TexasCHLforum.com

This is probably the most disturbing case I've seen in a while. I've followed the case from the beginning, and the prosecutor was really out to get Mr. Fish, reguardless of what the evidence said. And it looks as though the Prosecutor has won.

http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=172726

Hello Paladin, What ever to "In the interest of justice" Or The spirit of the law. They can retro just about any thing they want to. This is a shame on those prosecutors. John

I don't know the law in that state, so I can't comment about it in the context of that state.

From the article, it appears to me that in Texas it would not have been a justifiiable shoot.

Paladin, you probably know more than what is in this article. Can you elaborate on it?

With the details provided in this story, i'd have to agree this was not a justifiable shoot.

He might have been right to shoot the dogs if he felt threatened, but not the person with the dogs.

As far as trying to apply a law that wasn't in effect on the day the incident occured? That's insane. When he shot the guy, the new castle doctrine law was not in effect. It'd be just as wrong if, let's say, after this incident occured, Arizona passed a law banning handguns on hiking trails. It'd be wrong for Arizona to convict this man under that new law.

I am, however, open to believing that this article is somewhat biased, but based on what was provided in it, I'd have to side with the state.

Paladin wrote:I've followed the case from the beginning, and the prosecutor was really out to get Mr. Fish, reguardless of what the evidence said.

From the article, it looks like all the evidence that was missing, made the prosecutor's courtroom job much simpler.

Here's another article:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/speci ... ooter.html

With that first article you have to pretty much ignore everything the prosecutor said (because it was all out of context) and you start to get an idea of what happened.

Basically Fish (a retired teacher and concealed permit holder) was hiking in a park with a backpack on. 2 or 3 unleashed dogs ran at him aggressively. These were large dogs, some had a documented history of aggression. Fish pulled out his 10mm and fired a warning shot into the ground. With the warning shot the dogs stopped running towards Fish. But the 'owner', Grant Kuenzli saw what happened from a hill above and flipped out. Kuenzli was a big guy and a known nutcase who lived in the park with his dogs. Lived out of his car or something. Kuenzli couldn't hold a job or any kind of relationship and a lot of people were scared of the guy.

It's possible Kuenzli thought Fish shot one of the dogs. Fish said Kuenzli yelled "I"m gonna kill you" and ran down the hill towards Fish. Fish told Kuenzli to stop and Kuenzli kept advancing. Fish fired 3 shots at contact distance. Kuenzli went down. Fish aided the guy and went and got help. The police came and declared it self defense. A screwdriver was found in Kuenzli's back pocket.

But apparently Kuenzli was a democrat, with some kind of political connections. The prosecutor decided the investigating LEO's didn't know what they were doing and reassigned them. The prosecutor didn't present all the facts to the grand jury and got charges filed against Fish. Fish's attorny had some investigation done that revealed a lot of nasty facts about Kuenzli and got the grand jury charges thrown out. The prosecutor decided he didn't want to take the charges back to a grand jury and found a way to take it to trial without a grand jury. Then Arizona slef defense procedural law changed, and the prosecutor was successful in keeping the new law from applying to Fish's case.

If a guy sizably larger than me, with 3 large dogs loyal to him that already made a threatening advance against me, screams "I'm gonna kill you!" and charges me violently, I'd shoot. If you turn tail and run, you run the risk the dogs will smell fear and retreat and in turn no longer feel threatened by your previous actions, therefore placing yourself in additional danger.

I think the warning shots against the dogs was a humane thing to do, very considerate of the man. Putting down the owner who was so flagrantly violent and in an apparent altered state of mind - also the right thing to do.

JMHO, be it what it may.


TX, can you share as to why you do not believe that would be a justified shoot here in Texas? Maybe I read the story correctly, but I thought the burden for the statute meant you had to feel the deadly force action was necessary to prevent imminent injury to your person. Am I interpreting that incorrectly?

I wasn't aware that a DA in Arizona had the power to reassign investigatigating law enforcement officers.

You learn something new every day.[/quote]

nitrogen wrote:I wasn't aware that a DA in Arizona had the power to reassign investigatigating law enforcement officers.

You learn something new every day.

[/quote]

Personally, I have no idea how the prosecutor was able to do half the stuff he did. I would just shake my head every time he would do something. I know it's hard to bring prosecutors up on misconduct, but I was wondering if somebody would accuse him of it.

I think it's nearly impossible in a case like this.

When prosecutorial misconduct is made to stick, it's usually a case of falsifying or suppressing evidence, or dropping charges against a buddy, or taking a bribe to do so.

- Jim