Posted on 07/31/2009 11:18:08 AM PDT by marktwain
What's troublesome about gun nuts in this country isn't so much that they want to play with firearms and wear them on their hips with almost no restrictions. It's that many feel they have the God-given right to end every conflict with a bullet, or three.
There's often implied cowardice that goes along with all the righteous handgun-totin'. Way too often, sidearms are worn by craven men with chips on their shoulders, itching for a fight they don't have to resolve with their fists.
Take the case of Harold Fish, the ex-Tolleson high school teacher convicted of second-degree murder by a Coconino County jury and sentenced to 10 years in the 2004 death of Grant Kuenzli.
Kuenzli, 43, was a former fire inspector living, along with three dogs, out of his car in the Coconino National Forest when he encountered Fish. Fish, then 59, was completing a daylong hike when he came across Kuenzli and his dogs.
Two of the three canines ran at Fish with teeth bared. Fish dropped his walking stick and went for his 10-millimeter Kimber semiautomatic handgun, firing a warning shot into the ground in front of the dogs, dispersing them.
Then, Kuenzli ran at Fish, but he didn't get a warning shot. Instead, he got three hollow-point bullets in the chest. Supposedly, Kuenzli threatened Fish, yelling that he wanted to kill him, screaming profanities and swinging at Fish, "with his eyes crossed, looking crazy and enraged," as court documents recount it.
Later, it was discovered that Kuenzli had a screwdriver in his pocket, and a temper, according to some. Others remember him as a kind, caring man who volunteered with the local Humane Society. But Fish didn't know that at the time. He just knew that Kuenzli was advancing on him, and he obviously perceived the man as threatening.
Problem is, if that's all it takes to kill someone in Arizona, that's a pretty low threshold. Even if the guy is threatening. Sheesh, whatever happened to fistfights? Fish had a walking stick; did he think of using that? What about the gun? Couldn't he have popped Kuenzli upside the head with it? Or better yet, just moved out of the way of the oncoming, would-be assailant?
Nah, Fish just plugged the guy. If Kuenzli had been coming at Fish with a knife or that screwdriver, Fish would have been in his rights. Still, Fish contends he had no other choice. When Dateline NBC's John Larson asked Fish why he didn't hit Kuenzli instead of killing him, Fish's answer was revealing.
"You know, I just didn't think it would work," Fish told Larson. "To be honest with you, it didn't really even occur to me."
Of course it didn't occur to Fish — because he had a gun. And the gun was Fish's first and last line of defense, as it is with most firearm lovers. They see no problem with blowing someone away in an altercation that need not escalate to that level.
It explains why Fish's case is a cause celebre among gun advocates. The National Rifle Association kicked in an unspecified amount to Fish's legal fund. Blogs such as the "Pro-Arms Podcast" noted that Fish was defending himself from "an irate attacker" and kvetched, "You can be doing everything correctly" and still wind up in court.
"Imagine how this could happen to any of us," the blog stated.
Similarly, the "Harold Fish Defense" Web site cheered Fish when his verdict was reversed on June 30 by the Arizona Court of Appeals, and it criticized Attorney General Terry Goddard's office for appealing that decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
"What possible purpose does that serve?" asked the blog's host, who is not directly affiliated with Fish, BTW. "Let's keep this in mind in future elections."
Yes, Fish is a free man after serving three years of his sentence. And Coconino County Attorney David Rozema has announced there will be no new trial because the Legislature passed a law this year making a 2006 self-defense statute retroactive to Fish's case. That statute places the burden on the prosecution to disprove a defendant's self-defense claim.
But if the AG's Office has its way, Fish will go back to prison where he belongs. Assistant Attorney General Joe Mazairz explained that the appeals court overturned the conviction because Fish's attorney wanted the jury instructed on the definitions of other crimes, including endangerment, threatening or intimidating, and aggravated assault.
"Our position is, those are simply irrelevant," Mazairz says. "Because the only issue in this case was whether the defendant's use of deadly physical force was justified. And it would only be justified by the victim's threat of deadly physical force."
There are other issues involved, such as the relevance of a victim's past. See, during the trial, Fish's defense attempted to put Kuenzli on trial, but the ploy was ultimately unsuccessful.
