Here, the dogs would be considered weapons themselves most likely - and this wouldn't clear a grand jury let alone the DA.
This is a discussion on Scenario: Attacked On The Trail within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here, the dogs would be considered weapons themselves most likely - and this wouldn't clear a grand jury let alone the DA....
Here, the dogs would be considered weapons themselves most likely - and this wouldn't clear a grand jury let alone the DA.
Originally Posted by ExSoldier762
I think I made the distinction between over dramatizing and showing genuine emotion. You donít have to be a trained police officer to tell the difference. If my point isnít getting through to you then it is either a case of you having a problem with reading comprehension and are unable to grasp the concept I am trying to get across. Or the problem may be my inadequacy with a inability to effectively communicate my thoughts in writing. Wherever the fault lies I can not think of any way to get my point across more effectively. There is no point in trying to keep on repeating myself so I will just give up an hope that others that read my post were able to understand the point I was trying to get across and were able it in some small way benefit from the advice.
Go to the police station and point at the holding cell and ask the officer on duty what they're in there for. A good cop will tell you they're in there because they didn't know when to shut up.
If you are involved in a shooting, tell the police simply that
1) You feared for your safety and acted in self defence
2) You would like to speak to a lawyer before answering any more questions
no melodrama needed the police report will read: "Suspect states 'He was trying to kill me and i had to defend myself'"
The police will not make judgements on their reports as it will open them up to litigation. You will never see a report that reads: "Suspect states 'He was trying to kill me and i had to defend myself,' but he didn't sound all that convincing to me." Police can only report their observations, not their opinions.
When i write an ambulance report, i can't write "Patient is obviously faking injury for insurance money" I can report "Arrived on scene to see pt doing back flips in the parking lot. Upon approach the pt complained of 'crippling' back and neck pain after slipping on sidewalk and stated 'oh, the agony, the pain! Woe is me!'"
See what i'm getting at?
Last edited by clubsoda22; February 1st, 2005 at 03:10 PM.
Very interesting scenario and a very nasty situation. As always I do not know all of the facts, but here are some thoughts that come to mind. I would not have shot the dog, but that is just me. I have been in similar situations and have not had too shoot. On the other hand I have worked with a lot of dogs including bite work training and I am not afraid of dogs. I know that a dog can do a lot of damage and I do not want to minimize that fact. Also Mr. Fish could very well have been in deep fear for his life and I am not in a position to judge that, I can only state what I would have done. Whenever I walk in the woods (or almost anywhere) I carry pepper spray which would also be an option. I have also chased off some pretty nasty looking critters with a rock to the ribs. Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. What if he had missed and hit a hiker or kids playing somewhere nearby? Hard to know what is beyond in the heat of the moment. The likelihood of coming accross dogs while out walking is fairly high and if one is going to carry a gun then thought needs to be given on how to handle a dog situation. Additionally people can be very emotional about their dogs, what if the other guy had been carrying also? Only Mr. Fish knows his mental state at the time, he may have been terrified, but I bet he wishes that he had not shot the dog. If he had not shot the dog then the other guy probably would not have come running at him. My main thought here goes back to the responsibility of carrying a gun. It is not possible to foresee all or even most of the things that can happen out there, but it is possible to foresee a few things. I walk on some conservation land several days a week. I have seen lots of dogs over the years. I figure that sooner or later I will run into one that is not friendly and I have. So since I began carrying a gun I also carry a stout walking stick, pepper spray, a knife and a flashlight and I keep my eyes open when I am in the woods (good advice for a lot of places). My very last ditch recourse would be drawing my gun. Other people walk out there, kids play paintball, ride horses and there are houses not that very far away. How about if I shoot and miss, the dog bites me (or not), I survive, but my bullet travels for a half mile and kills a little kid when a blast of pepper spray may have sufficed. Someone else can play out the scenario of the crazed beast ripping my throat out, but drawing my gun would still be my last resort.
Let me share...
Mr. Fish is an older retired gentleman. He has been slowly hiking his way across much of the AZ forests as a goal in retirement. Its a great way to see AZ and get some physical exercise. He was on a 9 mile hike...think about that one...65 ish, 9 mile hike, middle of nowhere, daypack, still not yet back at the trailhead.
That was the setting....a little background.
One of Mr. Fishs' daughters had been mauled by a dog a few months prior to this incident. Mr. Fish has never been arrested or convicted of any crimes in his past. Mr. Fish is just like you and I in our quest for self and family protection..and could be one of us here on this board.
The situation:...he was just about finished, when over the last hill came 3 barking dogs came running towards him...at this point he drew his 10mm and fired a shot into the ground in FRONT of the dogs as a warning to get them to disperse. It worked.the dogs stopped. He did not shoot the animal.it was only a warning and none of them were injured. At that very moment the man that owned one of the dogs and was walking the others for the local animal shelter (they werent his, and one had a past violent behaviour towards a local LEO) came running over the hill shouting at Mr. Fish. He was running at him while screaming he was gonna kill him for shooting his dogs. The lead Detective on the investigation proved the story related by Mr. fish at the scene with the single warning shot fired for the dogs, and the stride/footstep calculations indicating that the man was indeed running not walking. this man continued to run at Mr. Fish who is still holding a handgun in his hands and has jsut fired a warning shot..this lends to this mans mental attitude of approaching an armed man enraged and threatening him. Mr. Fish warned him to stop and he didnt...he fired on him and struck the man COM, according to the report filed by the Det. the 1st round struck him at around 8 feet, then 5 and the last shot struck him at just about a foot away.
Mr. Fish then ran for help to the road at the trailhead getting someones cell phone to call 911. When the paramedics arrived he had passed away.
Now, Mr. Fish did not know it at the time, but this man had a previous record of assault and he was not working due to mental issues and was living out of his car in the woods which is illegal. Thisman had previosuly got into an altercation with a semi-truck driver and had a TRO against him from his ex-wife. I wasnt there, but from the Det. investigation, and Mr. Fishs account, I believe he was justified as it turned out. I believe that the only reason that this went to GJ was out of political motivation by the county attorney. (Coconino county) I know we look at these scenarios all the time...and all I can say is I would have fired on this guy if he had come at me and didnt stop after me yelling at him to stop, and him seeing my gun in hand....he was younger than me and in better physical shape...he had 3 dogs with him that were already showing signs of aggression at me..and I dont know if he has them trained or not. think about yourself in htat condition, out in the forest...I think he did what he had to do.
Wow, a lot different scenario then Bumpers original post. Certainly sounds a bit more justified. Actually a lot more justified. Still in terms of strictly responding to the original scenario as described by Bumper my points still stand. My best wishes to Mr. Fish under the circumstances and I hope he comes out of this OK.
Figured I'd respond before reading everybody else's responses on this. First off, killing the dog, and I like dogs, was justified based on the information provided (didn't say if dog was waggin tail...makes a dif). Since there wasn't a full description of the "stick", I have to imagine something akin to a switch from which my behind still has remembrance. If the stick was not akin to a spear or skewer, then I'd have to say it was not a justified kill. Doesn't matter how enraged the guy appeared. Frankly, I need more description. I can relate an incident here in Texas several years ago on a "Road Rage" incident, where the attacker was beating the crap out of a guy in a car, who finally pulled his gun and killed the attacker. He got off for self defense since he was about half the size of the attacker, and he sustained an intense beating before shooting him. He feared for his life. In the current scenario, I might shoot at the ground in front of him or possibly at the legs, doesn't matter whether you hit the legs or not, the intent is to get his attention to the "threat of deadly force" that he is facing. At least that would give a Defense Attorney some maneuvering room. By all means though, I'd keep a death grip on my gun lest he get away and use it on me. I guess the possibilities are endless.
I don't know about Texas, but here in Virginia shooting a warning shot is against the law, as is intentionally shooting to wound. You do that here and you'll be enjoying the hospitality of the state. I was actually surprised that the county prosecutor asked the question. I guess in Arizona it is ok to shoot to wound someone intentionally.
