I believe this should be required reading...

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:30 am

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

I know it's long, boring, and chuck full of how bad things "could" get even when you believe you are in the right...

I know its concerning another state (Arizona), but I believe there are some things in here we can all learn about how hard it could get when and if we have to defend ourselves...

I don't believe it should change in many ways how we conduct ourselves in real life, but I believe it does illustrate some things that we might be able to improve upon...But that is a personal decision, and I believe its good to become a student of the law, and do the best you can to understand, and apply to the best of our ability, the experiences of others, so that we can take charge and best dictate and control the situation in the "aftermath" of a self-defense incident...

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:10 am

I think the number one lesson from this sad tale is to carry pepper spray.

- Jim

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:46 am

This is definitely something to mill over.
From the information given, I don't know that pepper spray would have been the best bet. I'm wary of pepper spray. If the wind isn't in your favor that day, you may just attack yourself. Bullets just don't have that problem.
For people with respiratory ailments (myself included) pepper spray could do far more damage to us than to our attackers.

I think that if a person attacks you, that person's criminal history needs to be told to the jury. Would you want to be on a jury that puts the wrong person in prison?

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:03 am

Venus Pax wrote:I think that if a person attacks you, that person's criminal history needs to be told to the jury.

It's an established principle of law that arrests cannot be used as evidence. Only convictions can.

There are good arguments pro and con, but in the end it is the judge's decision.

- Jim

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:28 am

Thanks for posting this stevie_d!

That $600,000+ legal bill is something else.

I think Fish did the right thing during the attack, but he talked too much afterwards. Fish thought he was in the right, so in the beginning he talked to everybody, including the media. Then his lawyer didn't let him testify during the trial. I'm sure all of Fish's statements were used against him in the worst possible way in court. It didn't help him that it was a borderline case legally and very controversial case from the start.

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:41 pm

Charles's best advice to us was "shut up."

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:51 pm

Venus Pax wrote:Charles's best advice to us was "shut up."

+1!!!

You guys really need to see his lecture on the aftermath issue...

There are some body language observations I made when I've seen this, and the demeanor when you tell investigators certain things that defer your statement for a short while, that will give you time to collect yourself and give you a chance to confer with legal counsel before you do so that is so critical...

In my opinion you are not doing anything illegal or improper by not stating anything when "they" want you to do so...You are just desiring to get your thoughts together so you can give a good report to them when you are ready...To me there is nothing wrong with that approach...And to let them coerce you into saying something before you are ready and advised is just wrong on their part...

As much respect as I have for the process, that process should respect the truth, and give both sides a chance to get your thoughts clear and give the truth when your ready....

This is the biggest lesson I learned on this issue...

But again, this is just my opinion, based upon what I have participated in in the past discussions on all of this...

AV8R · Post by **AV8R** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:58 pm

Paladin wrote:
I think Fish did the right thing during the attack, but he talked too much afterwards.

Yep. The only three things you should say to a cop:

1) Yes, sir.
2) No, sir.
3) My name is...

Stupid · Post by **Stupid** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:02 pm

Kind of fishy story in my stupid mind. Personally, I just don't see how this can be self defense. In cases like this, Fish should have just run away as fast as he could

Again, I am no lawyer and my name is stupid.

1. That the dearly departed was armed or not should not be allowed as evidence because Fish did not have that knowledge or see the screwdriver

2. The dearly departed's violent history should not be allowed as evidence because that had nothing to do with Fish shooting him, of which nor did Fish have any previous knowledge.

3. Disparity of force was the only arguement that I could see. Should the dogs join the attack, Fish might have a chance.

4. Murder, second degree is harsh. Manslaugher is better.

Stupid · Post by **Stupid** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:06 pm

Chas, please correct me. When things did happen, we could say "I am scared of my life and I believe the guy was trying to kill me/us"

Repeat it until Chas shows up, of course. :-)

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:31 am

Stupid wrote:4. Murder, second degree is harsh. Manslaugher is better.

I bet a "no bill" would float yer boat better than any of that...

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Thu May 31, 2007 11:47 am

Stupid wrote:Kind of fishy story in my stupid mind. Personally, I just don't see how this can be self defense. In cases like this, Fish should have just run away as fast as he could

Fish is an older guy, who was towards the end of a hike, loaded down with a backpack.

Kuenzli was a big younger guy, who was a firefighter by profession, in good physical shape.

I think it was extremly unlikely that Fish could have outrun the guy. And I'd give odds on Kuenzli for any physical fight as well.

But the key factor for me was the fact that Fish already had his gun out and had fired a warning shot. Kuenzli knew this and charged anyway. Fish said Kuenzli yelled he was going to kill him. At that point you could argue that Kuenzli was going for Fish's gun.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:41 pm

My understanding is that it is best to give a very simple initial statement to the police and then shut up until you can talk to a lawyer. Something along the lines of:

"That man threatened my life and charged me. I shot him in self defense"

The response to any further questions would be along the lines of:

"I want to cooperate with the investigation and I have already given a statement to Officer X. I decline to comment further until i talk to my lawyer."

DSARGE · Post by **DSARGE** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:11 pm

I read about this case a while back after seeing it on 20/20. I feel bad for all those involved, but the site posted is only one side. I highly suggest checking further into the story. I don't mean to stand up for either side, but it is interesting and there is ALOT more involved.