good shooting gone bad

This is a discussion on good shooting gone bad within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Jungle Work I believe the major problem this Victim had was he got a sorry attorney to defend him. I had a ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: good shooting gone bad

  1. #31
    Member Array HoggLegg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Lincoln County, Missouri
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Work View Post
    I believe the major problem this Victim had was he got a sorry attorney to defend him.

    I had a Brother Officer killed in the line of duty by an unarmed assailant and his three dogs just before I retired. The three dogs attacked the officer and then the perp gained access to his duty weapon and killed him. Again, I believe this Victim has a poorly trained attorney defending him or he would have the officers and CIs from my Federal Agency acting as witnesses at his trial.

    http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15332

    Jungle Work


    A good example on the ineffectivness of pepper spray at stopping those hellbent on harming you for those folks who keep talking about pepper spray. I personnally don't see a use for a less than lethal weapon when my perception is that some one intends to kill me. If I am truely in fear of death or great bodily harm I'm going to want to shoot 'em with something that I am reasonably certain that is going to stop them when seconds count and I don't get any do overs, that is going to be a 45 not a can of pepper spray. If not in fear of your life you should probably be making tracks out of there instead of escalating a non lethal encounter by hosing people of questionable character down with pepper spray.
    Last edited by HoggLegg; October 10th, 2006 at 06:55 PM.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array ELCruisr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    This is something I'm definitely going to do in the near future. Of course, a prosecuter could probably point to that as "intent to need his services" or something, but I still think the benefit would outweigh that risk.
    I've stated this elsewhere on this forum but if you are carrying and you haven't talked to a good criminal defense lawyer who specialises in this stuff, everything you think you know about self defense in your state is probably only partially true or outright myth. I talked with two lawyers here in my area to get my facts straight. We are in one of the best castle doctrine / no retreat states but what the law looks like it says and what it actually means in legal terms are not quite the same. I STRONGLY urge everyone who carries to actually talk with an expert and fully understand the true facts and realities of what they can and can't LEGALLY do as someone who carries. It just might help save someone a nightmare like this poor guy.
    If you stand up and be counted, from time to time you may get yourself knocked down. But remember this: A man flattened by an opponent can get up again. A man flattened by conformity stays down for good. ~ Thomas J. Watson, Jr.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    The idiocy and ignorance of some of the juror comments is depressing. How could you sleep at night passing judgement on another man when you don't have a real clue about the situation? Karma comes around eventually. At least I hope so.

  5. #34
    Member Array amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marysville, WA
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyC View Post
    First of all, simply put, Mr. Fish did not have a first-rate legal team.
    After reading this account, my first thought was he had a Putz for a Lawyer.

    The Judge didn't help by barring the information on the "Victim's" apparent psychological problems.
    ""If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying, I either won't need more or, more won't help me.""

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array sass20485's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    2,091
    Well, apparently Mr. Fish was not judged by a jury of " his peers ". I strongly doubt he would 've been convicted had several of us been on the jury.

    It seems obvious most, if not all of the people on the jury were totally ignorant about firearms and believed whatever garbage was fed to them, which is just what the DA wanted, I'm SURE. Mr. Fish had a 10mm pistol with hollow points, so he must have been hell bent for murder that day. Nothing but @#$&%# hogwash.

    VERY scary to let a jury decide your fate. Having served on several juries, I'm amazed at what some of my fellow jurors come up with when we were trying reach a verdict. I was wondering, were these people even in the same court room with me ?? Crazy theories, most times unrelated to the evidence and made by wild conjecture, not facts. Logic, common sense, basic intelligence were sorely lacking in the jury pool.

    Mr. Fish got screwed for sure.

  7. #36
    Member Array cali-da's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    54
    Wow that was a shocker! As a prosecutor myself, as I was reading the article, I thought for sure that the defendant would be found not guilty. Well it does go to the point already made and I can re-emphasize it, keep your mouth shut. Its amazing how many people don't exercise their rights when things happen and it can be and often is damaging when they attempt to exercise their other rights later on.

    I often use defendant's statements against them. In fact in what is otherwise a weak case can instantly become strong with an admission or confession. So as others have said, keep your mouth shut because DA's will use it against you. In fact I have had to tell defendants representing themselves to not talk about the facts of their case because they might accidentally say something and I warn them that I will use it against them.

