Guns in Arizona: Killing in self-defense led to misery for man

[Logical]

Interesting self defense story. Not sure if I think this was a good shoot or not. I can see this going either way. The man charging had no weapons in his hands. So maybe he would have just punched him in the face. Who knows. But it shows that any shoot can cause major issues.

==============================================================

Time slowed for Harold Fish as the man rushed toward him on the hiking trail outside Payson. His gun drawn, Fish had time to do all the things his self-defense instructors had taught him, the ones it seemed he never would have time to do in the heat of the moment.

Fish already had fired at the ground in front of three growling dogs running toward him, scaring them away. But it didn't deter the man running toward him.

Fish looked at the man's hands, which were clenched into fists. Maybe, he thought, to hide a small knife. He locked on the man's eyes and didn't see any sense of him backing down. It wasn't the look an unarmed man would have in the face of a weapon.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/15/20110715arizona-guns-special-report-self-defense-story.html#ixzz1SEKihLp9

[provis99]

1. so were there any witnesses, or do we just have Fish's word?

I assume we can't get Kuezli's side of the argument, since Fish shot him dead.

The way I understand Arizona's stand your ground law, is that if one person has shot another person dead, and there were no witnesses, it is assusmed to be self-defense.

[RSillsbee]

2. No witnesses and this happened several years ago NT

[provis99]

3. so maybe Fish shot Kuenzli because his dogs were barking too loud.

Under Arizona's stand your ground law, that would still be justification for shooting.

[TheWraith]

4. No, it wouldn't. Really, if you can't argue using facts, you aren't allowed to make shit up. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

5. The attacker had a violent past.

From the article:

Fish's conviction was tossed out by the Arizona Court of Appeals, which ruled that the jury wasn't told enough about Kuenzli's violent past or the aggressive nature of the dogs and didn't get proper instructions about what constitutes an attack.

Kuenzli was armed with a screwdriver. Yes, that does count as a deadly weapon. If you are carrying a screwdriver and it isn't part of a genuine tool kit, just the screwdrive, then you may as well be carrying a dagger as most state laws see it.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

This Court committed fundamental error when it allowed the prosecutor to argue to the jury that decedent Kuenzli was "unarmed" when, in fact, he was armed with a seven inch screwdriver concealed in his back pocket. The Court's ruling allowed the prosecutor to mislead and deceive the trial jury regarding the existence of this critical evidence. Grant Kuenzli was armed. The prosecutor’s claim that Kuenzli was unarmed was an egregious misstatement, and utterly false. The damage caused by that ruling was irreparable.


The record before this Court is irrefutable regarding the troubled violent history of Grant Kuenzli. Witness after witness, in pretrial motions, and under oath, provided this Court with "specific act" evidence about the character for violence of Grant Kuenzli. The decedent raped and kidnapped (Rape Victim), then threatened her son with death as well as her mother and sister while hold (Rape Victim) and her son hostage in their home. The decedent, without any warning, assaulted and strangled without provocation and without warning. (strangulation victim)'s offense was simply delivering self help materials to . The decedent was involved in numerous violent or aggressive encounters with former police officers Steve Corich, John Boylan, and Lynn Bray at Mesa Community College.

Of course, there will be those here who will defend Kuenzli as being an innocent choir boy strolling with his harmless pets.

[Logical]

8. But if the shooter did not know about the weapon then it would not enter into his....

decision to shoot.

His decision to shoot was only based on a man charging him with no weapon.

I can see both sides.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Nor did he know about the violent past.

But it is still revelant in establing the state of mind. In a violent confrontation you have to make your own decision based on your read of the emotional state of the attacker and your read of his capabilities. If you read him as dangerously violent and after the fact he is shown to have the kind of violent past that this guy had then that is evidence that you were reading him correctly. That he was carrying an illegal concealed weapon is further evidence of the character and state of mind of the attacker. That is why the screwdriver was so important, even if Fish couldn't see it.

[provis99]

24. just like a rape victim's sexual history is relevant?

just a part of blaming it on the victim.

[gejohnston]

25. that is absurd on so many levels starting with

the fact that rape has nothing to do with sex. It is about violence and misogyny, so no it is not even remotely the same.

[X_Digger]

26. victim != perpetrator

A defendant brought up on rape charges may have his previous history of similar convictions brought up in court. (Different rules and standards among the several states apply.)

Fucking duh, way to miss the point.

[Euromutt]

28. How do you rape someone in self-defense?

In a situation like this, where there are only two people involved and one of them is dead, one way to assess the plausibility of the survivor's account of events (aside from physical evidence) is to look at the deceased's history. Given that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, the fact that Kuenzli had a history of extreme criminal violence certainly lends plausibility to Fish's claim that Kuenzli attempted to assault him.

[benEzra]

29. Umm, if a woman shot a man who she said was attempting to rape her,

and that man turns out to have indeed committed several prior rapes, then it would have bearing on the woman's self-defense case.

Sexual history has no relevance to a rape case because rape isn't about sex, it's about assault, and power. Rape history can have bearing on a rape case, just as aggravated-assault history can have bearing on a self-defense case involving defense against aggravated assault.

[AzWorker]

6. 'Wrestling match' over a firearm.....

IIRC the coroners report shows the shots were fired mere inches away from Kenzuli, that supports Fish's account that Kenzuli was charging at him in an aggressive manner.

Who in their right mind would want to get into a knock down, drag out, wrestling match over a firearm?

Why would Kenzuli, who had a history of violence, charge at Fish?

While 'disparity of force' is the hardest justification defense to 'prove', it shows that one's attacker(s) does not have to be armed with a deadly weapon/dangerous instrument to be considered a lethal threat.

Fish's prosecution was political, he had incompetent defense consul, and he is finally a free man since his conviction was overturned, infact there is a special jury instruction in Az self defense cases because of his case.

[safeinOhio]

7. Good post.

there is something about the cavalier attitude of calling the taking of another humans life "a good shoot".

It should always be the last resort. Even if in self defense to save your own life, your trouble will just begin. Courts, lawyer fees, law suits, nightmares and shrinks. There are plenty of 90 year old WWII vets that still have nightmares about killing another person in self defense 60 some years ago.

I'm in my 60s and I'd still take an ass kicking from a couple of young guys, rather than deal with shooting an unarmed man. I have survived many of an ass kicking, including lying on the ground with 5 guys stomping and kicking me. Never felt a thing until the next day. That just doesn't scare me anymore. The pain goes away, or death ends all pain. But, living with the knowledge that I killed someone that perhaps I didn't have to would stay with me for a life time.
For me, I take reasonable caution outside and inside the home. I sometimes carry a concealed weapon, not very often. I have survived having a gun pulled on me 4 times in my life and only have scar on my left forearm to show for it. I'm glad I didn't kill any of those 4 people now. All of them would have been a "good shoot" to some here. Not me.

[TPaine7]

9. I support your right to lay down and die, to take whatever a thug wishes to dish out,

and to think yourself morally superior.

All I ask is reciprocation for those who disagree with you.

[safeinOhio]

10. I don't look at it as morally superior, only

as making more sense in the long run. Unintended consequences like the person in the story has suffered make my way a better solution for me.

Feel free to end up like that guy. Hope you never have to.

By the way, the 5 guys took off after I got a hold of one of those legs and took him to the ground. I'm more than happy to fight. I trained for many years. I just know what it is like to get knocked out and get pounded. It is really not that big of deal. I complied with two of the people that pulled guns, the other two I disarmed.

[AzWorker]

11. ".... including lying on the ground with 5 guys stomping and kicking me..."

"............I have survived many of an ass kicking, including lying on the ground with 5 guys stomping and kicking me. Never felt a thing until the next day."



Well, fact of the matter is there are quite a few folks that 'never felt a thing' ever again after being attacked by "feet and Fists".
There are no 'Marquess of Queensberry rules' on the street and no ref to throw in the towel for you. Victims suffer death or greivious bodily injury at the hands of unarmed attackers on an all to regular basis.

So because you are the 'ultimate street fighter' with an apparant 3" thick skull that can withstand blow after blow, I guess everyone must play by your 'might is right' view of the world where the physically weak can easily be preyed upon by the physically strong?

