TexasCHLforum.com

Using Intro to Psych students as a research pool is very common. They are readily available, and often are required as part of their course to participate in at least one research study (or are offered extra credit for doing so).

As the OP noted, the results often should not be generalized to folks outside of that population. But they can provide results that help researchers determine if additional, larger-scale research is warranted.

lkd wrote:Thanks to the wisdom of the Arizona legislation and legal system, Harold is no longer a convicted felon. His story has been a harrowing one of justice VERY wrongly served, and then ultimately corrected. I was one of the donors to his legal support fund.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/articl ... 1b916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not arguing Fish's guilt or innocence here, but merely to point out that the linked article makes him sound guilty. I actually had a kind of visceral reaction to it, because as a young man, I once found myself on the receiving end of a similar kind of confrontation, where I was the angry party, and the other guy had the gun.

In my case, I lived up on Big Bend Drive in El Paso at the time, and the mountainside behind our home was largely (but not completely) undeveloped. There was one isolated home, perhaps 100 yards behind ours, that was further up the hillside. In any case, it was otherwise a very suburban neighborhood. So one afternoon, we hear gunshots coming from the hillside behind our house. The son, or grandson, of the owner of the house behind ours was there with a friend of his, and they were shooting the neighborhood quail, indiscriminately, and without any kind of license, within city limits, and without much regard as to where their pellets were headed. Apparently, he had just received a shotgun from the home's owner (a retired General) as a Christmas or birthday present... I don't remember which.

When I say "the neighborhood quail," mean exactly that. They were like pets, and a lot of homes actually put out feed for them. Even people who lived in the area and held hunting licenses and who hunted quail for sport, would not hunt these quail.

Anyway, I lost my temper, which I did a lot of back then, and I went charging up the mountainside, yelling at these kids, clearly angry, and not particularly in control of my choice of language. They were in their mid to late teens, and I was about 23-24. Now, as I drew closer, the kid with the gun leveled the barrel at my chest and said something about "hey, we're the ones with the gun; you'd better watch out." So I started shouting stuff at him like, "what are you going to do? Murder me so you don't get caught shooting quail inside the city limits?" or something like that. To put things into perspective, and to be fair, these were clean-cut boys, with no previous arrest records, who simply got caught doing something really stupid, and they had never counted on seriously ticking off anyone in the neighborhood. And what had really sent me over the top was that, on my charge up the hill, I ran across a bird they had shot. Most of one side of the bird's chest had been blown off, but it was still alive and suffering, and these two fools took no actions to put it out its misery. They weren't hunting. They were indiscriminately killing, without thought to what they were doing.

It was really, really stupid on my part, but even though my reaction was over the top, my anger was justified. They were killing the neighborhood quail. They didn't care if they only wounded a bird, and they didn't care if they left it to suffer. They were shooting in a residential area, and they weren't particularly careful about which direction they were shooting in. And as the story spread around the neighborhood, most people reacted with anger to what these kids were doing. Just not out of control anger like mine.

What kept things from escalating further - remember, I'm standing there in a rage, chewing these guys up one side and down the other, while one of them has a shotgun pointed at my chest, slightly uphill from me, and at a distance of about 10 feet... he can't miss - is that couple of El Paso PD LEOs showed up on the scene, uphill from the three of us, with guns drawn. They ordered the kid to put the shotgun down and to step back from it. Then one of them took the kids aside to get their story, while the other took me aside to get mine. In the end, they took my word over theirs, and they asked me if I wanted to press charges (I'm not sure for what) against them. I said that no, I didn't want to press charges, and that I'm sure they've learned to go shoot somewhere else.

I know, a long story, and I didn't particularly distinguish myself with my behavior. But... ...I was unarmed. I made no verbal threats of violence against either of those two kids. I just read them the riot act, using colorful and creative language. But I was clearly enraged, enough for the one with the shotgun to point it at me and imply a threat to shoot me. It could have turned out very badly. But my point is that it is very easy to put myself in Grant Kuenzli's shoes (the man who was killed in the above article). With no other witnesses, how do we know that Grant Kuenzli's reactions weren't identical to mine, and that Harold Fish in fact didn't overreact?

I'm not saying he did overreact, and I'm not saying he is guilty, but I am curious as to what particular evidence, other than his word against a dead man's, did the court which exonerated him base its decision, other than Grant Kuenzli's allegedly having been known to react violently to threats against his dogs? What, specifically, does that mean? Some might interpret my reaction 35 years ago to those two kids as "violent" because of the degree of anger I displayed - even though I was not literally violent, and I made no threats of violence. Others might see it more my way, which was a particularly high state of non-violent anger.

