News
No retrial for trailside shooter
Coconino County Attorney David Rozema said Thursday his office will not retry convicted trailside shooter Harold Fish.
The decision comes in the wake of a state appellate court decision to throw out Fish's second-degree murder conviction and the governor signing a bill that applies a new self-defense law retroactively to Fish's case. And, although the appellate case for Fish, 62, a retired Mesa schoolteacher, continues and will likely take months, attorneys for both sides are working on his release from prison.
"It's wonderful news," said Lee Phillips, Fish's co-counsel with John Trebon. "And we very much appreciate the state agreeing to Mr. Fish's immediate release. And we are even more pleased with the decision not to pursue a second trial."
Fish's wife, Debbie, said she's not sure when her husband will be released.
"But the fact that they're not, at this point, intending to retry my husband is absolutely wonderful news," Debbie said.
IMPROPER JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Fish was convicted in June 2006 of second-degree murder in the May 2004 shooting death of Grant Kuenzli on a national forest trail in the southeastern corner of Coconino County. He fired at Kuenzli after he said Kuenzli came at him aggressively after Fish fired a warning shot to keep dogs in Kuenzli's care away from him.
Rozema said that two developments prompted his decision not to retry the case. First, the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned Fish's conviction. Phillips and Trebon had filed a petition with the appellate court on multiple grounds that the trial court made errors. At the end of June, the appellate court decided the jury was not instructed properly as to what constitutes "unlawful physical force." The court also decided the jury should have heard evidence that Kuenzli was known to act violently when confronted about dogs in his care.
Second, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill into law Monday that applied retroactively to the Fish case a new law on self-defense. Whereas Fish had to prove at his trial that he acted in self-defense, it is now up to the prosecution to prove at trial that Fish did not act in self-defense.
"In a case like this one, where there is limited physical evidence and no eyewitnesses other than the defendant himself, a prosecution under the new law is not appropriate," Rozema said in a prepared statement.
Rozema continued: "For these reasons and due to the enormous strain that these types of cases place on the limited resources of our office, we have decided in the interests of justice that we will not conduct a second trial in this case."
VICTIM'S SISTER 'NOT THRILLED'
Michael Lessler, chief deputy Coconino County Attorney, phoned Kuenzli's sister, Linda Almeter, several times this week to discuss the legal developments in Fish's case.
"Her view can be accurately stated that she's not thrilled with the idea of Mr. Fish being released, but if it allows the appellate process to work through to conclusion, then she accepts it," Lessler said.
She will accept and respect any decision by the appellate court ultimately, Lessler added.
Phillips said the question now becomes who has authority to release Fish from prison. He and the prosecution will have a hearing with the trial judge, Mark Moran, at Coconino County Superior Court Wednesday to petition Moran for Fish's release.
A possible drawback to Fish's release is if the Attorney General files a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to review the appellate court's reversal, Phillips said. Such a petition might require Fish to remain in prison until the appellate process has concluded.
Rozema said that because a delay of months could happen while the Arizona Supreme Court makes a decision in the case and determining if the new law is constitutional, he is working with Fish's attorneys for his release from prison.
The only possible way Fish can be sent back to prison if he is released before the appellate process is completed is if the Arizona Supreme Court overturns the appellate court's reversal of the conviction and the newly enacted retroactivity provision of the now 3-year-old new self-defense law is declared unconstitutional.
A spokesperson for the AG's office said no decision has been reached yet on whether to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
VICTIM IN DEFENSIVE POSITION
At trial, Fish argued that he acted in self-defense when two dogs in the care of Kuenzli rushed at him as he exited the trail. To protect himself, Fish said he pulled a 10 mm handgun and fired a warning shot to keep the dogs away. He said Kuenzli then rushed at him, threatening death or harm.
Fish shot Kuenzli three times in the chest. Two of the wounds were fatal. Kuenzli did not have a weapon in his hands at the time of the shooting, and Fish was unharmed.
The prosecution argued that Fish overreacted and took a man's life when other options were available. Self-defense was not justified, particularly when a forensic report suggested Kuenzli was in a defensive position when the bullets struck him.
