacked Fish. She imagines that he ran toward Fish shouting at him not to shoot the dogs.

"I just think he got a little trigger-happy," she said. Altmeter is upset that her brother has been portrayed as a "loose cannon, with no friends, no job and homeless."

"He was a loving, sensitive person who wouldn't hurt a flea unless it was on his dog," she said.

The portrait of Kuenzli painted by his sister, mother and friends is of a quiet, peaceful man who had never married and dabbled in various jobs including firefighting and pet photography.

Youngest of 3

Kuenzli was the youngest of three children of Alfred and Corinne Kuenzli, both psychology professors in Alton, Ill. They divorced when Grant was 6 years old.

His mother, now Corinne Hawkins, 75, who lives in Alton, said her son was bright, active in sports and a Boy Scout. She had not seen him in nearly 15 years, but they exchanged letters.

Grant Kuenzli moved to Arizona about the time his father died in 1989 and became a firefighter at the Grand Canyon.

He later moved to the Phoenix area, where he worked about 10 months as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department, ending in April 1999.

His sister and a former co-worker said Kuenzli also worked at an East Valley hospital as a medical assistant.

Altmeter and John McCauley, a friend in Payson, said Kuenzli was on medical disability. but they did not know any details.

McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog park, allowed Kuenzli to receive mail at McCauley's Payson home. In recent months, Kuenzli lived out of his small car, with a "Be Nice" bumper sticker on it, in the woods surrounding Payson.

Kuenzli volunteered at the Payson Humane Society and had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer. His yellow Labrador retriever, Maggie, was a therapy dog that Kuenzli took to senior centers.

Lived in the forest

Forest rangers discovered Kuenzli living illegally in the Tonto National Forest near Payson and asked him to move.

McCauley said Kuenzli moved his camp north of Payson near the Pine Canyon Trail, where he was killed.

Altmeter, who visited the shooting site just off Arizona 87, south of Clints Well, said her family wants her brother's "good name to be restored" and some recognition by the courts that the shooting was unjustified.

"Justice for me would be Harold Fish saying, 'Yeah, I overreacted and I'm sorry for the loss I created,' " she said.

Her family will see what the Coconino County attorney decides, she said, before weighing whether to pursue a wrongful-death lawsuit.

"I profited from Grant's life. I don't want to profit from his death," Altmeter said.

pax
 
Newspapers are next to worthless: Ms. Altmer, the guy's Mom and his sister's statements are irrelevant. They were not there.
 
QUOTE: ____________________________________________________________
‘Fish had been carrying a hiking stick that he dropped when a chow-mix dog named Hank charged him.’

’He pulled a 10mm semiautomatic pistol out of his backpack and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dog.’

’Kuenzli was 8 FEET AWAY when Fish fired his first shot, and 6 inches away when he fired his third.’
____________________________________________________________

For the record, I am intimately familiar with, ‘Tueller Drills’. They are an excellent method to defend oneself against criminals; as a matter of fact I, personally, endorse extending the response range from 21 to 40 feet in all law enforcement scenarios.

The sad question I, now, have to express is; ‘Why’ do I appear to be the only person, here, who is able to grasp that Grant Kuenzli gave his life to protect three dogs?’ Mr. Kuenzli wasn’t closing to attack; instead he collapsed in the arms of his timorous assassin. At some future date the shooter is going to have to answer before God for what he did to Grant Kuenzli that day. This whole event is so incongruous! Where is the logic in, ‘triple-tapping’ a man who might just as easily been, ‘leg-shot’ and, thereafter, giving him a pillow and covering him with a, ‘space blanket’. To quote General McAuliffe; ‘Nuts!’ (Or might it have been guilt?)

The, so-called, ‘powder burn’ evidence doesn’t damn Mr. Kuenzli – instead it exonerates him! I have the, ‘gut feeling’ that this entire episode would have been better handled with the support arm extended, the gun held at retention, and the command issued; ‘Stop or I’ll shoot!’

Some sort of, ‘moral spark’ is required within the heart of a man in order to keep him from the impulse to murder. To date. I see no evidence of any kind of, ‘moral hesitation’ in these accounts – only an unabashed willingness to end human life! Shame on everyone who continues to endorse this shooter’s actions and, so completely, fails to recognize this event as the awful tragedy that it, actually, is. Very, very sad! For the first time in my life I feel embarrassed to be a fellow NRA member; and, I will assure you that, the next group of kids I teach how to shoot is going to learn a whole lot more than, just, marksmanship. I, now, retire; the field is yours.

Refer: Matthew, 12:34-37; 13:15; and 15:18-20
 
Mr. Kuenzli wasn’t closing to attack; instead he collapsed in the arms of his timorous assassin.

Hrmm.. not what the news reports seem to say. Definately not what the detective who was on scene said. Perhaps you witnessed it personally?

Where is the logic in, ‘triple-tapping’ a man who might just as easily been, ‘leg-shot’

you say you've been shooting a lot? At moving targets? While under attack? All I gotta say is, if you think taking out the leg of a man CHARGING AT YOU while under stress yourself is an easy shot, you're a darn sight better with a pistol than I am.

-K
 
Arc's logic has gone... downhill, as this thread has progressed.

Mr. Fish drew, fired into the ground, undoubtedly drew down on the other guy and probably issued a verbal warning AFTER the warning shot, and waited until the charging man was EIGHT FEET AWAY before firing. What else would you have him do?

Anyone who charges to within 8 feet of an armed man who has already fired into the ground and drawn down on him is a LUNATIC WACKO who is OBVIOUSLY not in a rational state of mind. Period.
 
