cerberus
member
found this posted on GlockTalk. Really stupid thing.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Dog walker shot dead
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
- Status
Zundfolge
Member
So who was stupid? The shooter or the guy with the unleashed dogs?
I don't understand why he put 3 10mms COM in the guy with the dogs, but the police seem to think the shoot was justified so that leads me to believe there's more to the story then what's in the article.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
Sounds like a bad deal all the way around.
I don't understand why he put 3 10mms COM in the guy with the dogs, but the police seem to think the shoot was justified so that leads me to believe there's more to the story then what's in the article.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
Sounds like a bad deal all the way around.
Devonai
Member
He felt threatened by the dogs so he shot the human? Like Zundfolge says something seems to be missing from this story.
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Absolutely unjustified. This guy is just a gutless punk who is frightened of his own shadow. He shouldn't have a gun and he really should never be allowed outside.
Kaylee
Member
Something missing?
Honestly, looks like a good shoot to me. A mistake on Kuenzil's part to take dogs with a known history of aggression into a public place while unleashed.
Stupid hurts.
-K
Honestly, looks like a good shoot to me. A mistake on Kuenzil's part to take dogs with a known history of aggression into a public place while unleashed.
Stupid hurts.
-K
Mostly Harmless
Member
Trouble is, his is the only side of the story we'll hear.
I'm sure that we've all heard the advice that after a shooting, we should be the first to inform the cops, because they'll tend to believe the person who calls it in.
Dogs can indeed be scary, and dangerous. Chances are though, the guy was running to help and yelling to scare the dogs off.
I'm sure that we've all heard the advice that after a shooting, we should be the first to inform the cops, because they'll tend to believe the person who calls it in.
Dogs can indeed be scary, and dangerous. Chances are though, the guy was running to help and yelling to scare the dogs off.
BluesBear
member
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Feagan related Fish's account of the shooting:
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6 feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious," McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor, said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July 1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.
Reach the reporter at [email protected] or (602) 444-6862.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Feagan related Fish's account of the shooting:
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6 feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious," McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor, said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July 1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.
Reach the reporter at [email protected] or (602) 444-6862.
grnzbra
Member
Sara's gonna just love this.
If the story presented is a reasonable relation of the facts I personally hope the shooter goes to prison.
Even if the shooter feared for his life (which I don't doubt at all) the threat was from the dog's not the dog walker. The walker was unarmed. The shooter should have taken out the Chow that charged him and retreated and continued shooting at the other dogs only as they presented additional threats.
The shooter, IMO, lost it. He was out of control and let his fear get the best of him. His judgement went to hell in a hand basket and he over reacted. He has shown himself to be a threat to society. At the very least he should lose his RKBA. I hope he spends some time with Bubba courtesy of the state for a year or three. Guys like him are just ammo for the anti's to use against us.
Even if the shooter feared for his life (which I don't doubt at all) the threat was from the dog's not the dog walker. The walker was unarmed. The shooter should have taken out the Chow that charged him and retreated and continued shooting at the other dogs only as they presented additional threats.
The shooter, IMO, lost it. He was out of control and let his fear get the best of him. His judgement went to hell in a hand basket and he over reacted. He has shown himself to be a threat to society. At the very least he should lose his RKBA. I hope he spends some time with Bubba courtesy of the state for a year or three. Guys like him are just ammo for the anti's to use against us.
L
Logistar
Guest
That just doesn't make sense. If I am being attacked by three dogs and their owner is NOT attacking me, WHY would I shoot the owner. (Would I even KNOW he was the owner?)
I would think at the very least you would take out the dog(s) first and THEN if the owner made a credible threat toward you, you MIGHT have to take him out. But then if I just watched you mow down my dogs (who apparently deserved it) I doubt that I will pose a big threat to you 'cause I just saw what happened the LAST time you were threatened.
This just doesn't make any sense. There must be more to it.
