Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Conviction of Arizona man overturned thanks to castle doctrine

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13173

    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 court’s decision to overturn Harold Fish’s second-degree murder conviction. The National Rifle Association provided assistance in this case. NRA’s Office of General Counsel advised Fish’s defense counsel, and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund provided financial aid for Fish’s defense.

    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.



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    I remember this case. Massad Ayood did a good write up un it, and Hank T postulated (prostrated) about shooting "unarmed" assailants.

    This was piss poor justice that he even spent a minute behind bars. I don't know what kind of scumbag bureaucratic pig DA Prosecutor Michael Lessler is, but unfortunately they seem to severly out number the decent DA's. Much was made about Mr Fish's choice in weapon and ammo. A 10mm Glock with Winchester Silvertip HP's. It was possibly the most damaging part of the "evidence", and could have been swept aside by pointing out nearly every cop carries something identical.

    Therefore Mr Fish wasn't anymore "blood thirsty" than the police. Mr Fish had a less than adequate lawyer. The fact that the assailant had a lengthy criminal history should have been allowed as well. This convinces me even more that Prosecutor MichaelLessler is a malignancy even worse than Kuenzli ever was. If not for parasites like this, real criminals would fear the public more than the police.


    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    I now hope he gains some $$$ retribution. Good news.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Being attacked by a neighbors dog myself back in the day, I would definitely consider two vicious dogs a "deadly weapon" and adding a guy with a violent history would definitely make it "disparity of force".

  5. #5
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Swampbeast wrote:
    SB 1145, passed in 2006, put the burden of proof back on the state.
    Where it belongs in the first place!

    , saying that those who use firearms in self-defense are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Oh wow! What a revolutionary concept!

    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.
    Bravo Governor Brewer, bravo! Same goes for the house and senate in Arizona too. The victim and his family suffered for three years in prison because of this tyrant. I hope the victim sues the state and the DA personally, and removes him from office.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Milton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    103

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    I remember this case. Massad Ayood did a good write up un it, and Hank T postulated (prostrated) about shooting "unarmed" assailants.
    By the way, where is Hank T?


    *crickets*
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

  7. #7
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    Being attacked by a neighbors dog myself back in the day, I would definitely consider two vicious dogs a "deadly weapon" and adding a guy with a violent history would definitely make it "disparity of force".
    Don't let HankT hear you say that.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    This is good news the prosecutor should be held on criminal charges for incarcerating this man.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Let's just leave sleeping dogs lie.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Let's just leave sleeping dogs lie.
    are you calling the prosecutor a dog that lies?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Let's just leave sleeping dogs lie.
    And that is exactly the sentiment that has let thousands of government officials get away with treason.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Now with it being overturned will he be able to purchase firearms again, or just the fact of him being in prison for more then one year will stop him from purchasing a firearm.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I can't tell you how much this sort of thing angers me.

    During Fish’s trial, the jury was not allowed to hear evidence...
    Now I know that information can be presented in a slanted way, if it is allowed to be done so, but this is one thing I simply can NOT accept as a citizen, and I will never understand how we let the government get away with it all the time.

    Truth is truth, and when a witness takes an oath to tell the WHOLE truth, it ought to apply to the attorneys as well.

    I really don't care if one side thinks (and can convince a judge that) evidence is not relevant. As a juror, I demand to hear ALL the evidence that either side wishes to present, and sure, I'll listen to them both tell me what they think about it, and why it is or is not important to the case, and how it should affect my decision. But it is up to me (the juror) to make that final decision according to my own reason and conscience. Any other course makes the jury a pawn, played by the government to some end game.

    Withholding evidence from a jury should be a crime.

    I'm sure the lawyers will have lots of reasons why I am wrong. The funny thing is, when you are standing before your maker one day after you've crossed the great divide, why don't you try withholding evidence, and see how that works for you!

    TFred


  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Thank god he's finally out. We feel for you buddy.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Let's just leave sleeping dogs lie.
    are you calling the prosecutor a dog that lies?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Thank God justice was FINALLY served, now just me saying it, I'd be suin the pants off the prosecutor, the Satae and hell just anyone else that got in the way, hell maybe even HankT
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    I'm so glad that justice was finally served in this case.

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Thank God justice was FINALLY served, now just me saying it, I'd be suin the pants off the prosecutor, the Satae and hell just anyone else that got in the way, hell maybe even HankT
    +1 :celebrate

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    Now with it being overturned will he be able to purchase firearms again, or just the fact of him being in prison for more then one year will stop him from purchasing a firearm.
    On the plus side he has time to find out. The state must return his illegally confiscated
    weapon to him as the case is resolved. So at least he has a 10mm while deciding
    what he can and can't buy over state lines. I didn't know the 10mm models are
    that old now. They sure take a while to show up around here.

    Our Mayor wasn't allowed to introduce evidence he was a good guy who helped
    the poor at his trial, that he did it with stolen money didn't matter in his eyes.
    I would have loved to have him take the stand and argue that one just to enjoy
    the cross.

    I have yet to hear how you can get a fair trial if you mug a SCOTUS. Wouldn't
    all judges need to recuse themselves since they know the victim?
    Hope the question doesn't put me on the 'No Fly List'

  19. #19
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Thank God justice was FINALLY served, now just me saying it, I'd be suin the pants off the prosecutor, the Satae and hell just anyone else that got in the way, hell maybe even HankT
    +1
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •