Posted on 12/04/2009 9:41:26 AM PST by Mind Freed
Fairfax, Va. -- An Arizona man who spent nearly three years in prison for justifiably shooting a man in self-defense is now free and clear of all guilt in his case. This week the Arizona Supreme Court let stand the state appellate courts decision to overturn Harold Fishs second-degree murder conviction. The National Rifle Association provided assistance in this case. NRAs Office of General Counsel advised Fishs defense counsel, and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund provided financial aid for Fishs defense.
Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRAs Institute for Legislative Action said, We are pleased that justice has finally prevailed for Mr. Fish in this case that was clearly justifiable self-defense. We wish the best for Mr. Fish and his family in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at nra.com ...
Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRAs Institute for Legislative Action said, We are pleased that justice has finally prevailed for Mr. Fish in this case that was clearly justifiable self-defense. We wish the best for Mr. Fish and his family in the future.
In 2006, Harold Fish was convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Grant Kuenzli. Fish encountered Kuenzli and his vicious dogs while hiking on a trailside in Coconino County in May of 2004. After Fish fired warning shots at the aggressive dogs, Kuenzli tried to attack him, and Fish was forced to shoot him in self-defense. At the time of the shooting, current self-defense laws in Arizona -- which put the burden of proof on the prosecutor instead of the defendant -- did not exist. During Fishs trial, the jury was not allowed to hear evidence that Kuenzli had acted violently in similar situations in the past. In June, an Arizona appellate court overturned Fishs conviction, acknowledging the jury should have heard this evidence and also saying the jury was not instructed properly on the meaning of unlawful physical force. Attorney General Terry Goddard had asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the appellate courts decision, and this week they declined.
Fishs case spawned two laws in Arizona strengthening the rights of gun owners to use a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones. SB 1145, passed in 2006, put the burden of proof back on the state, saying that those who use firearms in self-defense are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This year, Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1449 into law, making retroactive SB 1145, which effectively allowed Fish and others in similar positions the right to a new trial, as well as to be considered innocent in the justifiable use of force unless the state proves otherwise.
—I guess “justice” delayed is better than no justice at all—
The problem is that someone might “hesitate” with the thought of going to jail and wind up dead!!
Did the GOA put any money up to support Harold Fish ???
One must completely comprehend the risks of discharging a firearm — and this is one of them. At best, you’re looking at 10-grand in attorney’s fees and a criminal investigation — and that’s if the shooting was justified. Prison is possible. It is the reality of the decision to take a life — even in self-defense — that your decision will be scrutinized to high-heaven.
If asked to determine whether I would risk life in prison to protect my family, the answer is simple.
SnakeDoc
--(I'm a former Leadvillain)
I used nearly lethal force to defend myself once but luckily the authorities in Texas had no doubt about it being self-defense. I have absolutely no doubt that when my assailant placed that gun against my head, he was going to pull the trigger. Even though my life was in the balance, I do have doubts and second guess having messed his life up so completely. I guess that has more to do with the method I used than anything.
About time. The prosecutors should finish out his prison term.
Too many liberals begin their political careers as prosecutors to appear more conservative. Their liberal stripes always appear in self defense cases.
GOA is "all hat and no cattle"
Don't feel guilty whatsoever. I personally thank you for your service to humanity in taking this guy off the streets, no matter what means you used. If he'd kill you, he'd kill me or one of my loved ones. F&ck him, and God bless you. Sorry if that's callous, but it's how I feel.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
If I'm walking my friendly pooches somewhere out in the wilderness and some litigious f'n yuppie begans screeching at me to "control your dogs," then shoots at them, I'd be furious and he'd definitely have a problem with me.
OTOH, if I'm out hiking a wilderness trail and three truly vicious, snarling, aggressive dogs came charging at me, pulling a gun would be my first thought.
However, I'm inclined to question the shooter's actions; a pack of truly aggressive dogs would not back down if you simply fired a shot into the ground.
Just sayin'.
But I wasn't there and know nothing of the case other than what little I've just read about it. The court, which I'm sure knows everything about it that can be known, has made it's ruling and I'm satisfied. Because in cases like this, you err in favor of the principle of self-defense and pray people won't abuse it.
GOA is “all hat and no cattle”
But they talk a good ball game!
In some states (at least Texas), the law does not require you to retreat if you are in your home.
SnakeDoc
Generally, I hate the concept of retroactive laws...
Good thing Obami took the Commurat Gov to Washington.
all hat and no cattle(US, idiomatic) Full of big talk but lacking action, power, or substance;
pretentious.
You need to qualify your stmts to indicate this only applies to non-govt agents. They seem to have ready access to a ‘get out of jail free’ cards.
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.