Ridiculous Conviction--AZ Dog Walker Shooter

[Biker]

Having a screwdriver in your back pocket that "could have been used as a weapon" isn't justification for shooting a man. I carry one in my tank pouch and sometimes in my back pocket. Haven't stabbed anyone with it yet.
I don't recall Fish stating that he was threatened with a screw driver.

Biker

 

[Master Blaster]

Biker your point is well taken. There was no how do the brits put it? Offensive weapon involved, just a screwdriver, which was not being brandished.

What you say to the police when they arrive on the scene is very important.
Make sure you know the law and the standard for using deadly force in your state. With respect to dogs running at large Delaware is a shoot first state, The dog is presumed to be a threat if it is running at large (not on a 6' or less lead in its owner's hand). If it behaves agrgressively toward you or your animals under your control, any force up to and including deadly force is justified. The law also specifically exempts you from charges or prosecution.
It also exempts you from Civil liability.

As far as deadly force on people goes, its a question of wether you fear injury or death to you or another. There is no duty to retreat. Different states have different laws.

Police at least in DE, have exactly the same standard for the use of deadly force as any citizen, So if a citizen was confronted by the lady with a knife it would also be a good shoot, despite any letters to the editor or any public outcry. And there was some, many in the community argued that the police should have wrestled with the lady and at least got Cut before they shot her.
Fortunately our AG knows her job.

Part of the job of a good AG / DA is to actually uphold the law as it is written, that means being fair and objective in the application of the law.

 

[rbernie]

In reading all of this back-n-forth, I still don't understand how this man was convicted by a jury of his peers...

What was the sum of evidence that led them to conclude BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant was guilty of second degree murder?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The nail that Mr. Master Blaster tack drove upon it's head was that

if it was an Arizona cop that whacked the crazy guy there would have been no charges or trial.

 

[Biker]

rbernie...

From my POV?

On TV Fish came off as disingenuous as did his police recordings. He shot an unarmed man who had wounds in his hands and forearms that suggest a defensive posture rather than an aggressive stance.
He shot at dogs for no good reason, IMO, although it could be he just doesn't know dogs. In any case, he came off as trigger happy and emotional - not a good combo.
This is truly a sad story for all involved, but IMO, Fish shot a man who didn't need shot.

Biker

 

[Biker]

Cropcirclewalker...

How did you come to the conclusion that the dead man was crazy?

Biker

 

[.45&TKD]

He shot an unarmed man who had wounds in his hands and forearms that suggest a defensive posture rather than an aggressive stance.

This could also be explained if the dead guy was reaching out to grabb the shooter.

 

[.45&TKD]

How did you come to the conclusion that the dead man was crazy?

I know it was in the news that he had committed himself for fear of violence to himself and others at one point and was on anti-depressant drugs among others.

 

[highlander 5]

IMHO Mr Fish should have been cleared of any wrong doing but with juries who can tell.I would agree some raving nutjob is coming at me after a shot is fired I'm not wating to be beaten to a pulp.
I'm in the same age group and phyiscal condition that Mr Fish is in. My days of throwing hands with anybody has long since past.
It is good to know that the law in AZ is "stand your ground' as I hope to move there in the next few years after I retire
The HP issue,most non shoters haven't a clue about hp vs fmj etc. Several years ago state trooper shot a BG they had chased all over creation in my former town chase ended up with BG wraping his car around a tree, BG still able to move minor injuries,trooper arrives order BG on the gound etc BG is a very large individual refuses to comply after several warning trooper shoots BG,BG dies. Talking to a fellow worker about shooting he's irate cause the cop didn't "shoot him in the leg,arm" tried to expain that in a stress situation you shoot for the biggest thing you see the body but he was adimant about shooting in leg arm etc
BTW someone mantioned a "fair fight" in this day and age there is no such thing

 

[Biker]

45&TDK...

The photos of the wounds showed the bullets entering from the back of the hand and exiting the palms which would indicate that the dead guy was covering up.
Concerning the drugs, he was taking an anti-depressant and the level of the drug in his system at the time of death was well within prescribed limits.
No other drugs were found.
Fish was in very good physical shape at the time of the shooting (an ardent hiker) and was far from frail. I'm a few years younger than him, and although I'm broke up a bit, I don't figure I'd choose to shoot a man who was pissed at me, especially if I'd just shot at a couple of dogs who were in the man's charge.

Biker

 

[only1asterisk]

The photos of the wounds showed the bullets entering from the back of the hand and exiting the palms which would indicate that the dead guy was covering up.

Or in a combative posture.


As far as I'm concerned deadly force is an entirely appropriate response to both unarmed human attackers that present a certain level of threat and human aggressive canines.

Let us remember that the first shot was fired at 8 feet and the last at contact range.

It is beyond me how any reasonable person could be find Mr. Fish guilty of anything.

