Harold Fish Gets New Trial Finally!
- Thread starter HarryB
- Start date
- Status
GregGry
Member
This answers the question of shooting the animals as being justified. The dogs are the threat, therefore you dispatch the dogs. Fish never made a statement along the lines of the man trying to use the dogs (as in giving them orders to attack) to hurt him. The dogs were loose, and they let after fish fired a shot. Again I have yet to see evidence that really proves the intent of the man he shot on using the dogs as weapons. There is a huge difference between intent and negligence.
So the man he shot was larger then fish and running at him saying he was going to kill him. Again the man could have thought fish killed his dogs or that he was shooting at him (thus he was enraged). A warning shot doesn't scream "Warning" to everyone around, a gunshot is a gun shot. Could the man that fish shot caused fish great bodily harm or death? The man was unarmed, the dogs weren't present, its questionable.
You can't shoot someone for not following directions, or just because they are getting close. You also can't shoot someone over something that might happen. Fish thought the dogs were going to come back to hurt him, and the man was going to hurt him as well. Those combined seem to try to paint a picture of a deadly force scenario. However there are many holes in the picture.
Why was he justified in shooting the man given his statements? Because the man was bigger, running towards him, shouting "I am going to kill you", and so on? Your going to need a lot more then that to justify the use of deadly force. Things like that happen every night at bar close. What makes his situation different?
It's not up to you to decide, nor up to us. The court of appeals concluded that Mr. Fish was not properly able to present his case as to why he was justified in using lethal force because of errors made by the trial judge. So Mr. Fish gets another shot at it. Now whether or not he was justified will be up to a new jury and not you.GregGry said:
Many legitimate SD shootings are based on things that might happen. If a man is kicking in your door at 3 am screaming "I'm gonna kill you" do you have to wait until he is actually killing you to employ deadly force? Or is the notion that he "might" actually do it enough of a justification? Granted it needs to be a credible threat, but as several have stated, running towards an obviously armed man, who already has drawn and fired his firearm, screaming "I'm going to kill you" is sufficiently aggressive/unusual to meet the standards of a credible threat in my opinion. The unintended(not meant for Kuenzli) but obvious threat of deadly force (warning shot on the dogs) wasn't enough to deter the aggressive charge of Kuenzli. Kuenzli might not have known it was a warning shot but it was obvious that is was a SHOT. It was obvious that Fish, justifiably or not, was able to employ deadly force. Yet Kuenzli kept coming. What actions are left on the menu? You have escalated the situation to the brink of deadly force and still not deterred an apparent threat. Fish came to a moment where he had no good choices left. That argument is predicated on Fish's statements being true and being in fear of great bodily harm. Which we will never know for sure.
That might be the lesson here, actions taken to avoid the escalation are at least as important as actions taken to stop the threat.
Techniques for de-escalation should be as heavily debated and studied here as types of ammo.
I can see where this could be a murky case, but in cases of murk....the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. That is how the system is supposed to work.
Correct. There is significant evidence to show that Kuenzli was a potentially violent and dangerous person.
Since there were no witnesses to the event, the court should have attempted to determine whether Fish's description of the encounter makes sense. Documented evidence of the decedent's behavior suggests that Fish's story is plausible, given Kuenzli's tendency towards sudden anger, clenched fists, and uncontrolable outbursts. If the story is plausible, then any reasonable doubt should run in favor of the defendant.
Is it any different from a bouncer at night? I don't know. If someone threatens to kill and then attacks a bouncer, would he be justified in using extreme and potentially fatal force to stop the attack? I believe he would, but most bouncers are prohibited from carrying deadly weapons by their employer for reasons of liability. Additionally, bouncers work in locations where alcohol is served, which means in many states that concealed carry is not legal.