Obviously, you believed in Fish's innocence enough to donate to his legal defense before the court exonerated him. What was it that convinced you he was innocent? Again, not challenging.... just curious.

What this study mostly shows is how more than three decades of pervasive and unrelenting anti-gun and anti-self-defense media has affected public perception. People have these perceptions because weapons and self-defense are nearly always negatively portrayed in the MSM.

I watched a movie called "The Trigger Effect" over the weekend --a classic of anti-gun propaganda and wacky liberal concepts of self-defense. There is a scene in this movie where a guy shoots a knife-wielding burglar, and is told by his neighbors: "you shot him when you knew he only had a knife?" It seems liberals believe that if you're confronted by a guy with a knife the "fair" thing to do is pull out your own knife and have a knife fight, or perhaps, you can persuade him to drop the knife or go away by displaying your liberal sympathy with the disadvantaged and downtrodden --maybe by telling him how you understand that he is just a victim of society.

I also have to wonder how objective this study is because it seems to include the same kind of nonsensical liberal biases. For example, it says this: "However, the homeowner did have the burglar at a disadvantage and another jurisdiction might indict and try the homeowner." So, because the scenario laid out is that the homeowner has a gun, and the burglar doesn't, it is automatically presumed without reference to the actual situation of the homeowner that the burglar is at a disadvantage. The reality for the homeowner confronting a burglar as described is that he not only doesn't know if he's armed, he doesn't know if he's got one, two, or four buddies in the house with him, and if they are armed --nor can he divine his, or their, intentions.

Also, the study has the DA prosecuting the case in clear contradiction to the law. In fact, the whole case appears to be based on these two contractions: duty to retreat and the castle doctrine. With the voice of authority arguing contrary to the law it's not surprising that there are going to be "jurors" who assume the homeowner must be in the wrong --especially when they've been schooled their entire lives in wacky liberal concepts of self-defense and anti-gun propaganda.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not arguing Fish's guilt or innocence here, but merely to point out that the linked article makes him sound guilty.

That article doesn't say anything about the agressive behavior of the unrestrained dogs, or that the attacker continued to advance and make threats after Fish displayed the gun and told him to stop. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/ ... sh_con.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imagine if your wife felt threatened, pointed a gun at someone, and he continued to advance on her making threats.

TAM,

I think if you go read up on the case some more you will understand. Kuenzli had quite a history of violent behavior as well as running into trouble with his dogs. Fish of course didn't know this at the time, but when one considers the background it makes it pretty easy to accept Fish's need to defend himself with deadly force and to believe his story. The warning shot was dumb, though.

Very different than a neighbor (that you likely know at least by sight) being angry over illegal behavior that you are in engaged in.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

lkd wrote:Thanks to the wisdom of the Arizona legislation and legal system, Harold is no longer a convicted felon. His story has been a harrowing one of justice VERY wrongly served, and then ultimately corrected. I was one of the donors to his legal support fund.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/articl ... 1b916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not arguing Fish's guilt or innocence here, but merely to point out that the linked article makes him sound guilty. I actually had a kind of visceral reaction to it, because as a young man, I once found myself on the receiving end of a similar kind of confrontation, where I was the angry party, and the other guy had the gun.

...

Obviously, you believed in Fish's innocence enough to donate to his legal defense before the court exonerated him. What was it that convinced you he was innocent? Again, not challenging.... just curious.

Tons of details here: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a preponderance of evidence that Harold acted properly in every way, but the prosecutors went after him anyway. I felt very strongly that this was a wronged citizen and voted with my wallet. It was all I could do to help him.

*EDIT* Just to follow up, I found this part to be particularly offensive:
"On the final day of trial, Detective Cornish admitted that he had been instructed to deviate from this investigative standard by the Coconino County Attorney’s office and to specifically abstain from any investigative pursuit that would have reflect unfavorably on Grant Kuenzli."

When a prosecutor manipulates an investigation to help their conviction, justice no longer exists.

I'm not saying that never happens anywhere in the US, but I sure won't put up for it if I can.

VMI77 wrote: What this study mostly shows is how more than three decades of pervasive and unrelenting anti-gun and anti-self-defense media has affected public perception. People have these perceptions because weapons and self-defense are nearly always negatively portrayed in the MSM.

Yes I think you are onto something here. This is a point I was trying to make in an offline coversation, but didn't do it so clearly. (Hi Seamus!) We (the pro2A side) have won many important battles, but in some respects the Brady crowd have achieves some long lasting propaganda victories, e.g. "assault weapons."

VMI77 wrote: I also have to wonder how objective this study is because it seems to include the same kind of nonsensical liberal biases. For example, it says this: "However, the homeowner did have the burglar at a disadvantage and another jurisdiction might indict and try the homeowner."

