Dog walker shot dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that we're all being misled by the title--"Dog walker shot dead." It sounds like a more accurate title would be, "Old man shoots assailant." The dogs are almost incidental to the story. The relevant point is that the decedent was charging and threatening Mr. Fish after he was told to stop, and after a warning shot was fired. That is a situation that in which lethal force is reasonable.
 
This is totally insane. People are defending Mr. Fish based solely on speculation. The fact is that he shot an unarmed man because he may have felt threatened by someone who may or may not have been out to hurt him. And since he is the only witness how can it be verified that he warned his "attacker" to stop before he fired?

The next time someone cuts you off in your car and then makes threatening gestures when you show irritation why don't you shoot them? I mean hell, if a dog is a potentially lethal weapon, and a fist is a potentially lethal weapon then a car is really dangerous and so when someone makes you nervous on the freeway you may as well blast 'em. It's possible they might be out to kill you. And besides, after you shoot them who is going to know the difference right?

I am not implying Mr. Fish falsified anything but do you see my point here? How can we possibly know what happened? How can we pass judgment when the second side of the story cannot be told?

I am leaving this thread and will not return as the general attitude towards ending another persons life seems very cavalier. CCW is a privilege not a right, regardless of the keep and bear arms crowd, it is a great responsibility. And shooting when you are nervous is simply not an acceptable solution. Perhaps Mr. Fish was justified, perhaps he wasn't. He is really the only one that knows what went down. I am inclined to believe that there is more to this story than we know, but I am not inclined to pass judgment on what happened as all I have to go by is a poorly written newspaper article.

I am a gun owner myself and firmly believe in the right to defend myself should the need arise. However, I have no opinion one way or the other as to who is in the right in this situation. I just want to point out that this is the type of stuff that the anti-gun crowds feed on. This type of thing will be turned against us.

I read an ad in a magazine the other day and it had a great quote in it:

Everything that slows us down and forces patience, everything that sets us back into the slow cycles of nature, is a help.
-May Sarton
 
There is OBVIOUSLY information missing from this story. As eager as the cops are to charge someone in a self defense shooting, if there is any possibility that the shooting wasn't justified in their eyes, the shooter would have been arrested.

No mention of the dog's actions after the warning shot was made, so who knows what they are doing. But, the law of self preservation dictates that in a moment of such intense stress, the shooter is going to shoot at the biggest percieved threat first. The most cold blooded killer in the country is STILL going to shoot at a charging dog rather than anything else if he thinks the dog is attacking him, as that is something that has to be dealt with NOW. So I think its fairly safe to assume that the dogs were not percieved to be the biggest threat at that point.

I'll tell you something else. I would personally consider any MAN who continues to charge AFTER a warning shot, AFTER verbal advice to stop charging, and AFTER being drawn down on, to be a completely crazy, unglued individual at that point in time. Deep in the woods, 57 years old, up against 3 dogs and a crazy charging man, after a warning shot has already been fired :uhoh:... the options are limited.
 
This is totally insane. People are defending Mr. Fish based solely on speculation.
Click to expand...

And you are willing to condemn him based on speculation. I don't know about you, but I actually like the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty!'
 
What was the shooter’s greatest risk, here - That he might get pushed, shoved, or, maybe, punched in the eye?
Click to expand...

Ever seen a really nasty dog bite?
Ever seen what kind of damage a skilled, motivated attacker can do with his bare hands?

I dunno about you, but if I was a 57 year old man all alone in the woods, and I saw three attacking dogs and one screaming man with his fists all balled up running at me, I'd think the stakes were a little higher than being "pushed, shoved, or maybe punched in the eye"

And yes, it looks to me like a dog attack DID take place... but fast thinking and fast action on the part of the victim of the attack prevented it from being successful. Which is after all what CCWers train for, right? I mean, is it only a righteous shooting if you have to be wheeled into the ER along with your attacker? Heck with that...

-K
 
FIRST: Deadly force CAN be legally used against an unarmed person. The first TX CHL shooting was just such an event and was ruled justifiable. The attacker was very large while the CHL holder was small and unable to retreat. This is especially applicable if the unarmed attacker is clearly more capable than the shooter, or enjoys some other clear advantage over the shooter.

SECOND: A person with dogs isn't considered to be legally unarmed.

THIRD: A person who charges a man who is holding a gun is dangerous by definition. If he is allowed to close with the armed defender he is also allowed the chance to arm himself (with the defender's gun). He's already demonstrated either a severe absence of rationality or a surprising lack of concern for his safety--giving a person like that a chance to arm himself is NOT a wise decision. If I display my gun and warn an attacker and he keeps coming, he's not getting to me unpunctured. The simple fact that he is willing to continue his attack against an obviously armed defender makes him very dangerous in my book.
 
Last edited:
Apology to Arc Angel

Arc Angel

Having reconsidered what you have posted and my subsequent reply to said post I feel that I owe you an apology. I would also like to extend this apology to the moderators of this board as well as my fellow High Roaders. You are entitled to your opinion(s), and I should not have made my attack personal.

HiWayMan
 
Having read the original news article in its entirety, there is one comment that I'd like to offer here. It may not prove to be popular with some THR members. That won't bother me.

Based on my own experiences, I've come to the conclusion that individuals that allow their dogs to move about without a leash are of lower overall quality than those folks who properly restrain their animals. There are precious few exceptions here.


But, people walking dogs without a leash is one of my pet peeves. Not only is it illegal in many places, it's common courtesy not to let your dog invade others' personal space (whether the dog is friendly or not).
Click to expand...
You have my unqualified agreement here, gbelleh.

TM
 
Sheesh. What a bunch of scaredy cats. How come so many of you are afraid of dogs? I have a dog, a big dog, he is never leased, ever. Stay home; safe inside. The outdoors, other people, dogs, it is all too much for you. Stay home. More room for me and my dog to run, walk, enjoy life, whatever. The shooter in this original post is a gutless, frightened punk. He should not have a gun, he should not leave the safety of his house and venture into the 'wild' surrounding his little suburb.
 
Gee shermacman, what a smooth-talking silver-tongued devil you are.

Remember this is The High Road and name calling, even to someone who can't hear you, is not our style.

I have never leased my dogs either. All of mine were owned outright. :neener: I have owned several big dogs, non eof them were dangerous but all of them were deadly. Good thing they were all well trained and well behaved.

You weren't there when this incident happened were you?
As an ownwer of an unleashed big dog I am sure you are quite familiar with their reactions to differents stimuli?
Unless you have a crystal ball that can show you exactly what happened you don't know the dynamics of the original encounter. You don't know the history of these animals. You don't know their personalities. and neither did Mr Kuenzli who felt he was being attacked.

Remember these were animal shelter dogs. The way they act in confimement may very well have been totally different to the way they behaved "in the wild". There is a real possibility that these two dogs didn't grow up in a loving home.

I am glad your big dog is such a big ol' loveable ball of fur. My belief is that the Dog is truely man's best friend. But not all dogs are equal. Just like humans, they are products of their environments. Do a search on THR using the words Dog Attack and see the destruction that is possible.

Have you ever seen the damage an angry dog can do to a human being?
Have you ever seen an angry Chow? A German shepherd mix, depending on the "mix" could be a very high strung animal. And has the capability of doing a lot of damage.

Have you ever been bitten by a dog just because you were walking down the street? I have. Have you ever had a stray dog attack you in your own front yard? I have. Have you ever had to have plastic to repair the damage when a friend's gentle "Oh he never bites" pet dog tried to chew your face off? Well neither have I but my nephew still has some small scars.

So don't go around insulting people until you have been chased a mile in their shoes.
 
I'm gonna have to agree with the people that say keep your dog on a leash or deal with the consequences if your unleashed dog is having a bad day and decides to go after someone for whatever reason.

I've personally never had any use for dogs. I don't have a problem with people owning dogs... even dangerous ones, any more than I have a problem with people owning 'assault weapons'. But similar to owning guns, owning dogs comes with a big responsibility that some people are obviously unable to handle.

My worst encounter with a dog was with my neighbor's fairly young boxer. It roamed all over the place. Then one day it decided my right calf looked pretty tasty, and lit right into it. It held on for a while, shredded my pants, and cut my leg up. A few solid kicks in the nose made it decide to go elsewhere. To my neighbor's credit, he was very sorry about the incident, payed for new pants, doctor bills, etc, without question and with a smile. And, he immediately fenced in his back yard to keep the dog from roaming. I think he was scared I was going to sue him. Luckily there was no permanent damage to my leg, and in retrospect, it was also lucky that my leg was in fact the victim rather than some 10 year old kid running around. Had I been armed at the time though, that dog may very well have been no more.