And regarding the type of ammunition used, Fish could have had a .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum, or a 9 mm. All of these cartridges have been engineered to be lethal against man sized, if not larger, creatures. Seriously, 9 mm has been a staple military cartridge for a 100 years. If it wan't capable of stopping a human being, I don't think it would last so long. Lethal is lethal. I guess Fish could have carried a 870 with rifled slugs. Those aren't nearly as dangerous as a 10 mm.
While I carry 9mm JHP as a woods walking gun, I do so with the understanding that my primary threat is people w/ felonious intent, not animals looking for lunch. That said, both the .44 Magnum and 870 w/ rifles slugs would be more dangerous than a 10mm. Am I reading that last line incorrectly?
george29
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,670
Fish made the one mistake one should never make, it should be a cardinal rule (carnal rule too), never talk to the po-lice without your attorney present. Except for, "Officer, my life was in immediate danger, I feel very ill right now, I request immediate medical assistance and I have nothing further to say without my attorney present, thank you." Sit down and wait for the ambulance. The way my metabolic system now works, I would probably be in deep shock, both physically and emotionally.
NickEllis
Member
Spoken tongue in cheek, apparently.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Glad he got a new trail. The Key for me is that Fish should have shot the Dogs.
I would have!
I would have!
krs
Member
I am glad to hear that he'll have another trial.
I probably missed it, but was the actual distance between the dead guy and Fish when Fish fired his fatal shot established?
My first question when I first heard of this was "If he could fire one warning shot, why not two? Or if he had to kill the guy why didn't he also have to kill the dogs? Being attacked by dogs has been more stressful to me than any of the attacks by humans I've dealt with over the years - I KNEW that the dogs wanted to kill me but never believed that the people did.
I know the theorum that a warning shot is not a wise choice but I also know that dogs cover ground faster than humans do, generally. So if Fish had time and the presence of mind to fire his [successful] warning shot to dissuade two enraged dogs, did he not have time to do the same thing when approached by an enraged human?
If Fish did have sufficient remaining ammunition, had already demonstrated his calm in turning away the dogs, didn't he have even more time to decide what to do when the dog owner approached, given that the owner was coming from where the dogs had come?
Also, I think that a person given to rages could forget or not register the fact that a gun had been fired by the person he means to attack, people like that often need constant reminders (until they desist). Another warning shot might well have woke the guy from his blind rage, IMO.
The poor guy will be retried and might end up right where he is tonight.
I probably missed it, but was the actual distance between the dead guy and Fish when Fish fired his fatal shot established?
My first question when I first heard of this was "If he could fire one warning shot, why not two? Or if he had to kill the guy why didn't he also have to kill the dogs? Being attacked by dogs has been more stressful to me than any of the attacks by humans I've dealt with over the years - I KNEW that the dogs wanted to kill me but never believed that the people did.
I know the theorum that a warning shot is not a wise choice but I also know that dogs cover ground faster than humans do, generally. So if Fish had time and the presence of mind to fire his [successful] warning shot to dissuade two enraged dogs, did he not have time to do the same thing when approached by an enraged human?
If Fish did have sufficient remaining ammunition, had already demonstrated his calm in turning away the dogs, didn't he have even more time to decide what to do when the dog owner approached, given that the owner was coming from where the dogs had come?
Also, I think that a person given to rages could forget or not register the fact that a gun had been fired by the person he means to attack, people like that often need constant reminders (until they desist). Another warning shot might well have woke the guy from his blind rage, IMO.
The poor guy will be retried and might end up right where he is tonight.
It is my understanding that the guy was almost on top of him, or at least within spittin' distance.
Because the dogs it seems, had enough sense to understand the danger they were in, from the gunshot that was fired.
I'm sure the vast majority of those murdered, never thought their killer was actually going to kill them either, until it was too late.
Not to belabor the point that has been stressed in several posts, but, if one warning shot did not dissuade the attacker, regardless that it was fired to stop the threat of the dogs, would any reasonable person think that two warning shots would be more effective? How about three? How about firing warning shots until Fish was out of ammunition and Kuenzli was finally on top of him, with a full head of steam, running downhill, and swinging his fists, pummelling Fish to death?