David

 

[Helmetcase]

Again, not saying I'd have voted to convict, but I largely am in Biker's camp here. One thing I keep coming back to--if he hadn't fired the warning shot (something I wouldn't do, and no cop would be allowed to do), Kuenzli wouldn't have charged and gone nuts as he's alledged to have done; I think there's an undercurrent of canine phobia that runs pretty close to the surface here at THR with some folks, and that drives the "good shoot" case to some extent.

Unless you're really frail, and a lot more frail than this 57 year old is made out to be (and let's face it, 57 is the new 47, the guy's not that over the hill y'all), a couple of mutts running down a trail shouldn't be cause to fire IMHO. I've stared down everything from 180lb mastiffs that eat Rottweilers for lunch to mini poodles that draw blood and everything in between, and IMHE you have a lot more to fear from a non domesticated predator than any breed of domestic dog.

What would I have done differently? Stood still and stood firm, and the dogs probably would have passed me by. IF, and it's a big IF, they do decide to attack, let em have at your weak arm and draw and fire. IF the dogs had actually attacked him, his case would be a lot stronger--but there's no real indication that was even likely to have happened.

If Fish had just let the dogs go by, which they probably would have done (if the shelter had had them and determined them to not be vicious, I'd say the odds of this are better than 99.999%--how do I know? I WORK in an animal shelter, darnit ), if he'd just kept his cool....he'd be a free man and we'd never have heard from him.

IMHO, he used his weapon to prevent perceived possible harm, not an imminent threat to his life, and it's why it's a questionable shoot.

As for defensive vs. combative posture, I'm sure medical examiners have seen enough examples to be able to differentiate between the type of wounds each posture produces versus a shooter. If there was anything to that, the defense should have stepped up. That they didn't probably tells you something. Fish might have shot him, and once he realized he was being shot, Kuenzli might have tried to attack to save his own life.

 

[Beren]

Having a screwdriver in your back pocket that "could have been used as a weapon" isn't justification for shooting a man.

Agreed, but that wasn't why I made the statement. You stated he was unarmed. He was armed, and that was the sole point I was making.

Armed or unarmed isn't relevant, however. What is relevant is disparity of force.

Nor did Fisher shoot at the dogs "for no reason." He fired "warning shots" as the dogs aggressively approached him. One dog was known to be an aggressive biter, while the other was a "fear biter." K. had been specifically instructed by the Humane Society to keep both animals on leashes.

"Hank had been seized by animal-control workers in 2003 and had a documented history of aggressive behavior toward adults and children and was once almost shot by a Gila County Sheriff's detective, according to the document."

"The previous owner of Sheba said, She would probably run up to someone if she was with another dog and would appear aggressive through barking and growling and might run at you. A Coconino Sheriff's Department detective said the dog would have bitten anybody given the chance on the night of the shooting of Kuenzli."

As for K. himself:

"McDonald also said the jury was prevented from hearing evidence and expert testimony about Kuenzli's psychiatric condition and history of violent behavior, including two suicide attempts and an alleged strangling attempt of a man visiting a woman Kuenzli had been stalking."

====

I've been in a position where I almost had to shoot a dog that was charging at me. Fortunately for myself and the dog, the dog stopped several feet from me and barked rather than attacked. The owners came out and got their dog under control.

I've known dogs all my life, but I do not tolerate biters, and I do not feel obliged to wait until a dog bites me to take action. If you don't want your dog to get hurt, keep it under control. It's *YOUR* responsibility as an owner, not mine.

====

Fisher shouldn't have fired warning shots. He shouldn't have talked to the media. If the dogs were charging him, he should have shot them. He didn't, because like all of us, he didn't want to hurt something if he didn't have to do it. That the dogs were unhurt lends credence to the claim of self-defense against K., in my book, because Fisher had already demonstrated a desire to avoid inflicting harm.

So, what do we have? Two dogs with an aggressive history, one of which was almost put down by a deputy sheriff in the past. We have a guy with a documented history of mental problems and aggressive behavior, including assault and stalking. I can easily believe Fisher was charged by two dogs, fired a warning shot (dumb), then shot at K. as K. charged screaming at Fisher. It's enough to create reasonable doubt in my mind that a unjustifiable homicide took place, but evidently that was not the current standard in AZ at the time.

 

[Beren]

F, they do decide to attack, let em have at your weak arm and draw and fire. IF the dogs had actually attacked him, his case would be a lot stronger--but there's no real indication that was even likely to have happened.

I am continually boggled by the mindset that you must let yourself sustain injury before action is justified. While I can understand some of us would rather be crippled or even killed by a domestic animal rather than cause it harm, it's improper to force that mindset on the rest of us. I have no duty to allow anyone or anything to cause serious injury to me.

If two dogs charge you snapping, growling, and barking, you're welcome to offer your arm as a chewing post. Don't expect most reasonable men to do the same.

he used his weapon to prevent perceived possible harm, not an imminent threat to his life, and it's why it's a questionable shoot.