    This is one of those that I certainly hope gets overturned on appeal based on insufficient evidence as well as possibly inadequate assistance of counsel. There was a question about whether or not the 10 years was the minimum. I don't know AZ law but in CA, there are certain crimes that statutorily, even if the judge wanted to give it to you, do not qualify for probation or something like that. The defense really should have run a motion for a new trial or something like that if available because it sounds like the judge might have granted it. Other valid points, especially about the ammo and the weapon used were the same kinds of things that LEO uses should have been brought out (kind of why I went with a .40; same as most LEO).

    Well lessons learned. Someone mentioned that there were good points on all sides. I think that given the opportunity to run and leave is present, we should all take it even if we would be justified in shooting. Some things are just not worth it.

  8. #37
    Member Array whitestone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    111
    I've been struggling to find some sense in this case for a while. From a CCW standpoint, we all see right through the BS about the hollowpoints and the 10mm. From a legal standpoint, the verdict holds no water. All the jury needed to find was that based on the preponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt) that a reasonable person would have felt he was in danger of serious harm or death. How does the fact that Fish did not apply pressure to the wounds have anything to do with whether he felt threatened by Kuenzli? For that matter, what does the warning shot to the dogs have to do with that? I am WAY less concerned about two dogs coming at me than an enraged human. Fish needed to be judged based on the split-second decisions he made based on an obvious fear of serious bodily harm, not whether he could have done things better. Unfortunately, rather than follow the law these are the sort of irrelevant issues juries get sidetracked on.

    I too fault his legal team for not properly educating the jury but stop short of anything beyond that. Fish has a very well-respected lawyer who previously served as a state court trial judge and has a long pedigree. His expert witness is another well-versed lawyer who literally helped write Arizona's gun laws, helped develop Arizona's CCW class, and is a CCW instructor. This was a mini-Dream Team and Fish's legal bill shows it as, according to his website, it is now close to half a million dollars.

    At minimum, he will serve several months in prison as his appeals play out and will face the inevitable civil suit afterward. Let's all hope this gets overturned and he gets a new trial. I read somewhere that the jurors would have voted to acquit if Arizona's new law was in place at the time of the trial. I believe a new trial will get him the benefit of that law.

    The only way I can reconcile this decision with my training is that the jury was sending a message that those who carry must have a non-lethal option available. As far as I know, Fish had his fists and a 10mm to deal with a SHTF scenario. As unfair as it is, I believe the jury judged him for not having a way to deal with an intermediate threat. Fish was, if I may, caught in a trap. He had the opportunity to stop a threat with less than lethal force but no way to effectively execute that force. The jury may have imposed its own uninformed thoughts on what that intermediate force should have been, such as shooting Kuenzli in the shoulder or the leg, firing a warning shot, or hitting him with the butt of the gun. It's easy to justify those as "better" actions after the fact. The truth is, if a cop with a Taser on his hip shot a man to death who was charging from far away with no apparent weapons in his hand, there would be a pretty good case for excessive force. Fish did not have a Taser, baton, or OC, but was treated as if he should have. But even if that's true, that's negligent behavior, not murder.

  9. #38
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    I've actually had to use spray, (CS, not pepper) in a defensive situation, and I consider it to be a very chancy weapon. In my own case, it blew back in my own face. I got it worse than my attackers. (about 12)

    I think it could also be a debating point by a prosecutor, that since I used pepper spray first, rather than shooting an "alleged" attacker, that I was never really in legitimate fear for my life.

    The outcome of this trial reminds me that I need to confer with an attorney to be more familiar with the legal aspects, all around.

    --Travis--

  10. #39
    Member Array madmax2976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    46
    Whatever happened to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials? From the facts in the article, it seems to me there would be more than sufficient grounds for having reasonable doubt that Fish committed "murder" in this incident. Sure, it could be that Fish shot accidently and it could be that he overreacted. But the standard of justice is not "could have been" - it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    I wonder if all the jurors, if asked, would have agreed that it was beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Fish committed murder that day? That is the standard jurors are supposed to adhere to - not the standard of "maybe he/she did it" because there's this little time discrepency, or because he had these particular bullets in his gun.

