Exactly! That’s what bothers me so much about this homicide – I see where I might have done this myself! Basically, I’m an easy going person. The thought of someone, else, (Even someone with a gun in his hand) actually shooting me when, in fact, I mean him no physical harm, might not occur to me until I saw the muzzle flash! (Or in this particular case 3 muzzle flashes!)
So far, there is no evidence of weapon use or experience in Kuenzli’s background. Neither is it fair to keep referring to him as, ‘crazy’. Grant Kuenzli had his emotional challenges to face in life; but, he certainly wasn’t crazy. I’m a great dog lover, myself; I’ve bred Pit bulls and support the local animal rescue shelter. Were we to have known each other, Grant and I might have been friends.
There a wide gulf between yelling at someone and, even, simple assault and battery. (Which did NOT occur in this homicide.) Previously mentioned Florida case law suggests that unarmed assault and battery does NOT condone the use of deadly force. Grant Kuenzli, to the best of my knowledge, has no record of assault in ANY degree on anyone.
It is entirely possible that Kuenzli may not have, so much as, dreamed that one man would shoot another. We, all, know that there are people in this world who are largely pacifistic in their thinking, and do NOT behave in the same manner as the rest of us. Kuenzli may have wanted to, simply, place his body between the shooter, and his beloved dogs. That’s not something he should have been executed for.
On an entirely practical note: I carry two guns and a knife everyday of my life. I am by anyone's definition of the term an experienced gunman. I consider myself to be God-fearing and socially ethical, too. In my heart-of-hearts I know that I wouldn’t have shot Kuenzli as he came at me – Not with empty hands, I wouldn’t have! I strongly suspect that I would have been holstering in order to meet him with open hands to try and calm him down. (That WAS an option, too, correct!) If I apply this standard to my own behavior, then, I have to ascribe it to the Kuenzli homicide, too.
The way I see it, as the gun culture continues to expand in America, (And it IS expanding.) too many semi-skilled undisciplined civilians are hitting the highways and byways with guns on their belts. Years ago I only had to worry about bad guys with guns; today, I have to worry about everyone with a gun – good and bad, alike! Nowadays, I only shoot with other gunmen whom I know well. I never go to the range alone; and I am extremely leery of anyone I meet who wants to do something like take his, ‘trophy’ out of the holster to show it off.
In the past 10 years I can’t count the number of, ‘civilians with guns’ that have done something like: load a weapon while pointing the muzzle in my direction, swept me with the muzzle while handling a gun, or made the god-awful mistake of freely handling an, ‘empty gun’ around me that was subsequently discovered to fully charged!
Human nature being what it is, I have to imagine that once one of these civilians pulls a gun everybody is in danger; and once that trigger is pulled the first time – for whatever reason – it’s ridiculously easy for, ‘Joe Civilian’ to just keep on shooting. The gun’s out; it’s been fired; the shooter’s suddenly, ‘empowered’; and, now, any excuse will do!
The reasons to prosecute the shooter in this case have nothing to do with liberal or conservative themes. A civilized society, simply, cannot allow any, ‘hair-trigger precedent’ of this ill-defined nature to be set. The shooter, here, may be or become an object of popular sympathy. That’s understandable. People do tend to favor the living over the dead.
Unfortunately for the shooter in this homicide, there’s no clearly definable evidence of attack. As previously mentioned Florida case law points out: The mere issuance of a verbal threat, alone, is insufficient reason to use deadly force. (And, let’s not forget that we have, only, the shooter’s word that a threat was issued.) By the shooter’s own admission, the dogs had already retreated. I believe him here, too, because this would explain, ‘Why’ none of them were shot. Kuenzli was coming forward, all right; and, again by the shooter’s admission, without a visible weapon in either hand. Again unfortunately for the shooter no physical contact and, worse, no personal injury occurred in this incident to anyone except the victim.
For the record, the shooter’s story HAS been changing since he was originally interviewed immediately after the shooting. Subsequent reports continue to paint Kuenzli as more and more threatening. I’ve said it before; and I’ll say it, again: This is a very poor example of a, ‘righteous shoot’. I, myself, wouldn’t handle a sidearm in such a quick and irresponsible manner; and I very much doubt that a majority of THR posters would – either. Most of us (but apparently not all of us) know better!
This case needs to be prosecuted for, both, everybody’s protection as well as the general public good. Imagine the social precedent that would be set if it were not! All of our CHL’s would have to start with, ‘007’; and any flimsy excuse to open fire would, then, suffice. Nothing Grant Kuenzli did that afternoon warranted his execution. He didn’t have an easy life; that he met with an unexpected sudden death is irrefutable. Perhaps, someone should offer a novena for his soul. Not a bad idea – right!