A different neighbor had a chow that used to roam as well. It would run right up in the yard and start growling.. if you were out getting the mail, etc. The owner realized what could happen and got rid of the chow.

Like firearms though, I think you've got the right to own a dog until you prove you can't handle the responsibility.
 
Follow Up

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0525hikerfolo25.html

Shooter: He had this look in his eyes
advertisement

Phoenix hiker tells of Payson trail death

Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 25, 2004 12:00 AM


Harold Fish said he had only seconds to react to an attack by three dogs and an unarmed man he fatally shot in the woods north of Payson.

The 57-year-old retired teacher said during a telephone interview Monday that he had no choice but to shoot 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli after the Payson man's dogs charged at him.

Fish, speaking publicly for the first time about the May 11 shooting, would not say why he shot Kuenzli instead of the dogs or whether Kuenzli verbally threatened him.

"He was on top of me. I couldn't get away," Fish said, adding that Kuenzli rushed to within a few yards of him. "He had this look in his eyes. . . . He was punching at me."

The dogs scattered after the shooting. A chow mix named Hank; a German shepherd mix, Sheba; and Maggie, a yellow Labrador retriever, were recovered and are in a Flagstaff animal shelter being held as evidence.

Coconino County sheriff's Detective Scott Feagan said last week that the evidence shows Fish acted in self-defense in shooting the unarmed man along Pine Canyon Trail, about 25 miles north of Payson.

County Attorney Terry Hance said Monday that his office will review the evidence for any charges against Fish and that a decision could come later this week.

"The comments made by the sheriff's investigator are his own and do not necessarily represent anyone else's opinion," Hance said.

The detective's statements about the shooting stunned those who knew Kuenzli, a pet photographer, as a kind man who loved dogs and the outdoors.

Josh Harris, 22, a former neighbor of Kuenzli at a Mesa apartment complex, described him as "one of the most non-violent people I've ever come in contact with."

But that is not the man that Fish said he encountered at the end of a 10-mile hike at about 6:45 p.m., a half-hour before sunset, on a warm day in the Coconino National Forest. Kuenzli was car-camping off the trail.

Fish recalled that the "dogs left the campsite at Mach 1 speed with the chow-mix in the lead."

The dogs were not leashed, which is illegal.

Fish, a Phoenix resident, said he fired a warning shot at the chow. He then fired three shots from a 10mm semiautomatic pistol that he said struck Kuenzli as he charged down the hill.

"I tried to take care of him (after the shooting)," Fish said. "I put my pack under his head and a space (emergency) blanket over him."

It took about 45 minutes to summon help for Kuenzli. By that time, he was dead.

Fish questioned why Kuenzli did not have the dogs restrained. He also criticized the Payson Humane Society, which lent the chow-mix and shepherd-mix dogs to Kuenzli, a volunteer at their shelter.

The Payson shelter knew the chow-mix was dangerous, Fish said.

Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president, disputes that, saying the shelter euthanizes any dog that exhibits vicious behavior.

However, Detective George Ratliff of the Gila County Sheriff's Office in Payson, said he and his partner, Brian Havey, encountered the same chow at a home in Pine.

Ratliff said that the dog bit him on the back of the leg and that he pulled his weapon to shoot the dog before the owner finally restrained it.

Fish said he was leery of vicious dogs after his 12-year-old daughter was bitten on the leg by a neighbor's dog about two weeks before the shooting.

Fish, who retired a year ago after teaching Spanish at Tolleson High School, is the father of seven children.

County attorney Hance said his office expects to get the shooting report from Detective Feagan this week. A decision on charges will follow within three or four days, unless more investigation is needed, he said.





Reach the reporter at [email protected] or (602) 444-6862.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Also sounds like a case that shows we should also carry some type of less than lethal device such as pepper spray. I remember someone saying to the effect that "If your only tool is a hammer all your problems start to look like nails."

I really disagree that the shooter acted cowardly. Remove him from the scenario and insert you with one of your young children in the woods. You see your ten year old daughter scared to death of the dogs and some stranger with clenched fists yelling in a rage charging her after you command him to stop. Sad shoot indeed but still a good one IMO.

I also see that no one here has ever one a dog that is ill tempered towards strangers. You know how your dogs are, but I don't. A dog charging me or my family appearing to attack will not get the chance to show he was really a nice wonder dog.

Out...
 
OK BluesBear, good catch on the spelling typo...! In fact I do not lease or leash my dog.(!) I have lived in urban areas most of my life and I have had my run-ins with vicious dogs. I am a runner; it is rare, but I have been biten, chased and harassed by dogs. I have have angry encounters with their owners. I would not hesitate to shoot one (dog or owner) if the circumstance arose. And no, I do not have a crystal ball to know precisely what happened in the original post. Nor do I need one. If I am going to shot and kill another human being that is a last action, a last recourse.
All the dead guy did was yell. The dogs didn't bite. Three shots under duress to center mass means that the shooter had complete control of the situation. And he exercised that control by murdering the dead guy. Life is full of out of control lunatics. It does seem amazing those of us who value our Second Amendment rights are so eager to have dogs on leashes and their owners subject to murder. Life is complicated, life is precious. You can't go around shooting anyone who forgot to memorize Robert's Rules of Order.
I did not mean to insult anyone other than the shooter, so I apologize for that.
 
"How come so many of you are afraid of dogs?"

Dog Bite Statistics
There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. In a 10-year period, the number of dogs rose by 2% while the number of bites increased by 37%. There are almost 5 million victims annually -- about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Between 15 and 20 die per year. Most of the victims are children, almost always bitten in the face by the family dog or a friend's dog.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

I like dogs...I don't have one now, but I've had one most of my life. I'd shoot a thousand of them before letting my kid get attacked.
 
I agree that this is a situation where a lesser degree of force could have been an option. The hard part is Mr. Fish didn't have any other option available to him at the time. I think I would I have given one last verbal challenge before shooting, but it is always easy to arm chair quarterback.
 
Another Perspective: The Payson Roundup's Coverage

A quick search produced the following story that will, I think, go quite a ways toward filling a few of the gaps we've all been so hotly debating. Please note that not all of the gaps are filled. It is significant, though, that the article mentions the following:
  • The police conducted a long and intense investigation, given the simplicity of the scene.
  • The shooter did his best to help his attacker after the incident.
  • The shooter was the one that contacted officials and summoned help for the dying man.
  • The lead detective says THE SCENE will show that Fish was under attack -- not just Fish's opinion.
  • By not having the dogs leashed, the decedent was in the process of committing a crime when he attacked the shooter.
  • Arizona law allows lethal force to be used, under the right circumstances, against an "unarmed" assailant.
  • At least one of the dogs in question attacked a LEO, and was almost shot for it, prior to this incident.
It's just my opinion, but this article seems to be written in a more objective manner than that of the 'big city' paper's.

I have my own personal guidelines for this sort of situation. I believe that an attacking dog is more likely doing what his instincts tell him, unless he's clearly been trained to attack and some evidence of his being instructed to attack exists. I believe the warning shot was a good idea, and it appears to have had the intended effect. On the other hand, I believe humans have the mental capacity to restrain themselves and, in situations where they could reasonably be expected to do so but don't, I would absolutely take the shot if the law and the circumstances were on my side.

Sound cold? I've been attacked by a big dog (two surgeries and a sh*tload of PT) and kicked, punched, and shot at by humans. The dog got a pass because he was following his instincts, and because I didn't have a weapon to use against him. The humans got worse than they gave, though they're still alive with no lasting effects.

If I have to kill a dog to avoid an attack, it will be nothing personal, because at worst they will have only been doing what they were trained to do. If a human attacks and is a credible threat to life and limb, then God help that human, because He'll be the next one to visit with them. I have a feeling Mr. Fish sees it the same way.
 
I've been following the posts with great interest over the last couple of days and I say "bravo" to those of you who realize that without being there or, at the least, listening to a full disclosure of the facts (as stated by Mr. Fish) we are in no real position to pass judgement.

I seriously doubt if there is anyone reading this fourm and carries a gun for defense that isn't well aware of what to say (and not to say) should they find themselves involved in a shooting.

This to me is a sad situation all around with no real winners. If Mr. Fish is like most decent people, I'm certain that he isn't glad he had the opportunity to practice his shooting skills and if Mr. Kuenzli had it to do over again might have chosen a different tact in handling the problem, but the fact remains we don't know any of these things for sure. All we know is that a man was out for a hike and ran into another man that had three unleashed dogs.
 
