Napolitano signs clean-air bill, vetoes gun legislation

KVOA Tucson ^ | 3 July 2007 | AP

[marktwain]

PHOENIX -- Gun owners won't be able to lock up their pieces at public places and events that ban weapons, some Arizonans will have to watch their use of leaf blowers and a 2006 self-defense law will not be retroactively applied.

[marktwain]

This is part of the continuing saga of Harold Fish, who almost certainly acted in self-defense when he shot a mentally unbalanced homeless person who attacked him on a hiking trail in Arizona. Prosecutors had lobbied to change the law on self defense in Arizona in 1997 to reverse the burden of proof from what it had been since Arizona was a territory, and as it is in 48 other states. The change passed without debate, and almost no one noticed for years, even people who studied this particular law. I know, because I was one of them. In essence, because of the weird change in the law in 1997, Harold Fish had to prove his innocence. An extremely hostile prosecutor made this virtually impossible.

The legislature has now changed the law three times to try to rectify the injustice. The first time, the judge and prosecutor said it did not apply to the Fish case, even though the legislature passed it before the trial and in such a way as to make it immediately effective. The second time, the legislature said, effectively, "We mean it!" and Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed it. This is the third time, with the law specificly tailored to meet the Napolitano's objections. Now she has vetoed it again.

Her excuse? She didn't want the families of the people who had attacked the people who claim self defense, to have to go through another trial. (She worded it that families of victims of people convicted of a serious crime should not have to go through the pain of another trial).

Note that this bill only applies to a handful of cases where the accused person has adamantly claimed self defense, and refused to plea bargain, but had to prove their innocence because of the weird change in the law that has since been restored to its pre 1997 condition.

My question is: What does she have against Harold Fish?

Is it just that he had the gall to defend himself? Or does she owe the prosecutor in this case something? After all, she was a Clinton appointed prosecutor herself.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Elect a rodent, don’t be surprised when they’re on the wrong side of most every issue.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

A mentally deranged bum with a prior history of violence; the prior history of violence was suppressed at the trial. Fish is the victim of liberal leftists who are not-too-slowly strangling liberty and freedom in this formerly great state.

[cbkaty]

She is likely frequent dinner guests of Kyl & McCain.....rodents tend to hide in dark corners....