Arc Angel
as a matter of fact I, personally, endorse extending the response range from 21 to 40 feet in all law enforcement scenarios.
Yet there's something wrong when a non-LEO shoots an attacker from eight feet?
This whole event is so incongruous! Where is the logic in, ‘triple-tapping’ a man who might just as easily been, ‘leg-shot’ and, thereafter, giving him a pillow and covering him with a, ‘space blanket’.
So you're saying that he should have shot to wound an attacker who was charging him from eight feet away?
The sad question I, now, have to express is; ‘Why’ do I appear to be the only person, here, who is able to grasp that Grant Kuenzli gave his life to protect three dogs?’
Incorrect, the dogs were intelligent enough to leave after the warning shot; Kuenzli decided to continue his approach.
I have the, ‘gut feeling’ that this entire episode would have been better handled with the support arm extended, the gun held at retention, and the command issued; ‘Stop or I’ll shoot!’
Some reports are saying that Fish did just that but Kuenzli kept charging him anyway. But even if the reports are wrong, a man with a gun who fires a warning shot and then aims at you clearly intends to shoot. The person who keeps approaching said man either has bad intentions or is no longer in his right mind.
 
Arc Angel

incongruous! Where is the logic in, ‘triple-tapping’ a man who might just as easily been, ‘leg-shot’ and, thereafter, giving him a pillow and covering him with a, ‘space blanket’.

Where is the logic of shooting at a leg? in a fight you shoot centermass.
Maybe some IPSC,IDPA world champ can hit a leg in the middle of fight between three dogs and a crazy guy,I wouldn't recommend he try and I doubt any shooting instuctor would recommend..
wa_artery1.gif

See that huge red line in the leg? it's called the Femoral Artery,you get shot there and you're dead in minutes.
So much for the often seen in hollywood productions tactic of shooting someone in the leg.:banghead:
My Drill Sgt said shoot centermass.
My Security guard instructor (who is a Federal LEO and police shooting instructor as well) says shoot centermass
 
Last edited:
Why’ do I appear to be the only person, here, who is able to grasp that Grant Kuenzli gave his life to protect three dogs?’
Ummm... Because it just ain't so?

If the dogs had been in danger, at least one of them would have been shot. Remember, Mr. Fish was capable of putting 3 shots COM on a charging human in a relatively short amount of time. If he had wanted to shoot the dogs he would have done so. He clearly avoided shooting the dogs--even calling his first shot a warning shot.

Mr. Kuenzli attacked an armed man and suffered the consequences.

I do understand better where you're coming from now.

Let's stop a second and think. EVEN if Mr. Kuenzli had been motivated as you say, how does that change things? Mr. Fish was presented with a split-second decision--a man rushed at him and kept coming even after the man had CLEARLY been made aware that he was armed.

It all comes back to this. Once you clearly display your gun and the other guy keeps coming, he's making the decision FOR you.
 
As nicely as I know how to say it; ‘In my opinion, any CCW holder who fails to grasp the haste and misanthropy to this event, also, shouldn’t be carrying a gun – period.’

RepublicanMan respectfully disagrees with your position

edited by moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RepublicanMan respectfully disagrees with your position

edited by moderator

Having tired of Arc Angel's high-minded "logic", I'll simply leave my response as:

Specialized does, too.

My first reaction probably wasn't alot cleaner than RepublicanMan's.
 
Birdv please explain

Shooting the man does not stop the threat.
The dog walker died after being shot,the dogs ran away after hearing the warning shot.
The shot stopped the threat (dog walker).
Unless you think the mans ghost is a threat?
please explain.
 
"Fish had no wounds from the dogs."


That is what concerns me. I have owned SEVERAL Chows....when they get within 6 feet of you and want to bite....you're bit. Thats all there is to it. I think the story may have left out some facts, but if not....then I would arrest this guy on the spot.

Bad shoot.
 
Mr. Kuenzli wasn’t closing to attack;
Wow, you can tell what the dead guy was thinking?

You should go into business

"For all your psychic questions dial 1-900-555-ARC-A"

:rolleyes:

In spite of how ridiculous this thread is getting, lets all remember
The Presumption of Innocence; its not just a good idea, it's the law!
 
I have owned SEVERAL Chows

Maybe the shooter never owned any chows. It's all well and good for experienced dog handlers to assume that they could guess the intent of the dogs. I probably could. But if the gentleman in question was not a dog handler, the dogs could well provide general alarm, confusion and fear. Then to have someone running at you, clenched fists, yelling something you might not be able to hear (under stress hearing is pretty much gone), not responding to your warning shot or YOUR verbal warnings, that could well be the "reasonable fear" that all the training officers tell you makes a shoot defensible.

Maybe a tragedy, but it sounds like a righteous shoot. Of course, after all the lawsuits, he'll have to wonder if it had to happen...I feel for him.
 
From time to time the issue of some apparent need to shoot a dog has come up at TFL and THR. I have read posts from some of our normally-calm members who speak of what horribles they would inflict upon anybody who shot their dog. IOW, very emotional.

It seems to me the described-as-mild Mr. Kuenzlie, also described to be a dog lover, just might have "lost it", himself, when he realized what was developing. In part, the "clenched fists" item.

Maybe Mr. Fish is not very familiar with dog behavior. Possibly his warning shot did indeed stop the chow's presumed attack. Six or so feet? A 10mm? That's loud. Further, the next three shots scared all the dogs away.

So "the facts" could easily show a righteous shooting, with the primary requirement being that Mr. Fish felt in fear for his life or of serious injury.

Lordy, I dunno...

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top