Logistar
I would think at the very least you would take out the dog(s) first and THEN if the owner made a credible threat toward you, you MIGHT have to take him out. But then if I just watched you mow down my dogs (who apparently deserved it) I doubt that I will pose a big threat to you 'cause I just saw what happened the LAST time you were threatened.
This just doesn't make any sense. There must be more to it.
Logistar
Josey
member
The dogwalker was a homeless oddball. He was not able to handle stress and anger. The background of the homeless, maladjusted and proven dangerous dogwalker will be brought out at the grand jury. The shooting was justifiable. The shooter is a good fellow who contributes to society. He does NOT belong in prison and comments to that effect are uncalled for. I can say no more. I will add that there are SO reports that confirm the chow was dangerous.
Sportcat
Member
We know the dog was six feet away, but how far away was the dog-walker when he was shot?
In most cases, shouldn't you shoot the closest threat first?
In most cases, shouldn't you shoot the closest threat first?
Josey made statements not not backed up by evidence to the effect that:
And how may I ask does someone from KY know so much about an incident that occured in AZ?
In any event whether the shooter contributes to society and the shootee was a homeless oddball is totally irrelevant. The shooter shot an unarmed man of equal height and weight prior to shooting the real threats which were (as noted by both the news article and Josey) the dogs.
Bad Shoot IMHO. AND I stand by my previous statement that based on the facts as presented in the news article IMO the shooter belongs in jail.
However, I am surprised that charges have yet to be filed - so maybe there is more to the story than presented in the news article.
And how may I ask does someone from KY know so much about an incident that occured in AZ?
In any event whether the shooter contributes to society and the shootee was a homeless oddball is totally irrelevant. The shooter shot an unarmed man of equal height and weight prior to shooting the real threats which were (as noted by both the news article and Josey) the dogs.
Bad Shoot IMHO. AND I stand by my previous statement that based on the facts as presented in the news article IMO the shooter belongs in jail.
However, I am surprised that charges have yet to be filed - so maybe there is more to the story than presented in the news article.
Luis Leon
Member
This is one sad story, regardless of the reputation of the shooter or the dogwalker... It seems like an over-reaction to shoot the human being... I would just shoot all three dogs over the walker... And, if after that the dog walker attacked, then he would be shot too, but only as a last resort.
To kill the human and let the dogs slide, which scare the shooter in the first place seems odd. Though I believe whole-heartedly in the RKBA... This shooter should definitely be scrutinized to the full extent of the law.
I too have encountered large, aggressive dogs on hikes/walks... I wouldn't hesitate to 'bust a cap' in an overly-aggressive dog... but shooting the owner?!.....
I wouldn't like to run into the shooter while walking my dog, leashed or unleashed.
Regards,
Luis Leon
To kill the human and let the dogs slide, which scare the shooter in the first place seems odd. Though I believe whole-heartedly in the RKBA... This shooter should definitely be scrutinized to the full extent of the law.
I too have encountered large, aggressive dogs on hikes/walks... I wouldn't hesitate to 'bust a cap' in an overly-aggressive dog... but shooting the owner?!.....
I wouldn't like to run into the shooter while walking my dog, leashed or unleashed.
Regards,
Luis Leon
BluesBear
member
One tiny detail.
.
Why didn't he shoot any of the dogs?
Plus, just because someone lives in the woods doesn't make him homeless.
Very few maladjusted homeless people have websites. Websites are usually operated by maladjusted people with homes.
.
Why didn't he shoot any of the dogs? Plus, just because someone lives in the woods doesn't make him homeless.
Very few maladjusted homeless people have websites. Websites are usually operated by maladjusted people with homes.
thumbtack
Member
This is a sad story and the article seems to leave a lot of imformaton out.
There isn't enough information in the article for the confident assertions some people are making.
If Kuenzli was running down the hill, fists clenched, yelling, "STOP! Don't shoot! I'll get the dogs!" then obviously Fish shouldn't have shot (the person -- he might have still needed to shoot a dog but that's a different thing). In which case, Fish should be charged for his unjustified use of deadly force.