  11. #40
    Member Array whitestone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    111
    Madmax, Fish had to admit to second-degree murder in order to raise the self-defense argument. Under Arizona law at the time, Fish then had to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was justified, essentially making him guilty until proven innocent. This meant that in any self-defense shooting a defendant had to admit guilt to the highest crime the prosecutor decided to hit you with, in this case second-degree murder, rather than face a trial on lesser charges the prosecutor might be able to prove like assault, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Thankfully the people of this state wisened up and that law is no longer on the books here.

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by whitestone View Post
    Madmax, Fish had to admit to second-degree murder in order to raise the self-defense argument. Under Arizona law at the time, Fish then had to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was justified, essentially making him guilty until proven innocent. This meant that in any self-defense shooting a defendant had to admit guilt to the highest crime the prosecutor decided to hit you with, in this case second-degree murder, rather than face a trial on lesser charges the prosecutor might be able to prove like assault, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Thankfully the people of this state wisened up and that law is no longer on the books here.
    Well, let's hope that he can indeed get a retrial then.

    Does anyone know of a way to donate to his defense funds? I'd like to help this guy out.

  13. #42
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    If you ever needed proof of the wisdom of the STFU theory of talking to the police after a shooting, this case is it.

    A jury is nothing more or less than a panel of people who were unable to get themselves excused from jury duty. Some juries can be led down the path to making the right decision. Some juries have watched too much television, and can't come to the right decision even when charged by a judge with a directed verdict.

    Know what you will say to the police if you are ever involved in a shooting. Stick to that pre-planned response.

    Consult an attorney.

    And keep your mouth SHUT until you have consulted with counsel.

    It is surprisingly easy to talk yourself into a prison cell.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  14. #43
    Member Array madmax2976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by whitestone View Post
    Madmax, Fish had to admit to second-degree murder in order to raise the self-defense argument. Under Arizona law at the time, Fish then had to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was justified, essentially making him guilty until proven innocent. This meant that in any self-defense shooting a defendant had to admit guilt to the highest crime the prosecutor decided to hit you with, in this case second-degree murder, rather than face a trial on lesser charges the prosecutor might be able to prove like assault, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Thankfully the people of this state wisened up and that law is no longer on the books here.
    Of all the stupid, bogus, un-american, fubar'd things I've ever heard of...

    Well, I guess I can be happy that I live in a state with a "Stand your Ground" law. Pretty much cancels out that kind of nonsensical horsesh**t.

  15. #44
    Member Array Huzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    470
    Yeah, that is a bad one. I think that I have read about it before and I believe this is the one that failed the appeal too :(

    One comment: couple people mentioned that after reading this account if they are presented with a similar situation they might pickup their brass and walk away. Don't do that! If someone spots you they might not identify themselves out of fear but they might follow you. Take your description down, take the plate number of the vehicle you'll drive off in, or call the cops and have them waiting for you. If you thought you'd look guilty if you called cops yourself in such a situation, think about how you'll look if someone will call them for you while you're quietly trying to walk away.

    I am taking a CCW class right now and the instructor had couple important points:
    1. STFU
    2. STFU
    3. STFU

    Even if the cop tells you that it looks like a clean shoot and it looks like you'll get off if you just tell him couple details STFU. For one, the cop is not a DA nor a judge. Also even if you get of on the criminal your statements can be used in a civil lawsuit, so STFU.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Huzar,

    In this specific case there were no other witneses as he was in the middle of nowhere.
    Had this been in a back alley somewhere or some such Collateral style then yeah the possibility is there for concealed out of sight quiet observers.

    Agreed regarding STFU.
    Definitely a lesson learned here is STFU people...cops are not your friends, priest, legal advisor and cannot provide absolution.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Good : Man Sentenced for Shooting LEO
    By JoJoGunn in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 9th, 2009, 05:42 PM
  2. Looking for a good .22LR for fun shooting.
    By tom1965 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 12th, 2009, 11:42 PM
  3. CCW shooting(good)
    By Joey in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 10th, 2009, 03:41 PM
  4. Good shooting Bad driving
    By HKinNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 17th, 2008, 07:16 PM
  5. Good Shooting Granny
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 09:09 AM

Search tags for this page

concealed carry stories gone wrong
,
conciled carry gone bad
,
people with gun shoot gone bad
,
self defense shooting gone bad
,
self defense shootings gone bad
,
self defense shootings gone worng
,

self defense shootings gone wrong

,
self-defense shootings gone bad
,
shooting gone bad
,
stories of ccw self defense gone wrong
Click on a term to search for related topics.