Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s 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 Fish’s 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 Fish’s 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 court’s decision, and this week they declined.
Fish’s 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—
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
About time. The prosecutors should finish out his prison term.
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.