Mark Spencer’s Latest Outrage(Harold Fish case anti-gun Barf Alert)

The New Times ^ | 28 July, 2009 | Stephen Lemons

[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.

[marktwain]

This hoplophobic zealot is so wrong in so many ways. Many people have been killed with a single punch to the head, so it is perfectly legitimate to threaten deadly force in Arizona to prevent yourself from being beaten. Of course if Kunzli had been able to physically close with Fish, the dogs would likely have joined in as well.

Kunzli's history should have been allowed as evidence because it collaborated Fish's testimony, which the prosecution tried to impune.

The explanation of the other statutes was necessary because Arizona law explicitly states that it is justified to use deadly force to prevent the immediate commission of those crimes, and Kunzli's actions fit the definition for them.

All that Kunzli had to do to avoid being shot was to stop attacking Harold Fish. Perhaps Kunzli simply wanted to commit suicide by innocent gun carrier. We will never know, and the jury wasn't allowed to know that history.

The author thinks that it would have been sane for a 59 year old man to get into a fistfight with two dogs and a madman who was willing to charge him even though he had demonstrated that he had a loaded gun and was willing to use it.

Here is a link to the statement Harold Fish made when he was sentenced. I suggest that you read it and compare it to what the author of the above wrote.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/hfstatementpostsentence.htm

[marktwain]

I think this will make the link easier to access:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/hfstatementpostsentence.htm

[xcamel]

Yeah... Chicken Feathers.

[parsifal]

“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.”

Restraining orders and mental health issues are hardly “nitpicking”. I wonder if defense attorney was being repetitive or was unable to get into evidence period?

parsy.

[oyez]

This writer failed to climb the maturity ladder.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Gun controllers are also criminal-rights advocates...and the criminal here was not Fish.

This writer is beyond mere gun control....this writer is more for big government controlling people

[stinkerpot65]

Even the DUers are on Fish’s side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x243455

Prosecutors in this country are thugs.

[Free State Four]

If I had just produced a weapon, fired a warning shot at dogs and the dogs’ owner in response, charged me, knowing I had a loaded, working firearm, I would assume he was armed with something as lethal. Or was cookoo crazy beyond belief.

[piytar]

Either Martinez is so ignorant of the law that he should be disbarred or the @zz of an “author” is intentionally misquoting him. Or both. What am I talking about?

“And it would only be justified by the victim’s threat of deadly physical force.”

Wrong. Threat of serious bodily harm is also legal justification for use of deadly force in AZ (I looked it up to make sure AZ didn’t have some weird quick in its self defense laws). Gee, a 43 year old charging a 59 year old despite the fact that the 59 year old had just put a round into the ground? I’m sure he just wanted to talk and there was no threat of serious bodily harm. /spit

[HiJinx]

That statute places the burden on the prosecution to disprove a defendant's self-defense claim.

It's called innocent until proven guilty, ya' dimwit (not you, Mr. Clemens, but the author of this screed). The 2006 law was passed precisely to prevent such a miscarriage of justice in the first place.

[Pessimist]

” 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.”

Ok, I’ll admit it. I can’t tell if this is satire or not.

(10mm Kimber though... good taste!)

[HiJinx]

We actually did have such a quirk in our law, up until it was reversed in 2006. Until then, the law stated that a person who used deadly force in an act of self-defense was required to prove his innocence, rather than the way it is in the rest of the country - innocent until proven guilty.

[marktwain]

The defense was unable to bring a great deal of evidence to the juries attention. The first investigator on the scene told the prosecutor that it was a clear case of self defense. The prosecutor took him off the case and appointed another to look into it. The prosecutor violated numerous rules when presenting the case to the grand jury. The appeals court ruled that he had acted improperly in the grand jury proceedings, and that the grand jury indictment was not legitimate. The prosecutor noted that he did not need to have a grand jury indictment, he could indict without one, so he did.

I have often wondered about the political motivations for this prosecution. The case was so clear that the legislature passed legislation four times to help Harold Fish. The judge ruled that the first one did not count because the act occurred before the legislation was passed. The next two were vetoed by Janet Napolitano, now head of homeland security. The last was signed by Governor Jan Brewer a couple of weeks ago.

[marktwain]

“It's called innocent until proven guilty, ya’ dimwit (not you, Mr. Clemens, but the author of this screed). The 2006 law was passed precisely to prevent such a miscarriage of justice in the first place.”

Yes, and it was the state of law in Arizona from territorial days until the law was changed about 1995. The “new” law simply returned the law to its original state.

It is also the state of law in 48 other states, I have been told. Perhaps another freeper knows what single state requires the defendant to prove that he is innocent by means of self defense.

[joe fonebone]

all that you should ever say is “ He said he was going to kill me. I believed him”....and nothing more

[stinkerpot65]

To liberals, all individual freedoms are evil. Even the freedom to defend yourself.

[Myrddin]

When you have a loaded firearm on your person, the last damn thing you want is to engage in a "brawl". Fish ran the risk of being stabbed with the screwdriver or killed with his own firearm if he opted for a "brawl". The dead assailant's behavior and history of behavior are very relevant to the case.

[parsifal]

Sounds like one of those prosecutors who takes it too far and makes it personal.

parsy.

[techcor]

This idiot watches way too much TV.

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?

Yeah, that's it that's the ticket. He could've done a jump over the other guys head double somersault while kicking him in the head to knock him unconcious. Then his walking stick could've split into two sticks so he could throw one at each dog knocking them out. He (the writer) has seen that trick in many movies and cartoons so he knows it's for real.

[Slimey]

sounds like the author is a anti gun, hand wringing pussy that squats to pee. I’d have done the same thing as Fish. Anybody that lives in his car with dogs just ain’t right and needed a shrink to talk him back into society.