Harold Fish conviction overturned - Page 3

Harold Fish conviction overturned

This is a discussion on Harold Fish conviction overturned within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62
  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,507
    Quote Originally Posted by BillR View Post
    Yes, he's been in a state prison for close to 3 years...
    I am just now catching up on this story. So let me get this straight with this summary.

    A man, let's call him US Citizen A, is hiking in an area, let's call it The United States of America, and he is approached and then advanced on in an attacking way by a man and 2 dogs.

    Man A ( US Citizen A) retrieves his pistol, and I am assuming US Citizen A is not a felon and has no restrictions put on his owning said firearm, and fires a "shut up dogs" shot and then fires at Man B who is advancing and attacking him. Man A kills the raging stranger as a result of trying to "stop the threat" and he winds up not only in jail, but prison for 3 years?

    I am finding it hard to believe this happened in a state of the United States.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    After reading the responses to the following thread I'm supprised how much support Mr. Fish is recieving from many on this board.

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...inda-long.html

    Michael

  4. #34
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    I am just now catching up on this story. So let me get this straight with this summary.
    You should catch up on this story with a bit more thoroughness.

    A man, let's call him US Citizen A, is hiking in an area, let's call it The United States of America, and he is approached and then advanced on in an attacking way by a man and 2 dogs.
    And you know that how?

    Man A ( US Citizen A) retrieves his pistol, and I am assuming US Citizen A is not a felon and has no restrictions put on his owning said firearm, and fires a "shut up dogs" shot and then fires at Man B who is advancing and attacking him. Man A kills the raging stranger as a result of trying to "stop the threat" and he winds up not only in jail, but prison for 3 years?
    What evidence is there that an unarmed man 'attacked' him?

    I am not siding for or against Fish. I read much of the public literature, including excerpts from the transcripts. It was never clear exactly what happened but there were many issues that cast significant doubt in Fish's story.

    I am not yet up to speed on why the conviction was overturned and with all the back slapping and high fives here no such information has yet been posted.

    My initial assessment was that he was guilty of manslaughter. Only time wil tell what the final outcome will be. I do wish him the best and I know many have fought valiantly (and successfully) in his defense.

    I do think it is problematic that a someone can appeal a guilty verdict, and appeal, and appeal, virtually forever but if someone is found not guilty a single time all further inquiry is closed.

    I am finding it hard to believe this happened in a state of the United States.
    I find it hard to believe that Joe Horn walks free in the United States of America.

  5. #35
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    SD, is there anything you discuss without bringing up Joe Horn?

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135
    Lets hope Mr. Fish gets a premium settlement from AZ for his confinement.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #37
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    SD, is there anything you discuss without bringing up Joe Horn?
    I think that proper analysis of any self defense shooting (snicker) requires understanding what people can get away with in certain states. Texas is not Arizona but shooting people often results in death.

    Do you have anything to contribute concerning Fish? I hope we are all going to rehash the incident because there is much to be learned.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array McPatrickClan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    East of Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    612
    I would assume the conviction was overturned because Fish's attorney was inept, not only through practice but his health was failing while he worked for Mr. Fish as well. Sadly, justice is not always able to be totally equal in all circumstances.

    I think the burden is on the DA to prove that Mr. Fish was reckless in his discharge of the firearm on his alleged attacker. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that indicates that Mr. Fish was acting rashly or that anything he said could reasonably be taken as dishonest.

    Granted, none of us were there, so we have to depend on the basic functions of "after-the-fact" work.

  9. #39
    Member Array BillR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Flagstaff, Arizona
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I am not yet up to speed on why the conviction was overturned and with all the back slapping and high fives here no such information has yet been posted.
    All you'd need to do is read the decision from the appeals court. The link is on the Harold Fish Defense website.
    http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinio...CR060675OP.pdf
    There were several reasons why the conviction was overturned, among them:
    1. The prior violent acts and personality of the deceased was withheld from the jury. That would've given creedence to Mr. Fish's self-defense claim about how he feared for his life.
    2. The jury was not instructed properly on what constitutes an "attack", even after they ASKED for clairification during their deliberations.
    3. The prior aggressiveness of the dogs was also withheld.

    Read it yourself, and see the blatant, convict-at-any-cost attitudes of the prosecuter and judge. Absolutely shameful. I live in the county this farce of a trial happened in, and I'm thrilled to see the appeals process slap down our pathetic little kangaroo court.
    Glock 22, NS
    Glock 20, NS
    Ruger MkIII bull-barrel
    Quote Originally Posted by Dal1Celt View Post
    You can't cure stupid, but you can give it a good whoopin to straighten it's thought pattern.