Sam
According to Fish's appeal brief (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/hfappeal.htm ) Fish testified that he "...waited until the last possible instant before firing and shot Kuenzli just a few feet short of a physical encounter..." and that he estimated the distance as 5 to 8 feet when he shot. The brief also states that, "The state’s firearms expert, ... was unable to refute Fish’s account of the shooting, including the fact that Kuenzli was 5-8 feet away. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 202-203]. Haag also testified that the number of bullets in the gun, the bullet found at the scene, the placement of the ejected casings, the angle of the entry wounds were all consistent with Fish’s account. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 219; 222-223; 235] ..."krs said:
So it appears from the evidence that Fish's assailant was 5 to 8 feet away from Fish when Fish shot.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
the guy fish shot was a nut with violent tendencies. trying to apply logical thought processes to his actions is a mistake. had the jury known what we know about him fish would not have been convicted. though i did hear one of the jurors try to rattionalize it with "fish didn't know about the guys violent past either" both he and the reporter missed the reality that in mr fish's case it wasn't his violent past it was a violent present. most folks have zero experience dealing with nuts
Last edited:
So what would you have done GregGry?
Fight the wacko and maybe have him get your gun?
Also, what makes it different than in a bar is he wasn't in a bar. He was outside, alone, with agressive attacking dogs and a man who was clearly threatening him with bodily harm.
This appears to be quite different than an altercation in a bar IMHO.
Fight the wacko and maybe have him get your gun?
Also, what makes it different than in a bar is he wasn't in a bar. He was outside, alone, with agressive attacking dogs and a man who was clearly threatening him with bodily harm.
This appears to be quite different than an altercation in a bar IMHO.
Last edited:
Why should irrational, crazy man be given special treatment? Irrational, crazy man is the reason that some folks carry guns in the first place.
It makes no difference that Fish did not know about Kuenzli's violent past. At the time of the shooting, Fish was in immediate danger from an apparently irrational lunatic. Kuenzli's past behavior should only matter in that it shows that Fish's story is plausible, and that there is reasonable doubt that Fish had merely shot Kuenzli out of murderous intent.
The probability of Fish randomly having an altercation with Kuenzli is small. Given that the two had no prior knowledge of each other, the probability of Fish fabricating a story where Kuenzli's behavior matches his actual, documented history is even more remote. Strange things do happen from time to time, but in my mind, probability seems to favor that Fish's account could be fairly accurate.
Now, if Fish had run into someone with no prior history of violence, psychiatric care or medication, with a couple of teacup poodles, I think I would see things differently.
"Honest, Mother Theresa's dogs were crazy, then she comes running down the trail with arms flailin' screamin' that she's gonna kill me! What choice did I have?" I just don't see it...
Dodger02WS6
Member
I almost feel sorry for you, in Ohio it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to defend your life or another life even if the aggressor is unarmed. I think what you fail to realize is that even an unarmed person can be dangerous, thankfully this State does realize that fact.
TCB in TN
Member
People who keep harping on the un-armed part have obviously never been in a real fight! Un-armed folks can seriously hurt or kill you, believe it or not. Have personally seen some serious damage done and I think it show a real lack of understanding of what one human can do to another with just the bare hands.
On the matter of being assaulted by a person who has no weapon.
Unfortunately, many state laws (like my own state) specifically do not recognize battery with the hands as eminent jeopardy. Like it or not, state law is the standard by which you will be judged afterward.
On a state by state basis, you have to know your laws well in order to make fast judgements regarding the use of deadly force in self defense. One generally has no time to think, so you must be prepared to make immediate judgements. Education on the law is an extremely important part of your training.
Do your best to keep out of trouble whenever possible. Fish didn't look for trouble, he was just walking along a trail. Then trouble happened, and he made a judgement. It got him into hot water. Thank goodness he's getting another chance. It should be a valuable lesson to us all.