On the other hand, if Kuenzli was running down the hill, fists clenched, yelling, "You mo-fo, I'm gonna kill you!" -- and didn't stop when told -- what's in his clenched fists? -- or yelling, "Sic' em Maggie! Kill him! I'll murder the bastard!" ... if that was the case, it'd be a good shoot and Fish should not be charged.
The important question is whether the elements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy were all present at the moment Fish pulled the trigger. Based on the account above, both ability and opportunity were undeniably present. So it comes down to jeopardy. Would a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what Fish knew at the time, believe that Kuenzli's behavior manifested an intent to kill or maim Fish?
If Kuenzli was yelling at the dogs, or yelling that he would get the dogs, no reasonable or prudent person would believe that Kuenzli intended to kill or maim Fish and jeopardy would not be present.
But if Kuenzli was yelling threats at Fish, or urging the dogs to continue the attack, then a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that Kuenzli intended to kill or maim Fish (using the dogs? using a weapon hidden in his clenched fist?). If this were the case, jeopardy was very likely present and the shoot was a good one.
The fact that the shooter has not been arrested leads me to believe that there is more to the story than what meets the eye. But simply going on what has been published, it very well could be a justified shoot.
pax
GASP! Give an idiot a gun; and he'll find an excuse to use it! This is a classic example of, 'Why' dumb-ass civilians shouldn't be allowed to carry any lethal weapon. The shooter overreacted - period. Now he is a murderer. Let me ask; 'Would you shoot some guy with three loose dogs in the park?' How about; 'Would you be upset if I were to shoot your father or brother for any of the same cockamamie reasons that this unscathed shooter has put forth?' Maybe, maybe, I could (somehow) reconcile this incident in my own mind if the shooter came out of the woods torn and bleeding; however, given the evidence, I see no plausible excuse for putting 3 rounds, center-chest, into an unarmed man while, simultaneously, ignoring his, ‘life-threatening’ dogs. I’ve been a dog breeder most of my adult life; and I carry two sidearms 24/7. My experience says these dogs were aggressive, yes; but definitely NOT attacking; or, else, the shooter would have, at least, been bitten and unable to focus his gun on the dog walker in the efficient lethal manner he was able to demonstrate.
Millions - perhaps, tens of millions - of dog owners exercise their pets off lead, everyday; and many of them do so in public parks. Is this common social behavior, now, going to become an acceptable legal excuse for homicide? Good God, people, what kind of standards are we setting for ourselves, here, by condoning this sort of timorous, ‘hair-trigger’ behavior! Who’s going to be next: you, me, or that, ‘not too bright’ guy down the street with a German Shepherd?
I’m trying very hard not to be, ‘heartless’ about this event. I don’t want to compound this tragedy by placing a 57 year old retiree in prison, either; but, at the very least, this guy’s mental competence to carry any lethal weapon should, now, be open to question; and his right to carry anything deadly should, also, be immediately revoked. It may be Arizona; but, this ain’t the old Wild West!
Zak Smith
Member
Jim March
Member
There are a LOT of people who innately believe "weapons are evil, always" and will react really strangely at the sight of one...utterly losing track of the underlying realities. And *morality*.
There's a decent chance the dog-walker was of this sort and once the gun came out and warning shot fired, the guy came completely unglued and did indeed become the worst threat beyond even the dogs.
Christ, I almost pulled a knife on a lunatic with a large rock on a TV set last week. It turns out to have been staged, a big joke I wasn't in on, but the people running the show were horrified afterwards that I was armed and that I damn near responded lethally to what turns out to be a joke threat.
Understand, guys, they're mad at ME, with no acknowledgement whatsoever that they were wrong in any way.
This has a similar smell about it - "WHAT ARE YOU DOING THREATENING MY DOGGIES WITH A GUN!?" or something.
There's a decent chance the dog-walker was of this sort and once the gun came out and warning shot fired, the guy came completely unglued and did indeed become the worst threat beyond even the dogs.
Christ, I almost pulled a knife on a lunatic with a large rock on a TV set last week. It turns out to have been staged, a big joke I wasn't in on, but the people running the show were horrified afterwards that I was armed and that I damn near responded lethally to what turns out to be a joke threat.
Understand, guys, they're mad at ME, with no acknowledgement whatsoever that they were wrong in any way.This has a similar smell about it - "WHAT ARE YOU DOING THREATENING MY DOGGIES WITH A GUN!?" or something.
CannibalCrowley
Member
Without a full account of the events, it's hard to decide on whether or not the shooting was justified. The walker may have been the closest or the most threatening at the time. Without a doubt the dogwalker was negligent in his actions, but whether or not his actions justified his death is in the hands of the system.
But if I had to bet on one or the other, I'd say that he was justified. It sounds to me that one of the dogs charged and the warning shot frightened the dog. Meanwhile Kuenzli was running towards Fish angrily and when he got close he was shot.
OTOH it could have happened in an entirely different way, but Fish is the only one who'll ever know for sure.
But if I had to bet on one or the other, I'd say that he was justified. It sounds to me that one of the dogs charged and the warning shot frightened the dog. Meanwhile Kuenzli was running towards Fish angrily and when he got close he was shot.
OTOH it could have happened in an entirely different way, but Fish is the only one who'll ever know for sure.
Read the story a few times.
Note that the story is notable slanted against the shooter. The author has mae up their mind that the shooter is guilty, however there isn't sufficient evidence in the article to support this.
Note that the shooter fired a warning shot at the dogs, rather than just shoot them. He was obviously hesitent to shoot a living creature, and tried to scare the dogs rather than killing them.
We only get one side of the story, the shooter's because he's the only survivor. He also had time while running to get help to get his story strait.
I doubt that his story was as vague as what the reporter tells us of:
I'd be willing to bet that he at least told the police that Kuenzli was yelling threats as he approached, and that he was obviously charging him, not the dogs.
The author left facts vague either becuase they did a bad job of getting the facts, or because they didn't support their obvious belief that the shooter should be arrested for murder.
The police obviously took a different view, and they went to the sight of the shooting and got more of the story than we are given.
Think about it. Would a guy that hesitated to shoot a dog, just fire off three rounds into the dog owner that wasn't charging at him?
His story is consistent. He says that the dog owner charged him with fists clenched and yelling at him, despite the fact that he was clearly holding a gun and yelled for the dog owner to stop. If his story is true, then it's justified self defense.
If you charge a clearly armed man who yells at you to stop, expect to get shot.
Note that the story is notable slanted against the shooter. The author has mae up their mind that the shooter is guilty, however there isn't sufficient evidence in the article to support this.
Note that the shooter fired a warning shot at the dogs, rather than just shoot them. He was obviously hesitent to shoot a living creature, and tried to scare the dogs rather than killing them.
We only get one side of the story, the shooter's because he's the only survivor. He also had time while running to get help to get his story strait.
I doubt that his story was as vague as what the reporter tells us of:
I'd be willing to bet that he at least told the police that Kuenzli was yelling threats as he approached, and that he was obviously charging him, not the dogs.
The author left facts vague either becuase they did a bad job of getting the facts, or because they didn't support their obvious belief that the shooter should be arrested for murder.
The police obviously took a different view, and they went to the sight of the shooting and got more of the story than we are given.
Think about it. Would a guy that hesitated to shoot a dog, just fire off three rounds into the dog owner that wasn't charging at him?
His story is consistent. He says that the dog owner charged him with fists clenched and yelling at him, despite the fact that he was clearly holding a gun and yelled for the dog owner to stop. If his story is true, then it's justified self defense.
If you charge a clearly armed man who yells at you to stop, expect to get shot.
- Status
Similar threads