  10. #40
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BillR View Post
    All you'd need to do is read the decision from the appeals court. The link is on the Harold Fish Defense website.
    http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinio...CR060675OP.pdf
    There were several reasons why the conviction was overturned, among them:
    1. The prior violent acts and personality of the deceased was withheld from the jury. That would've given creedence to Mr. Fish's self-defense claim about how he feared for his life.
    2. The jury was not instructed properly on what constitutes an "attack", even after they ASKED for clairification during their deliberations.
    3. The prior aggressiveness of the dogs was also withheld.

    Read it yourself, and see the blatant, convict-at-any-cost attitudes of the prosecuter and judge. Absolutely shameful. I live in the county this farce of a trial happened in, and I'm thrilled to see the appeals process slap down our pathetic little kangaroo court.
    Thanks for the update. I will read the opinion of the appeals court soon.

    I would note that oft quoted phrase 'fear of my life' has no legal standing in the Arizona statutes.

    I 'fear for my life' every time I see some punk weaving in and out of traffic. Can I shoot him dead?

  11. #41
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,372
    Quote Originally Posted by BillR View Post
    Here's some more great news. The AZ legislature passed SB1449 last night, with makes the new 2006 self-defense law retroactive to Fish's case. This means that, unlike the first trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution (where it BELONGS!) to refute Mr. Fish's claim of self-defense.
    The only fly in the ointment I can see here is:

    Does the Arizona State Constitution prohibit the Legislature from passing ex post facto laws?


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  12. #42
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,531
    Adding to BillR's concise summary, the judge who wrote the reversal opinion added his own slap in the face to the prosecution by twice referring to the "sanitized" testimony about the dead guy's reputation. He also mentioned in 2 or 3 places that although "this" or "that" reason was not specifically a cause to reverse the court's decision, those reasons were well worth bringing up in the course of a new trial.

    Two items remain as of late Weds evening are first, whether Gov Brewer will sign the "retroactivity" bill into law. This was raised twice before in the legislature, and both times forger gov. Napolotano vetoed it. The burden-of-proof in self-defense cases was shifted from the state to the accused for two years, and harold Fish was caught in that unfortunate time warp. If Gov Brewer signs the current bill into law, it further weakens the state's case. The second is whether the AG will pursue a new trial; he may decide in light of the change in the law to not go to trial a second time, which would be a huge success for Fish.

    Mel MacDonald who served as Fish's original defense attorney made some obvious mistakes, but they may have been related to his health problems at the time. Although Fish has new attorneys, another attorney in the original firm was primarily responsible for the successful appeal.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array preachertim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    742
    That is great ! Watched a documentary on Tv recently about it and was Shocked. Hope he won t stop carrying!
    Why Would A Preacher ever need a Gun? Its Not for the Sheep , its for the Wolves!

    Springfield Armory Service XD 40
    Taurus PT 1911 45 acp Taurus PT 101, PT 92
    Ruger 22/45 Ruger P95 9mm, Ruger SR9
    Kahr CW 40, Heritage 22, Rossi 38 special

  14. #44
    Member Array mlong623's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    64


    Awesome news.

  15. #45
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Crunch View Post
    The only fly in the ointment I can see here is:

    Does the Arizona State Constitution prohibit the Legislature from passing ex post facto laws?
    Good point. The answer is yes, but to the best of my knowledge it only applies to criminalizing acts which were formerly not illegal, the other way around. E.g., they can pass a law granting amnesty to speeders caught by photo radar, but they can't increase the fine you paid for a speeding ticket after you paid it.

    However, the law which is hopefully going to be fixed (which applies in the Fish case) is not specifically about a criminal act, it's about whether the defendant or the state has the burden of proof to prove self-defense case.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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. Kal Penn (Harold & Kumar) Robbed
    By filinoy-pi in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 21st, 2010, 07:08 AM
  2. Harold Fish granted new trial
    By Anubis in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 25th, 2009, 01:18 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2008, 11:58 AM
  4. How to spot a redneck with a DUI conviction
    By Andy W. in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 19th, 2007, 12:21 PM
  5. University of Utah Gun Ban Overturned
    By Captain Crunch in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 12th, 2006, 07:42 PM

Search tags for this page

case study, harold fish
,
case study: harold fish
,
fish conviction overturned
,
harold fish
,
harold fish affirmative defense
,
harold fish conviction overturned
,

harold fish story

,

harold fish update

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors