Not to get into the Harold Fish case again...

[DickP]

...because I know it's been thoroughly discussed already. But Google and the "search" function on this site haven't led me to what I'm looking for, which is a video clip showing the portion of what I remember vaguely as a Dateline-esque expose of the Fish case, in which the interviewer sits down with the jurors that decided the initial case.

As I remember it, the interviewer is talking with one younger guy and one frumpy woman... All I can remember is being struck by the woman's attitude when the talk turned to Fish's gun - she was almost a parody of the "what do you need a gun for, anyway?" set. At one point, I think she turns to the camera and says something along the lines of "And my gawd, that GUN! Those BULLETS! 10 Milliliters! They were made to KILL people!" Or something like that.

It was the sort of reaction that we all know is out there, but actually hearing it - from a juror - man, anyone who keeps a suppressor on a self-defense firearm (which I don't) will get the chills...

Does anyone remember seeing this show? What did she actually say? Anyone have a clip of it?

Thanks!

 

[CoRoMo]

It doesn't appear to be available. I believe the Dateline NBC story is the one you are referring to. Here is a clip of the show...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/#fullstory

The video is incomplete of course, and I don't believe the full version is available online. However, you can read through the text on that site, and it has the text of the interview with Michael Nelson and Megan Elliot, two of the jurors.

And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Meagan Elliot, juror: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

hth

 

[Zoogster]

See it was the hollowpoints!


As far as 10mm:
When dealing with individuals as naive as those finding someone guilty for carrying hollowpoints, 9mm Parabellum could easily be worse.

"The 10mm was designed by an American in the civilian market and quickly adopted by respected top law enforcement after extensive testing to determine what would keep the streets safe.

The 9mm on the other hand was created in the German Empire, enemy in the great World War! It was also the primary submachinegun and pistol cartridge of the Nazis, the round used in their mp40 submachineguns, frequently used in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and submachinegun massacres.
The cartridge of the Luger pistol, frequently used to execute.
This was the very cartridge used in the submachineguns and pistols of the Nazi SS as they rounded up the Jews and other undesirables.
The round that ripped through American soldiers in trench warfare of world war 1, and in the Nazi attacks of World War 2.


The 9mm Parabellum is a war cartridge, the very name "Parabellum" means "for war".
Only someone who thought the streets of America was their own personal war zone would carry a cartridge specifically made "for war" by the aggressor of both World Wars, and enemy of the United States!
It has since been adopted by many of the military forces of the world because it is so good at savagely maiming and slaughtering human beings.
The German empire and the Nazis knew the round best for slaughtering people, and modern military forces take advantage of this sinister ingenuity!

This ladies and gentlemen of the jury was the round chosen by the defendant to "murder" ____. "




My point is you cannot base your decisions on what some naive jury member might be convinced of when exaggerated facts are presented in the future, if you ever need to defend yourself.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

I'm glad the Harold Fish conviction was reversed, but my issue with the case is this:

In Kuenzli's situation, I might have done the same thing. His dogs are described as "vicious" but how many people really think of their own dogs that way? Most people think their pets/kids/spouse can do no wrong, and of course would defend them from a perceived threat, regardless of what they might have actually done.
So here I am, walking a trail with dogs that I don't think are a problem for anyone. A complete stranger has just loosed a shot at them - I have no idea why, and I have no idea what this man is really about to do. We're already within line of site of one another, so I can either hope he doesn't have bad intentions, or charge at the person and make a go of disarming him. Not knowing what the other person is really up to, and going only by a shot fired at a beloved pet, I might have done the same thing.
I'm not trying to paint Kuenzli as a victim, or Fish as a perp.
I just think there's another way of looking at the incident.

 

[Bubba613]

The forensics seemed to indicate Harold Fish is a murderer. This is why he was convicted. The rest of it is just noise.

 

[alsaqr]

Fish was found guilty by a jury of his peers. The Fish conviction was overturned by the appeals court because the jury was not allowed to hear evidence that Kuenzli had acted violently in similar situations. Folks have claimed that the two dogs in question were aggressive but not vicious: What in hades does that mean?

At the time of the shooting, current self-defense laws in Arizona -- which put the burden of proof on the prosecutor instead of the defendant -- did not exist. During Fish’s trial, the jury was not allowed to hear evidence that Kuenzli had acted violently in similar situations in the past. In June, an Arizona appellate court overturned Fish’s conviction, acknowledging the jury should have heard this evidence and also saying the jury was not instructed properly on the meaning of “unlawful physical force.”

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13173

Two of the dogs did not belong to Kuenzli. They were the property of an animal shelter that Kuenzli volunteered at. Kuenzli was working with the Chow mix and the Shepherd mix to "socialize" them and make them more "adoptable".

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2004/may/20/man_shot_by/

 

[Frank Ettin]

The forensics seemed to indicate Harold Fish is a murderer. .....

And exactly what forensics would those be?

 

[CoRoMo]

...two dogs in question were aggressive but not vicious: What in hades does that mean?

I'm not certain, but I think I know.

My male dog will charge and bark at anyone he has a chance at. It irritates the ever-loving fire out of me. He will not bite anyone, but he is reliable to charge all the way up to a person's feet and bark right at them. It is very intimidating. I think it is an action of fear and not of aggression, but it obviously is received as the later. If he were to bite or even make contact with the person in any way, it would cross the line from 'aggressive' to 'vicious', I suppose.

Then again, maybe barking alone is 'aggressive' and charging is 'vicious'. Eye of the beholder.

 

[mbruce]

my cites were incorrect.

reconsider my posting or not.... don't shoot an unarmed man on a trail in the woods --

 

[Frank Ettin]

...and didn't forensics "prove" he didn't immediately call 911...

No. He had no cell phone reception and had to hike to the road and then flag someone down to get help:

"...Fish did everything he could to save Kuenzli’s life. He attempted to call for help, but received no cellular service and was forced to hike on for assistance. [Ex. 305, 53] Before leaving Kuenzli, he put his backpack under Kuenzli’s head and covered him with a blanket to keep him warm. [Ex. 305, 52-53] At 6:40 p.m. , Chad Dieringer and his wife were driving on Highway 87 nearby when they were waved down by Fish. [R.T. 4/26/06 , 8-9].

Fish asked him if he had a cell phone, but Dieringer confirmed that there was no cell phone coverage. Instead, Dieringer used his On-Star system to call authorities. [R.T. 4/26/06 , 12-13; Ex. 105]. Fish left twice to check on Kuenzli. Though Fish was upset, the Dieringers never felt threatened by him. [ Id. , 26-28.]..."(Fish's appeal brief)

...read that forensics "proved" the probability of the enter and exit wounds were not supporting his story of the guy running at him -- they looked more like wounds from standing still....

If that's your claim, you need to cite some better source than "read that." In fact, the state's firearms expert supported Fish's account:

"....The state’s firearms expert, Lucien Haag 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]. Haag confirmed that Kuenzli, if running, would have been upon Fish is less than one second. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 223-224]...."(Fish's appeal brief)

 

[Girodin]

We're already within line of site of one another, so I can either hope he doesn't have bad intentions, or charge at the person and make a go of disarming him.

I'm not sure those are the only two options

Keep your dogs near you and in your control (if you do not have verbal control of your dogs then keep it in another way) that will prevent a lot of issues from starting.

It was the sort of reaction that we all know is out there, but actually hearing it - from a juror - man, anyone who keeps a suppressor on a self-defense firearm (which I don't) will get the chills...

people that do this, tend to do it in their homes. There is a world of difference between shooting someone who has broken into your home and a questionable shooting like the fish case.

Further Fish's attorneys didn't do the best job of countering some of the more dubious arguments made by the prosecution.

As to viscous versus aggressive I'm not sure if those are terms of art with particular meanings or people drawing random distinctions.

He will not bite anyone, but he is reliable to charge all the way up to a person's feet and bark right at them. It is very intimidating. I think it is an action of fear and not of aggression, but it obviously is received as the later. If he were to bite or even make contact with the person in any way, it would cross the line from 'aggressive' to 'vicious', I suppose.

Many things dogs do that are seen as being aggressive or mean are in fact fear responses. Not that the distinction matters much to the average person on the other end, particularly if they get bit. Personally I wouldn't keep a dog that acted that way. That is why I train and socialize my dogs though.

et someone shoot my dog(s) and better believe im going after the dude. Pull a gun on me and I may feel like i have no choice but to speed up and try to run you over before you shoot me.

And you might well wind up dead like in the case we are discussing. Maybe you should reconsider your responses. That's not to mention the possible consequences if you are successful in "going after" the person.

I actually tend to avoid the dark park/off leash trails now because I saw far too many "incidents" of behavior by both people and animals that I'd simply prefer not to have to deal with.

 

[alsaqr]

People are going off without bothering to inform themselves of the facts in the Fish case. Fact: The judge in the case disallowed testimony about other run-ins with Kuenzli and the dogs. Fact: The appeals court over-turned the guilty verdict against Fish. Fact: Fish cannot be re-tried.

Two of those dogs belonged to an animal shelter that Kuenzli volunteered at. He would take those two dogs out with his dog, Maggie, in an attempt to "socialize" them and make them more "adoptable."

Other folks had run-ins with Kuenzli's and the dogs, especially Hank, the Chow mix:

Gila County Sheriff's Detectives George Ratliff and Brian Havey had an encounter with Hank.

"We went to talk to a Pine resident and Hank was sitting in a chair in front of the house," Havey said. "He was fine until we knocked on the door -- then he just went for (Ratliff). He almost had to shoot the dog, but the owner came out and pulled the dog away."

Havey said Hank was picked up twice by the county animal control officer. The owner did not get the dog back after the second time, so Hank remained at the humane society.

Moral of the story, if you have a dog that has a history of going after people, then do not take your dog off the leash.

 

[JohnBT]

"Folks have claimed that the two dogs in question were aggressive but not vicious: What in hades does that mean? "

They don't pour salt on the stump after they chew your leg off?

Why would I wait to find out which kind they were?

 

[Girodin]

Moral of the story, if you have a dog that has a history of going after people, then do not take your dog off the leash.

That is sound advice, seeing as if your dog is abnormally dangerous for its class (i.e. the set of dogs generally) then you are in many states facing strict liability for it causing harm in the way it is known to be dangerous. I'm not sure it is THE moral of this story.