Firing a warning shot was stupid. He should have shot the dogs, though I do believe he perceived an imminent threat of serious or lethal injury. We all love our dogs, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think the average dog can't do serious harm. Harm, I'd repeat, that I nor anyone else share any duty to suffer.

 

[Biker]

Beren...

If K. was armed because he had a screwdriver in his back pocket, then so am I when I work on my scoot.
You're reaching.
Kindly describe the factors that justify the 'disparity of force' defense.
I work with the local Humane Society and know that they work with our local Animal Shelter. They won't adopt out aggressive dogs and forgive me if I don't put a detective on the dog expert list.

Biker

 

[johnster999]

This conviction is the result of what some on THR refer to as "Blissninny" thinking. The jurors were stunned that someone in their area might actually carry a gun. The ammunition hype and involvement of pet animals (dogs) added to the emotional picture the prosecutor painted for them. They swallowed it hook/line/sinker, as "blissninnies" often do.

Still, Fish is at least alive and physiclally whole. He has a long fight ahead but at least he has a chance. More than what his attacker would have offered.

 

[WayneConrad]

rbernie said, "What was the sum of evidence that led them to conclude BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant was guilty of second degree murder?"

That standard of evidence was not in effect during the trial. At the time, self defense in Arizona required that the defendant first admit to the killing, and then prove that it was justified. Notice the difference? The state didn't have to prove murder. The defendant had to prove that it wasn't murder.

We've fixed that. Thank goodness.

 

[Beren]

If K. was armed because he had a screwdriver in his back pocket, then so am I when I work on my scoot.

Um, that's the very definition of being armed.

armed  /ɑrmd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrmd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. bearing firearms; having weapons: a heavily armed patrol.

They won't adopt out aggressive dogs and forgive me if I don't put a detective on the dog expert list.

These dogs weren't adopted out. They were being walked. They had documented histories of aggressiveness, kind of like the guy who was walking them.

 

[ArmedBear]

This is also a good argument for non-lethal weapons.

Pepper spray would have worked fine here even if there was a real threat, and no one would be dead or in jail.

The right to carry does involve some responsibilities. Unlike neighboring CA, AZ lets you carry with few restrictions. With rights come responsibilities.

 

[Beren]

M.O., most of the sniping in this thread has been coming from the vicinity of Nebraska.

why do you guys seem to revel in the thought of doing so?

I haven't seen anyone post here "reveling" in the thought of killing or harming another person. Obviously no one here wishes to hurt someone else, and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate at best.

That said, very few people here seem willing to assume the best of intentions from a charging, howling man immediately after scaring off his charging, howling dogs. I didn't see convincing physical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Fisher committed murder.

However, that was not the standard in AZ at the time. He had to admit to murder, then try to prove it was "reasonable." That's not the standard where I live, and I doubt it's the standard in Nebraska either. Burden of proof should always rest solely with the prosecution.

Most of what I've heard from those supporting the verdict can be summed up as "I saw Fisher on the media and I thought he looked like a guilty dog-hating slimeball; I love dogs and sympathize with Mr. K, and Fisher should rot, that dog-endangering filth!"

And, yes, I have less compunctions shooting a dog than I ever would about shooting a person. I've had dogs around my entire life and love them, but I have no obligation to let one seriously injure me. Most of the time, their threat displays are simply that - threat displays. However, I wasn't there when Mr. Fisher was charged. Therefore, I have to accept his explanation unless I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying.

That's where I'm coming from.

 

[Biker]

Beren...

Um, according to your definition, if you carry anything that *can* be used as a weapon, you are armed. If your wife carries a set of keys and yells at me - including threats - I guess I'm justified if I shoot her?
Reaching again...
Also, if you're being honest, we *all* have a history of violence.

Biker

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It all comes down to whether or not the guy was justified in pulling his weapon and firing at the dogs. If he was, then he was, I think, also justified in what followed. When I walk my dog I also carry a gun. If my dog slipped his lead and ran towards someone (in my dog's case, it would be to greet, not to attack), and the guy pulled a gun, my gun would get pulled too. It's just a fact that most dog lovers in this country think of their dogs in exactly the same way that they think of their small children, and would respond to threats to their lives in exactly the same way. This is one of those situations where it is very hard to determine who's right and who's wrong. Seems like a no win situation.

 

[.45&TKD]

While I can understand some of us would rather be crippled or even killed by a domestic animal rather than cause it harm

I think that I would risk physical injury just to avoid the legal problems.

What a nightmare!

I think that Fish was justified, but for me personally, firing my weapon would be the absolute last resort. The only scenario where I would consider a warning shot would be against a wild animal, where my cailber was insufficient.

 

[.45&TKD]

It's just a fact that most dog lovers in this country think of their dogs in exactly the same way that they think of their small children, and would respond to threats to their lives in exactly the same way.

This would be a mistake.

 

[only1asterisk]

Beren's last post sums up my view as well.

We've been down this road a time or two. This thread will be locked soon because people can't see past their emotional blinders.

David