Fish is free

[knight0334]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....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.

[wa3ra]

Three years he'll never get back.

[dc dalton]

Well if nothing else, this mans three years gave him (and them) this:

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.

Worth it? dunno but he should be proud it came about

[Dredly]

I'm sure there will be a lawsuit as well which will set him up pretty well for the rest of his life

[RandomTask]

I'm sure there will be a lawsuit as well which will set him up pretty well for the rest of his life

By the looks of him, I'd say that won't have much time to enjoy it.

[GunLawyer001]

This is exactly why I teach in my workshops that you DON'T always have to call 911 after a defensive shooting.

You have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The DA and jury won't always believe you, even when you're telling the truth. In the Fish case, one of the female jurors basically said that she decided that he was guilty based on the type of bullets that he happened to have in his gun, despite the fact that he would have loaded the gun long before the soon-to-be-dead guy came running and screaming at him. He had no prior criminal history, no reputation for violence, the dead guy wasn't about to contradict his story, the dead guy DID have a reputation for violence, and the physical evidence was all consistent with Fish's story. But he was convicted.

Where was the famous presumption that "the guy who calls the cops is the good guy"?

Fish did everything by the book, he rendered first aid after the threat had ended, he called 911 and summoned police and an ambulance. It cost him 3 years of his life, many thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost income, and psychic trauma above and beyond the normal horror of having shot a man.

It is NOT ALWAYS the best idea to call 911 after a defensive shooting. Often, it is. But not always.

[FormerUser123]

This is exactly why I teach in my workshops that you DON'T always have to call 911 after a defensive shooting.

You have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The DA and jury won't always believe you, even when you're telling the truth. In the Fish case, one of the female jurors basically said that she decided that he was guilty based on the type of bullets that he happened to have in his gun, despite the fact that he would have loaded the gun long before the soon-to-be-dead guy came running and screaming at him. He had no prior criminal history, no reputation for violence, the dead guy wasn't about to contradict his story, the dead guy DID have a reputation for violence, and the physical evidence was all consistent with Fish's story. But he was convicted.

Where was the famous presumption that "the guy who calls the cops is the good guy"?

Fish did everything by the book, he rendered first aid after the threat had ended, he called 911 and summoned police and an ambulance. It cost him 3 years of his life, many thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost income, and psychic trauma above and beyond the normal horror of having shot a man.

It is NOT ALWAYS the best idea to call 911 after a defensive shooting. Often, it is. But not always.

How could he have known ahead of time that calling 911 was the wrong move in this case?

[GunLawyer001]

How could he have known ahead of time that calling 911 was the wrong move in this case?

How can most defensive firearm instructors know ahead of time that calling 911 is ALWAYS the smart move?

[FormerUser123]

How can most defensive firearm instructors know ahead of time that calling 911 is ALWAYS the smart move?

Not trying to be a smartass, just trying to get some insight as to what types of situations you'd think would be better not to call 911 in.

[RandomTask]

Not trying to be a smartass, just trying to get some insight as to what types of situations you'd think would be better not to call 911 in.

When you're 100% sure you can take out the perp, lose the body and have no witnesses.