• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Conviction of Arizona man overturned thanks to castle doctrine

Swampbeast

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
81
Location
Boone, NC, ,
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.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

I remember this case. Massad Ayood did a good write up un it, and Hank T postulated (prostrated:lol:) 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 Michael Lessler 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.
 

Evil Ernie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
779
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
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".
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

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

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
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 :cuss::banghead: :D
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
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 :cuss::banghead: :D
+1 :celebrate
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
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' :lol:
 
Top