Unfortunately, many state laws (like my own state) specifically do not recognize battery with the hands as eminent jeopardy. Like it or not, state law is the standard by which you will be judged afterward.
On a state by state basis, you have to know your laws well in order to make fast judgements regarding the use of deadly force in self defense. One generally has no time to think, so you must be prepared to make immediate judgements. Education on the law is an extremely important part of your training.
Do your best to keep out of trouble whenever possible. Fish didn't look for trouble, he was just walking along a trail. Then trouble happened, and he made a judgement. It got him into hot water. Thank goodness he's getting another chance. It should be a valuable lesson to us all.
BHP FAN
Member
Woot hoot! Maybe,just...maybe there is still justice in the ''Colonies'' ,after all?I was afraid we'd gone the way of our ally across the waves,where a fellow defending himself almost automatically goes to jail?
mljdeckard
Member
There is no guarantee of any kind that one shot from a 10mm, or any other gun will stop him. My advice to Fish, as well as anyone else who carries a gun for self-defense, is to fire until the threat is stopped, the target disappears from view, or you run out of ammunition, whichever comes first.
This is exactly why this case is so important. When courts allow juries to focus on HOW self-defense is used, rather than WHY it is used, it is a threat to all people who take their safety seriously.
This is exactly why this case is so important. When courts allow juries to focus on HOW self-defense is used, rather than WHY it is used, it is a threat to all people who take their safety seriously.
Gryffydd
Member
How do you know?
This is taught by just about everyone for a reason.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
10mm One-Shot Stop
Glockweiler, dude, you're trolling. I would suggest shifting to a fact-finding mode rather than an assertion-based mode.
Adrenaline is a wonderful and powerful thing.
It overrides the body's shock responses. An enraged (or even drugged out) assailant can absorb an amazing amount of damage and still kill you.
The assailant, in the Harold Fish case, was enraged, at contact distance, and flailing violently.
Yes, a single 10mm round might have killed his assailant, but quite possibly not in time to have prevented Fish from being killed himself.
Do a little research. I believe you'll find examples of men shot multiple times and living through the experience. And shot with things like .45 ACP.
To assume that a single hole through a body amped up on adrenaline will cause an immediate stop is folly.
Glockweiler, dude, you're trolling. I would suggest shifting to a fact-finding mode rather than an assertion-based mode.
Adrenaline is a wonderful and powerful thing.
It overrides the body's shock responses. An enraged (or even drugged out) assailant can absorb an amazing amount of damage and still kill you.
The assailant, in the Harold Fish case, was enraged, at contact distance, and flailing violently.
Yes, a single 10mm round might have killed his assailant, but quite possibly not in time to have prevented Fish from being killed himself.
Do a little research. I believe you'll find examples of men shot multiple times and living through the experience. And shot with things like .45 ACP.
To assume that a single hole through a body amped up on adrenaline will cause an immediate stop is folly.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Uhhh.... Still no.
There is no small arm ammo made that has a 100% guaranteed one shot stop.
If there was, every LE agency in the world would be carrying it.
I have seen video of a deputy sheriff being killed by an assailant that he shot multiple times in the stomach, chest, thighs and arms, all because the young man did not relay on his training and fire until the threat was gone. It was heart wrenching to watch this young man loose his life on the dash board cam tape. Granted the man that killed him was armed as well but if your premise was anywhere near the truth than the first round that the deputy put in his chest should have brought him down. I would love to see your ability to put a round center mass while jacked up on adrenaline, fear for you life and the other mix of emotion one feels in a life or death situation. It is not nearly as easy as one thinks.
carebear
Member
Not to appeal to authority, but if every top trainer in the US and every agency in the US that actually uses their weapons (that I'm aware of) has discarded "shoot once and assess" as the recommended and/or approved method based on experience and study, it seems a bit arrogant to contest that without providing some bonafides and statistical evidence in support.
- Status
