The mind of a self-defense trial juror
Dateline ran a story last Saturday on the 2004 Fish/Kuenzli shooting, which has been well covered. Part of the story included an interview of two of the jurors that found Fish guilty of second degree murder. Their words are a pretty sobering look at what the average juror not versed in the carrying of firearms is looking at in a self-defense shooting.
One of the jurors, a thirtyish female teacher said that she found him guilty in part because he carried hollow points, which (to paraphrase her words) "are intended to kill." How Fish's lawyers let a jury convince itself that carrying a self-defense round shows an intent to kill or is otherwise a negative circumstance is beyond me.
The same juror also said that although Fish summoned help and apparently gave some basic first aid, he did not do enough, such as try to stop the bleeding by applying pressure. Putting aside the emotion that you just felt that the person you shot tried to kill you, getting close enough to give that sort of first aid even to an injured BG is just putting yourself in harm's way again. You can bet he's not going to be thanking you at that point. Would you do that?