Fish case: A hiker's worst nightmare - Seattle GRE

[Dave Workman]

Arizona hiker Harold Fish gets new trial in fatal 2004 shooting at trailhead

The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner column takes a hard look at the appeals court ruling, the circumstances of the incident and self-defense against aggressive dogs and their owners from a WA state perspective

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...er-gets-new-trial-in-fatal-trailhead-shooting

If that doesn't work, try this

http://tinyurl.com/nefq2h

 

[cyclopsshooter]

momma always said washington was like a box of chocholates... there was an incident a few years ago south of yakima where one man threw a knife at a dog on his property, injuring the animal- the police came, qestioned the dogs owners but no charges were filed on either person

i love washington but cant figure it sometimes

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

4-page thread already underway on page 1 of this subforum:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=459485

 

[Oro]

i love washington but cant figure it sometimes

Amen to that. This article makes me think I will change my username at WTA (washington Trails Association - a Seattle area wilderness forum) from "Oro" to "Hikes With Guns" - that should really get some of those liberals attention there!

 

[Dave Workman]

4-page thread already underway on page 1 of this subforum:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=459485

Yes, I know Tad. Thx.
This article takes a look at the appeals court ruling itself, and how this shooting would be handled under Washington state statute. It's a different approach, so I concluded it needed a separate thread.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Oh, OK.

 

[Oro]

This article takes a look at the appeals court ruling itself, and how this shooting would be handled under Washington state statute. It's a different approach, so I concluded it needed a separate thread.

Thanks for posting that. It has more details and logical analysis in it than any media story I've seen elsewhere.

 

[rainbowbob]

The closest I have come to drawing my firearm was in an incident in which I had quietly remarked about the inappropriateness of a dog-owner in allowing his puppy to jump all over my grandchild without doing or saying anything to stop or discipline the pup (not the poor puppy's fault).

The jerk apparently took exception to my disapproval of his dog-handling and came rushing at me threateningly.

I'm the owner of a not-always well-behaved wolf hybrid. She is a sweetheart, but when she does the wrong thing - I take responsibility for it. Why is that so difficult for some dog owners to understand?

I'm glad to see that Fish may get a fair trial. He doesn't belong in prison for defending himself. It is a travesty that he has endure all this suffering and expense.

You comment in your excellent article...

"Fish essentially shot an unarmed man. Or did he? The appeals court noted that a dog can be used as 'a dangerous instrumentality'...”

I would go a step further and argue that the only "unarmed man" is a quadriplegic. There are many recent tragic examples in WA State (and elsewhere, I'm sure) in which fists and feet were used to kill or permanently injure unfortunate victims.

In the personal incident I refer to above, the aggressor did not display a weapon. Nonetheless, he was young, strong, and had that unmistakable "look" in his eyes as he rushed at me with clenched fists. His intent seemed clear, and he had the means and opportunity to do me grave bodily injury.

 

[Norinco982lover]

I remember your story, Rainbowbob. I believe you acted appropriately for the situation and it was a very scary situation.

Your take on this situation is spot on as well.

~Norinco

 

[rainbowbob]

Thanks for your comments, Norinco.