I think you are going a bit astray here. At least I agree with that statement to some extent. The homeowner was at some advantage -- as outlined in the scenario, and I believe there are probably jurisdictions that would try the homeowner based on this, tho not so many in Texas anymore. (Remember how the first MPA was treated by a certain former Houston prosecutor).

Of course one of the underlying reasons for the Castle Doctine is that the homeowner doesn't really know if he is at an advantage or not, and indeed six more guys may come roaring out of the closet, or the burglar may have a gun or whatnot that the homeowner cannot see. Most of this gets sorted out a leisure in the aftermath, but the homeowner does not have this luxury at the time, and the burglar is definitely not there for tea and cookies. A concept lost on introductory psych students, apparently.

VMI77 wrote:Also, the study has the DA prosecuting the case in clear contradiction to the law.

This is not necesarily unrealistic. DAs have lot of discretion about what to prosecute. Again, remember the first iteration of the MPA.

Also, remember this study was not about how one should or should not react to burglars in the house. It was about trying to discern if the type of weapon would have an effect on juror's decision making, so the study necessarily had to put the homeowner on trial, whether or not that would normally happen in Texas.

The author of this paper, Glen Meyer, teaches Psychology at Trinity University in San Antonio. If you shoot IDPA or carbine matches in the S. A. area, you have probably seen him. I've shot alongside him in many a KR Training class. I know he has a CHL and carries where ever he can.

The point of this paper is not which guns are good or bad but how they can be perceived by jurors, as he indicates in the final sentence.

"Attorneys should be cognizant of the gun presence, gender and gun type effects/gender interactions so as to mount an effective defense for their client."

Gringop

txmatt wrote:TAM,

I think if you go read up on the case some more you will understand. Kuenzli had quite a history of violent behavior as well as running into trouble with his dogs. Fish of course didn't know this at the time, but when one considers the background it makes it pretty easy to accept Fish's need to defend himself with deadly force and to believe his story. The warning shot was dumb, though.

Very different than a neighbor (that you likely know at least by sight) being angry over illegal behavior that you are in engaged in.

Thanks for the explanation. In my own confrontation, neither the kids with the gun, nor I were known to one another. I found out who they were afterwards, when the cops showed up to put an end to the confrontation. I just didn't know anything at all about the Fish/Kuenzli story, and the article (no surprise) gave more coverage to Fish's defense than to Kuenzli's threat, and that made it sound prejudicial against Fish. That's why I asked, and gave my own story as an illustration.

ELB wrote:Also, remember this study was not about how one should or should not react to burglars in the house. It was about trying to discern if the type of weapon would have an effect on juror's decision making, so the study necessarily had to put the homeowner on trial, whether or not that would normally happen in Texas.

I think this goes back to my main concern --that decades of unrelenting media attack on the RKBA is having an impact in the long-term, regardless of apparent victories in the last few years. We've got a 5 to 4 Supreme Court in favor of the RKBA with one justice, Ginsberg I think, already publicly longing for a chance to reverse Heller.

I don't watch commercial television these days --I do pick up a series now and then on DVD. I am a bit of a movie buff though, and have watched a lot of movies. Be it in TV shows or in the movies, I'm trying hard to recall any representation of a citizen competently and responsibly defending himself with a gun. A citizen with a gun is always depicted as incompetent, irresponsible, murderous, or crazy.

ELB wrote:
Under the law, your use of force or deadly force against someone who has unlawfully and with force entered your house is presumed reasonable

What if I had accidentally left my door unlocked (therefore BG didn't have to use "force" to open the door)...

kP380 wrote:

ELB wrote:
Under the law, your use of force or deadly force against someone who has unlawfully and with force entered your house is presumed reasonable

What if I had accidentally left my door unlocked (therefore BG didn't have to use "force" to open the door)...

I believe that it's been established in case law that the 'force' used to push an unlocked door or window open, counts
I remember reading this a while back.

Ah, thank you. It's extremely rare when I forget to lock the front door, but once in a blue moon I'll forget to lock the door between the garage & laundry room

dicion wrote: ...I believe that it's been established in case law that the 'force' used to push an unlocked door or window open, counts
I remember reading this a while back.

You are correct. There is a thread around here someplace where Mr. Cotton comments on this. IIRC, when he was at the legislature when this portion of the law was first being considered, he had some concerns about the meaning of "force," but found out that those versed in criminal law all agreed that it takes very little to constitute "force;" simply turning a knob or opening a window would do.

Also, I searched the internet for references to it, and this interpretation seems pretty standard across the US.

C-dub wrote:EDIT: I just remembered, Harold Fish is the guys name.

I thought he was convicted of having an idiot for a defense attorney.