[safeinOhio]

13. Yup and people

that defend themselves with firearms end up in jail, in court and in therapy more often than that.
I said that a firearm should always be the last resort. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Never said I was the ultimate street fighter. I did say I'm in my 60s and don't fear death. I never said anyone must play by my rules. I only said that my way makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps you would like it if I put some words in your mouth that you didn't say. Like your scared to walk down the street cause everyone picks on you just like your big brother use to.

[hack89]

33. 800 people were murdered by hands and feet in 2009

statistically hands and feet are about 2.5 times more deadly than a rifle or shot gun


http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

16. The problem is knowing in advance that it's only an "ass-kicking"....

and that an accidental slip of the hand isn't going to kill you.

I admire your prognostication skill, unfortunately it's not something I'm blessed with.

I'm also not legally or morally obligated to allow myself to be beaten and risk permenant injury or death to protect the health and life of a violent asshole.

YMMV....

[aikoaiko]

12. The Harold Fish story is a famous one among the pro-RKBA types.

The laws have changed enough that he couldn't be convicted now.

[ileus]

15. He wasn't unarmed....maybe he didn't have a knife or a gun, but that alone

doesn't mean he was unarmed with intentions of killing Mr. Fish with any means necessary. Fish had an obligation to defend his life and prevent his firearm from falling into the wrong hands.

He done the right thing, his conscience should be clear as a bell...

[provis99]

22. there's no proof Fish is telling the truth.

he killed the only witness. And that witness had a tiny little screwdriver in his back pocket, so Fish didn't even know about it.

My guess is Fish got angry in a dispute over barking dogs, and shot the man down in cold blood.

[AzWorker]

27. "My guess is....."

Well, since we are 'guessing', I'm gonna guess it was space aliens that did it using mind control.

[Euromutt]

30. So let me make sure I've got this clear...

You're asserting that it is highly implausible that a man with an extensive history of threatening and violent behavior attempted to assault another, but it's not only perfectly plausible, but indeed likely that a retired schoolteacher who'd managed to reach the age of 57 without a criminal record decided to shoot a man "in cold blood" (your words) for something as trivial as some dogs' barking.

It's a good thing we don't convict people on the bases of your guesses.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. "Tiny little screwdriver"? WRONG!! It was a large screwdriver.

LINK: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060619/ai_n16488917/

The prosecution's contention that Kuenzli was unarmed was not accurate, McDonald said, adding that Kuenzli had a large screwdriver in his back pocket.

A screwdriver is an extremely effective stabbing weapon, just in case you didn't know that. When carried without any other tools it can be considered to be carried for the purpose of being armed.

[gejohnston]

32. Your post reminds me of a Murder She Wrote episode

When Jessica Fletcher comes to visit, two things will happen. Someone will be murdered in an unusual manner. The cops will not be up to the task and will try to pin it on the wrong person with the silliest possible theory.

Oh yeah, you are trying to prove a negative. You are starting with Fish being guilty of murder and he has to prove justifiable homicide. Given the criminal records, if admitted, and the screwdriver, easy for the jury to say justifiable homicide.

[jpak]

18. Thanks for posting this - I saw this a couple of days ago, but the site kept crashing my browser

:thumbsup:

[spin]

19. The story demonstrates why I often say that the last thing I ever want to do ...

is to shoot another individual.

It's a life changing experience and it's not necessarily a positive change. Shooting another person, even when you are entirely justified, can lead to legal expenses and major psychological problems.

[bellcrank]

20. And of course not shooting can lead to your next of kin collecting your

life insurance...
:shrug:

[spin]

21. Shooting another person is the last thing that I would ever want to do ...

unless the only other other choice was ending up seriously injured and in a hospital or six feet under.

[provis99]

23. Fish never said he had psychological problems.

He's just angry over the lost money.

[drpepper67]

34. So a jackass, anti-gun DA looking for a conviction ruined this guys life.

It wasn't shooting someone who was probably going to do him great bodily harm.

It was our "legal" system. The DA probably knew it would get over turned but didn't care. He had a point to make at the expense of someone else.

You have to be careful when you have an anti-gun DA.

It's sad that some here believe Mr. Fish would be better off with a screwdriver in his skull.