Sheesh. What a bunch of scaredy cats. How come so many of you are afraid of dogs? I have a dog, a big dog, he is never leasHed, ever. Stay home; safe inside. The outdoors, other people, dogs, it is all too much for you. Stay home. More room for me and my dog to run, walk, enjoy life, whatever. The shooter in this original post is a gutless, frightened punk. He should not have a gun, he should not leave the safety of his house and venture into the 'wild' surrounding his little suburb.
Click to expand...
I'll say it again: Based on my own experiences, I've come to the conclusion that individuals that allow their dogs to move about without a leash are of lower overall quality than those folks who properly restrain their animals. There are precious few exceptions here.

I did not mean to insult anyone other than the shooter, so I apologize for that.
Click to expand...
There's not much iron in those words, given the contents and mood of your initial contribution to this thread. Nonetheless, apology accepted.

TM
 
How come so many of you are afraid of dogs?
Click to expand...


Ever seen what a dog can do to a man? Even a BIG man? An attacking dog is a credible threat. 3 attacking dogs is lethal. I might choose not to shoot a single dog, but if 3 come at me they're getting shot.





The newer story doesn't really add any new information. We still know what we knew before, which isn't enough.
 
I came close to shooting a dog 2 weeks ago

I was walking my old dog (off leash) in a popular dog area of SF.
It was pitch Dark and I could hear my dog grazing and smell her old doggie
farts so I knew where she was.

Suddenly I hear running and growling behind me,like I allmost allways do in at scary noises in dark parks I raised my hand up and pressed the button on my surefire at the scary noise as I grabbed my glock (just put my hand on it ,did not draw) .
(I am an armed guard and was walking my dog on a break).
The big dog stopped immediately,gave a friendly bark,wagged his tail and ran back into the darkness:cool:

A minute later the owner came up and apoligized and explained that he was a big friendly yr old dog that she had just rescued and the doggie had no training.

I'm glad I had the surefire cause I would have shot the dog as it was growling and charging,but the bright light changed it from big scary and dark to big clumsy and friendly.:D

I love doggies,I've worked in animal shelters in both staff and volunteer positions.
From what I can glean from the limited facts presented,it looks like a clean shoot..
Chows are scary even when they do not have a history of biting police officers.
Humans that voluteer for Dean are even scarier to me then Chows:neener:
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
Click to expand...
I would protect my dog,no doubt,but I would plead with an armed man to spare there life rather then take him on unarmed.
Personally I would shoot some one who is punching and shoving me unless it was real obvious that I could physically overcome them,or pepper spray was ineffective.
I've seen and been in many fights and I know that death and mutilation is possible with bare hands and also that some weapons are not seen untill after the fight is over i.e those little hand held push knives and kubatons
 
sounds like a justified shooting to me?

what if your dogs tried to attack a police officer and he told you to stay back? but instead you threaten to kick his ass and keep advancing? I think a policeman would have done the same if he thought he was in danger of physical attack.
 
It appears this situation could have been handled with pepper spray.I would not want to have to explain to a jury(criminal or civil) why I could carry a firearm,extra mag, knife,cell phone and not carry pepper spray.
 
The totality of the reporting is obviously not the totality of the circumstances...

Obviously the Grand Jury is going to make the call based upon information we don't have. But, the information we do have clearly does not support a pre-emptive condemnation of the shooter. Even thought the dogs may have scattered, that doesn't mean that they couldn't come back. If one of the dogs was circling, rather than running away, the shooter may well have felt that a hand to hand physical struggle could result in much more than a mere push or punch. Imagine having a younger person of equal stature tie up your hands while a angry chow chews on your legs from behind. Obviously there are conjectural scenarios that break the other way as well. I'm willing to wait for more information before placing the blame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
4 Rules?
Replies
11
Views
941
Navy joe
N
fnbrowning
  • Locked
Ex Navy SEAL wants your 'salt rifle banned
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
7K
Avenger29
A
S
  • Locked
U.S. guns pour into Mexico
Replies
5
Views
481
McCall911
M
R
  • Locked
chairman of S&W and his interesting past
Replies
1
Views
711
Art Eatman
A
G
  • Locked
How many have to die before we put vital controls on guns?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
SoCalShooter
S
Back
Top