It's called blaming the victim. And Fish's defense attorney would have done more of it if he had been allowed. He wanted to nitpick over a restraining order issued against Kuenzli by a former girlfriend, his mental health, and the fact that he'd threatened suicide in the past. The judge blocked such nitpicking.
"That issue is very troubling to us," said Kent Cattani, chief counsel for criminal appeals at the AG's Office. "It's okay to essentially put a victim on trial if a defendant is aware of prior conduct at the time of the killing. That's the general rule. And we think [there's the possibility of] creating an exception that swallows the rule."
Dennis Gilman The face of ICE's 287(g) program in Maricopa County, one of Arpaio's deputies during last week's immigration sweep in the Southeast Valley. Subject(s): 287(g), Harold Fish, Mark SpencerThe point is, Fish had never met Kuenzli. He knew nothing about him. He just knew that an apparently unarmed man was running toward him, swinging his fists, and he shot him dead. This is, of course, taking Fish at his word. He killed the only other witness.
But like many with guns on their sides, Fish felt entitled to use his 10-millimeter to stop a potential brawl with a bullet — the ultimate act of cowardice. Now it's apparent that the only way justice will be done on behalf of Kuenzli and his family is if Goddard's appeal to the state Supreme Court prevails.
Wait. A 59-yr old retired schoolteacher is attacked by a homeless lunatic and his three dogs and gets convicted of murder for defending himself? And this leftist pig of a NYT writer calls the attacked man a “coward”?
“Ok, I’ll admit it. I can’t tell if this is satire or not.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I know what you mean! It borders on self-parody. The writer could hardly look more boneheaded if he tried. He thinks a 59 year old man who is being charged at full speed by a 43 year old man who has just seen him fire a shot to scare off his dogs should take on the 43 year old with his fists or a stick withf no thought of the dogs that will without a doubt pile back into the fight as soon as they see their master attack. The writer is a complete idiot. I haven’t even mentioned how he is so certain that concealed carry permit holders only carry weapons because they are itching for a chance to kill someone.
Are we really sure this isn’t satire? It reads like something from the onion.
Ooops, I see this is from something called the “New Times”, apparently some far-left website in Arizona dedicated to trashing Joe Arpiao.
Remember—our soon to be Supreme Court Justice said there was NO RIGHT to self defense in the Constitution. Amazing that leftists found a right to abortion, but not to defend one’s life. Translation—the left gets to decide right and wrong, justified and unjustified. The “non-biased” author here is a perfect example.
I have an idea for Mr. Stephen Lemon. Let's just test your little theory. I'll be first in line. For the record, I've never been in a fist fight in my life, but I'll break that string for Mr. Lemon's benefit.
“It’s that many feel they have the God-given right to end every conflict with a bullet, or three.”
When I read that “they” I thought of something that had nothing to do with his point. Lord forgive me.
They did have that quirk, but I was referring to a quirk that said that deadly force couldn’t be used to prevent serious (grevious?) bodily harm. The story read that way - that deadly force could only be used if you reasonably thought you were going to be killed. It was wrong.
The author is a sneering, self-righteous jackass. Fistfights are for boys and playgrounds. Men use weapons to fight and it's for keeps. That may have no place in this guy's latte-soaked, second-guessing fantasy world but it happens to be a fact.
If you get a chance, read the statement at sentencing from Harold Fish.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment.
I’m new here but here goes...
One scenario that I haven’t read here yet ........Ok , lets say Fish stood there and had a fist fight with dogboy instead ( like OP was saying ). However, during the fight the gun gets loose and Fish is killed.......The idiot OP still would have posted here. He would also STILL BLAME FISH for the whole damn thing. “ If Fish wasn’t allowed to carry his gun , none of this would have happened etc.etc blah blah blah “, says Lemonhead .
Idiots, like him never change.
Unless he finds himself in an extremely crappy situation sometime . You know, a situation that would make a person wish they had brought a damn gun....a situation kinda like Fish was in minus the gun.
I think it might even convince Lemonhead that guns aren’t so bad after all.........but I doubt it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.