I still say that Mr. Fish's lawyer did a poor job of preparing him for his Grand Jury testimony. Maybe he thought that the case would be referred to a Grand Jury. Who knows.
Any item in hand that's a stick is a club in the eyes of the law here, be it broomstick, stick from the ground, et cetera. I'm not expected to guess that it's not a weapon if it's carried as one.Originally Posted by Prospector
First of all, I don't know how close the first dog was but a man would be foolish to let it get too close if it looked like it's intentions were hostile. Second, the same goes for the "wild man", but I would be reluctant to shoot unless I saw a weapon. I think it would depend on how large the man was, and if his demeanor and actions clearly indicated danger. His verbal threat was indeed hostile, but with no witnesses that might not be enough to justify the shoot. If he saw the gun in my hand and continued to advance I would consider him deranged.
Read all the replys, and first off, Scott....Law is same here in Texas, as Virginia, no warning shots. The intent is that if you recognize the need for deadly force, then you shoot to kill, no if ands or buts. However, nobody wants to take a life. I'd still have to make my own determination about the "deadliness" of the "stick". As I said before, if it not of substantial size, like a branch or, yes, a walking stick, then I would probably hesitate using deadly force. And I do know that many instruments can be used lethally, such as a good ole #2 pencil thru the esophagus. I guess I'd have to have been there to know the entire situation. Final word on "warning shot". Since most "civies" aren't exposed to life and death situations regularly, a "reasonable" jury could understand a shooter not remaining cool calm and collected enough to be dead accurate with that first shot! I've seen plenty of video footage of actual police shootouts that show close combat without anyone getting hit. Typically, when someone gets so enraged, they will not have the faculties to actually see the entire situation they're in...that is, the moron may not have noticed the gun in Mr. Fisk's hand. A muzzle flash and loud boom might get his attention.
To true about shooting accuracy in a fight. Many stories in the news about shoot outs where no one was hit. One in NYC occurred across the hood of a car with neither person being hit.
At this point I'd probably go HTH with most unarmed people, but in ten years I probably wouldn't want to do it. At 65 I seriously doubt I'd want to. Out on the trail you likely wouldn't have to worry to much about a warning shot hitting someone or something else. One guy fired a warning shot around here and got lucky no one was in hit in the house he shot. So as we always know it is all situation dependent. If I draw my gun and fire it will be to stop the aggressive act. Otherwise it won't be fired. I will likely miss, but those won't be intentional warning shots. My luck even if I tried a warning shot I'd shoot the guy.
I'm outta here for a few days so ya'll play nice for acparmed.
Amen.Originally Posted by F350
If I had two large dogs after me vs. an enraged human I would view the human as a much greater threat. Dogs can't climb trees for example. A strange man yelling he is going to kill me is to me a greater threat than two dogs.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child might have peace."
- Thomas Paine
Update on the Trail Shooting.
Mr Fish was convicted and sentenced to 10 years this summer. On appeal.
Under the law at the time of the incident in AZ he had to essentially prove he was acting in self defense....no assumption of innocence. That law was changed after the incident but before the trial...various appeals indicated the earlier law would be in effect for the trial. AZ was the last state to come around.
No dogs were killed as was reported early on ... one shot into the air per Fish. Per Fish he verbally warned the other guy off. The dead guy had a record of violent behavior which was not admissable in court...hard to believe!
My best guess was that a detective opened a line of questioning regarding his shot placement, evidenced by the issues of him not being forthcoming with his firearms training and the "shoot to wound" statement. His training obviously showed that he was trained to stop a threat with lethal force if need be, correctly and with good shot placement to the COM. The fact that the shots were all in the COM rather than splashed about as an amateur shooter would logically lead to questions regarding why he didn't have misplaced shots ("shoot to wound") and his training.
And no, in AZ it is not OK to fire warning shots nor is it OK to wound-to-kill. In order to wound-to-kill and get away with it you would have to have some kind of sharpshooter training in handguns and even then it's "iffy".