The jury agreed with the prosecution and convicted Fish of second-degree murder in June 2006.
As the trial got under way, the Legislature passed a self-defense law that changed the burden of proof from a criminal defendant to prove self-defense to the prosecution to prove that a defendant did not act in self-defense.
Fish argued to Judge Moran that the jury should be instructed to find facts in the case using the new law. Moran ruled that the new law did not apply retroactively to Fish and that the jury would be instructed in the old law.
Twice, the Legislature attempted to craft self-defense bills that would apply retroactively to Fish. Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed both bills.
Larry Hendricks can be reached at 556-2262 or lhendricks@azdailysun.com.
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun
Harold Fish speaks directly to Judge Mark Moran before being sentenced to 10 years in prison for the 2004 shooting of Grant Kuenzli on a hiking trail in the southeastern part of the county. (Arizona Daily Sun file photo)
Ads by Yahoo!
Obama Gives $31 Billion for Student Aid
Submit Your Profile and Speak With A College Admissions Officer Today.
www.ClassesUSA.com
Readers' Favorites
-
H1N1 vaccines now for wider population
(15 ratings)
-
Two GOP lawmakers halt budget process
(15 ratings)
-
Food banks burdened by high demand in sour economy
(15 ratings)
-
Palin savors a fine whine
(52 ratings)
-
School closures, teacher layoffs on fast track
(51 ratings)
Most commented stories
- FUSD mulls high school closures (62)
- Army: 12 dead, 31 hurt in attack at Fort Hood (54)
- Kirkpatrick to vote 'yes' on health care bill (51)
- Canyon camping reservations due changes (47)
- Labor pains at City Hall (45)
- Sledding proposal collapses (41)
- Unions for city OK'd (40)
- Snowbowl construction still in limbo (39)
- Few churches take up homeless cause (38)
- Due process being ignored in handling of Snowbowl's permit (36)
Leave your comments below:
Flag Lifer wrote on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM:
" dan I thought Fish was a retired teacher? Personally I would not hold it against him if he was seeking employment in my company, especially since the courts threw out the conviction. Society seems to be more damaged from people shooting off their mouths that from those shooting off their guns. "
dan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 3:38 PM:
" Funny that someone who supports Fish thinks this should be expunged from his record. This fear dominated audience that thinks we should be shooting at each other also supports laws that make getting crimes expunged very hard. In fact, even if it is expunged, he will not be able to apply for many jobs without admitting the charges, even if he was found innocent. "
Flag Lifer wrote on Jul 24, 2009 4:19 PM:
" Appalled Save your pity for those who need it. I have my .45. "
Appalled wrote on Jul 23, 2009 1:04 PM:
" I find it horrifying that so many people defend this man. He killed a man, an unarmed man. He clearly over-reacted to the situation, and at the least is guilty of manslaughter. A thing everyone overlooks is that we only have Fish's account of what happened. Let's see, if the police found someone dead and had a suspect with the gun, would they actually just take the shooter's word for what happened? The coroner says that the victim was shot in a defensive position, meaning he was trying to protect himself -- not attacking the shooter.
I pity those of you defending him who happen to be out hiking when he's out there. Especially if you are trying to defend your dogs or children from someone so scared of the woods he shoots first instead of trying to use reason, friendliness, accomodation, retreat, etc. "
I pity those of you defending him who happen to be out hiking when he's out there. Especially if you are trying to defend your dogs or children from someone so scared of the woods he shoots first instead of trying to use reason, friendliness, accomodation, retreat, etc. "
Anne wrote on Jul 23, 2009 12:35 AM:
" July, Mr. Fish was being tried for murder not for being a Mormon. That you hate Mormons is obvious but being Mormon is not a crime. "
Mike wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:11 PM:
" July there is a lot of stereotyping and hatred in what you are saying. Instead of telling us to 'do our homework' why don't you yourself present an argument based on facts versus prejudice? "
July wrote on Jul 22, 2009 1:12 PM:
" Anne! He is not devestated financially...Are you kidding me? the LDS church has his back 100%. The whole family needs to get out of here and go to Colorado City where the rest of his "homies" live, they already have the wardrobe! "
July wrote on Jul 22, 2009 1:08 PM:
" I think more ppl need to do a little homework on this killer! This man is a bomb waiting to explode and let's just hope some other "hiker with killer dogs" do not come upon him.
How dare they let him out to once again go "hunting"... "
How dare they let him out to once again go "hunting"... "
Flag Lifer wrote on Jul 21, 2009 3:40 PM:
" Letting him go is justice in our "legal system". Too bad it took sooooo long. "
JK wrote on Jul 20, 2009 3:49 PM:
" Kuenzli, having a record of violence and mental imbalance, would not qualify for a legal gun. "
Kevan Taylor-Perry wrote on Jul 20, 2009 2:30 PM:
" Horace said:
"If you a a LDS Republican gun owner, this is the type of thing the LDS republican dominated legislature will do for you."
I'm about as far removed from a Mormon as you're going to get. I'm a Pagan. And I don't believe what you said for a second, Horace. I can't see how anyone being Mormon had anything to do with it. "
"If you a a LDS Republican gun owner, this is the type of thing the LDS republican dominated legislature will do for you."
I'm about as far removed from a Mormon as you're going to get. I'm a Pagan. And I don't believe what you said for a second, Horace. I can't see how anyone being Mormon had anything to do with it. "
Horace wrote on Jul 18, 2009 7:58 AM:
" If this had been a travesty as many of you people claim, the legislature wouldn't have had to pass a new law, then make that law retroactive, simply for the benefit of Harold Fish. If you a a LDS Republican gun owner, this is the type of thing the LDS republican dominated legislature will do for you. Otherwise, the law is the law, too bad. The prosecutors simply prosecuted Fish under the law that existed at the time. The nonsensical ramblings of those claiming this was travesty are undercut by all the acrobatics the legislature and the governor had to do for one NRA member. They take care of their own and if the law doesn't work in their favor, they'll simply change the law and send that law back in time. "
Upfront wrote on Jul 18, 2009 4:23 AM:
" Interesting the Daily Sun would not print my first letter to the editor or return my phone call. I am the detective who removed himself from the Fish case. In reading your posts there are many interesting viewpoints to speculation of this paradigm. I appreciate those who have educated themselves before comment but notice those who speak without knowledge of the case. Most comments are right on target with the exception of a few liberal thoughts that remind me Darwin's theory will continue on. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all viewpoints but lean towards the educated view.
I stand with my original statement, "The truth will prevail". It is unfortunate the jury was not allowed to hear the whole story. Thank goodness we have higher courts who oversee checks and balances to the system in place in Coconino County.
Welcome home where you belong Mr. Fish. "
I stand with my original statement, "The truth will prevail". It is unfortunate the jury was not allowed to hear the whole story. Thank goodness we have higher courts who oversee checks and balances to the system in place in Coconino County.
Welcome home where you belong Mr. Fish. "
John wrote on Jul 18, 2009 12:45 AM:
" OK time for a reality check. If Kuenzli had a gun, he would be justified to shoot and kill Fish for threatening him. How could warning shots not be construed as a threat if not an all out attack - I mean, how do you distinguish warning shots from shots intended to kill you? After all, during gun training they don't teach you "Shoot to WARN" - they teach you "shoot to kill". So if Fish were dead right now, I think pro gun people would be on Kuenzli's side, probably praising him for doing the right thing. I bet most anti gun people would be on Kuenzli's side. The reason every one would be on Kuenzli's side is "warning shots" are bad. They are bad because if the other guy has a gun, he'll be highly justified to kill you. And they are bad because non gun fighters will either confront you for being so agressive, or run away. So how can Fish not be the aggressor in this case when the only possible out comes are people shooting back to kill you, confronting you and running away from you? "
Dave wrote on Jul 17, 2009 9:20 PM:
" Not only should he be released but his record needs to be expunged of any felony so that his rights are fully restored. "
matt wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:01 PM:
" Fish will hopefully sue the snot out of the County. God bless him and his family for all they have been put through. "
Richard wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:00 PM:
" I can only assume that Chris has never been threatened or attacked by a dog(s) or an aggressive idiot. I,for one, have. I shot both dogs after the owners refused to call them off. In fear of my life and limb, you bet I was. Did I shoot the owners, no, they had enough sense not to attack an armed person. Oviously, Mr. Kuenzli, was either very aggressive (as his history proved), suicidal, or really stupid, fist/braun against gun usually has one outcome. I would have shot him too, I have always felt it was better to be tried by 12 of my peers than carried by 6 of my friends. No gun owner EVER WISHES to shoot anyone contrary to the anti-gun faction, We carry for recreational shooting such as target practice, marksmenship competition (it's even an Olympic sport), and protection. You may choose not to carry a weapon and hopfully, you will never be in a situation that would require you to defend yourself. I do not wish to take that chance. "
amy wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:36 PM:
" FINALLY!!!!!! What a miscarriage of justice. Read the case, the background of other offenses involving the dogs, self-defense was obvious three years ago. "
Blind Justice wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:41 PM:
" Let me guess. Mr Fish is a Morman high up in the church. That is who is supporting him both financialy and legally. That is why he will walk. Only God can forgive you Mr. Fish for taking a life this way. Just suprised him that he would have to spend any time. He does not look like he is a bit sorry for taking another life. "
Gun Owner wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:33 PM:
" This story has always made me sick. This man must have either had lots of money or knew someone. A warning shot for who? The dogs. Why not shoot the dogs. Don't tell me he didn't have time. After he shot the dog owner, what did the dogs do? Makes me ill this gun happy man is on the loose. I doubt he will do this again. Like I say I own guns and always have. It would take a real life threating danger for me or my family to shoot someone. How many times did he shoot this poor man? He would spend more time if he had been drinking and driving. "
666 wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:18 PM:
" Whats up kevan taylor-perry. I think you failed to recognize that my previous comment(I was pleased to read that my sarcasm was well noted) was an argument in itself. I wasn't at all surprised to read that you are attempting to lump in my "ridiculous nonsense chatter" with the ENTIRE anti-gun argument. Not real smart. "
Matthew Quigley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 4:28 PM:
" Mr. Fish felt that his life was in jeopardy. The dogs and Mr. Kuenzli were in the process of attacking him. He fired a warning shot but the aggression continued. He should be released immediately. The County Prosecutors office over reached and have embarrassed themselves.
Mr. Fish has a tarnished reputation, probably lost his home and all his personal belongings due to an overzealous County Prosecutor. Mr. Fish has finally been exonerated. Keeping him in jail for another minute is the only crime that has been committed. "
Mr. Fish has a tarnished reputation, probably lost his home and all his personal belongings due to an overzealous County Prosecutor. Mr. Fish has finally been exonerated. Keeping him in jail for another minute is the only crime that has been committed. "
Kevan Taylor-Perry wrote on Jul 17, 2009 3:58 PM:
" When anti-gun/anti-self defense zealots run out of their usual weak pabulum of arguments, they turn to ridiculous nonsense chatter such as that of the poster "666" here. Yeah, all people with guns are looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Right...sure. So, 666, I guess since you can't present a coherant argument, we're supposed to take you seriously. Oh, do keep it up, by all means. You illustrate brilliantly why the entire anti-gun argument is ultimately based on paranoia, hysteria, and illogical emotional outbursts. "
666 wrote on Jul 17, 2009 3:38 PM:
" I love my gun. I always keep my eyes peeled for a chance to kill someone legally just like Mr.Fish did. I can't wait for someone to walk towards me agressivley and threaten me so I can take their life. He should be proud of what he did, what nerve Mr. Kuenzli had. "
Flag Lifer wrote on Jul 17, 2009 1:50 PM:
" Chris I believe it was the dogs owner who actually threatened or acted in a aggressive manor so that Mr. Fish felt his life was in danger. Looking at the history of the dogs and the owner, his assumption was correct. I find it interesting you find something wrong with people who wish to protect themselves and their loved ones legally. This says alot about you. "
Kevin P. wrote on Jul 17, 2009 1:39 PM:
" Mr. Fish should never have been prosecuted to begin with. He was defending himself against an aggressive yelling man with large aggressive dogs and his actions to protect himself should never have been second guessed. I hope the DA is voted out of office. "
RJohnston wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:28 PM:
" OJ did not "get away with killing." People in this country are "innocent until proven guilty." We watched every day of the trial of OJ as I was retired. Many never saw even one day completely so they believe that.
Though I do believe he may have been guilty he want free because the Prosecution badly bungled the case. They did not even come close to proving the case. Ive served on many Juries since I retired, and would not have convicted him with the evidence that they presented. Even if the Jury had seen all that was discussed, that they did not get to see, they would not have been convinced he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecution and CSI did some very sloppy work handling that case. "
Though I do believe he may have been guilty he want free because the Prosecution badly bungled the case. They did not even come close to proving the case. Ive served on many Juries since I retired, and would not have convicted him with the evidence that they presented. Even if the Jury had seen all that was discussed, that they did not get to see, they would not have been convinced he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecution and CSI did some very sloppy work handling that case. "
Anne wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:02 PM:
" Thank goodness nobody can be sent to jail for being old or looking angry. I'd be angry and worried too if my family was being financially devastated by an unfair trial. "
Jane wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:56 AM:
" I'll bet that woman recently kidnapped at the Grand Canyon wished she had a gun when she was attacked and stuffed into that car trunk.
P.S. Being mauled by 3 large dogs is typically worse than just a dogbite. There is a listing online of dog maulings by such breeds of dogs that show a proportion end in the death of the person attacked... not a minor thing if you are the one facing death or dismemberment. "
P.S. Being mauled by 3 large dogs is typically worse than just a dogbite. There is a listing online of dog maulings by such breeds of dogs that show a proportion end in the death of the person attacked... not a minor thing if you are the one facing death or dismemberment. "
JK wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:52 AM:
" I'm astonished that Mr. Fish was not released the minute the court finding was made public. How can they continue to hold him so long?? The decision was overturned. Let him go home.
The old law was the one that was unconstitutional... innocent till proven guilty is the American way. And the prosecution now admits they cannot prove him guilty under the proper ground rules.
The first trial should never have been held. A lot of taxpayer money wasted.
I hope everyone remembers to vote against all the incumbent prosecutors come next election. "
The old law was the one that was unconstitutional... innocent till proven guilty is the American way. And the prosecution now admits they cannot prove him guilty under the proper ground rules.
The first trial should never have been held. A lot of taxpayer money wasted.
I hope everyone remembers to vote against all the incumbent prosecutors come next election. "
Mike wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:42 AM:
" Chris,
Since you brought up a person's world view let's talk about yours. I find it unsettling that people like you can be both so ignorant and caviler about dog attacks. Your blanket generalization about dog attacks make it pretty clear your feelings dominate your ability to think, and process information you see in the news every day.
So all dog attacks are no big deal to you? There is a world of difference between having the luxury of smiling while you try to talk down a neighbor's toy poodle, and dealing with the unknown of having more than one large breed dog attack you. You are so quick to say that a dog bite is no big deal, but did you read the local stories not to long ago about how much damage the police K9 unit did to that fleeing suspect in such a short time? In that case you had one dog, and police officers there in short order who stopped the dog. What if you are knocked to the ground and bitten on the face and neck? How in the world can someone like you sitting removed from the situation be so confident in a total stranger to quickly come to the aid of the person being mauled? By the mere fact his dogs are aggressive and off lead already tells me that individual is a irresponsible dog owner and cares more about owning bad-a** dogs than worrying about the damage they might do to anyone, even small children, in the community.
I think in your world view bad things don't happen, and there is no such thing a bad dog or bad person. I think in the case of Mr. Fish the political pressure the people in your camp put on this case was the primary cause some of the facts were overlooked during the trail. People who advocate the things you do are more than willing to sacrifice the flesh of unknown innocents so you can be the advocates and apologists for the very worst breed of both dog and man. "
Since you brought up a person's world view let's talk about yours. I find it unsettling that people like you can be both so ignorant and caviler about dog attacks. Your blanket generalization about dog attacks make it pretty clear your feelings dominate your ability to think, and process information you see in the news every day.
So all dog attacks are no big deal to you? There is a world of difference between having the luxury of smiling while you try to talk down a neighbor's toy poodle, and dealing with the unknown of having more than one large breed dog attack you. You are so quick to say that a dog bite is no big deal, but did you read the local stories not to long ago about how much damage the police K9 unit did to that fleeing suspect in such a short time? In that case you had one dog, and police officers there in short order who stopped the dog. What if you are knocked to the ground and bitten on the face and neck? How in the world can someone like you sitting removed from the situation be so confident in a total stranger to quickly come to the aid of the person being mauled? By the mere fact his dogs are aggressive and off lead already tells me that individual is a irresponsible dog owner and cares more about owning bad-a** dogs than worrying about the damage they might do to anyone, even small children, in the community.
I think in your world view bad things don't happen, and there is no such thing a bad dog or bad person. I think in the case of Mr. Fish the political pressure the people in your camp put on this case was the primary cause some of the facts were overlooked during the trail. People who advocate the things you do are more than willing to sacrifice the flesh of unknown innocents so you can be the advocates and apologists for the very worst breed of both dog and man. "
grammarian girl wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:19 AM:
" Hooray! Free Harold Fish Immediately! He was wrongfully imprisoned for defending his life in the face of imminent, life-treatening danger. Kudos to Rozema and Fish's lawyers! I hope Judge Moran follows suit and makes the right choice in this. "
Kevan Taylor-Perry wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:01 AM:
" Chris said:
"Rarely, rarely is anyone hurt at all, and if injury occurs it's a dog bite or getting knocked off the bike. It happens all the time."
Really? You mean dog bites such as this:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20081110/NEWS/811099946/-1/rss02
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/05/animal-control-officer-loses-part-of-a-thumb-in-bell-gardens-dog-attack.html
I could post lots more, Chris, but I think the readers know that a dog bite is not a little boo-boo like stubbing your toe. It's a severe injury, Chris. That's why the military use dogs for guard duty. That's why the police use K-9 units. And nobody's dog has a right to go around biting people. But people do have a right to defend themselves against such dogs. Don't like it? Keep your dog under control and stop excusing those who don't. And getting "knocked off a bike" can result in broken bones or head injuries. I suppose you'll dismiss that as a little boo-boo also. Again, people who allow their dogs to do this are at fault. Not people defending themselves against injury.
Brick Tamland:
"But, just looking at the picture of Mr. Fish, you can tell he is an angry old man who would shoot anything that crossed his path."
Really? You can ascertain guilt just by looking at a photo of a person? I haven't heard of that ability since judges in the pre-1964 South could ascertain guilt just by noticing a defendant was African-American. What an uncanny ability! How do you do it? "
"Rarely, rarely is anyone hurt at all, and if injury occurs it's a dog bite or getting knocked off the bike. It happens all the time."
Really? You mean dog bites such as this:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20081110/NEWS/811099946/-1/rss02
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/05/animal-control-officer-loses-part-of-a-thumb-in-bell-gardens-dog-attack.html
I could post lots more, Chris, but I think the readers know that a dog bite is not a little boo-boo like stubbing your toe. It's a severe injury, Chris. That's why the military use dogs for guard duty. That's why the police use K-9 units. And nobody's dog has a right to go around biting people. But people do have a right to defend themselves against such dogs. Don't like it? Keep your dog under control and stop excusing those who don't. And getting "knocked off a bike" can result in broken bones or head injuries. I suppose you'll dismiss that as a little boo-boo also. Again, people who allow their dogs to do this are at fault. Not people defending themselves against injury.
Brick Tamland:
"But, just looking at the picture of Mr. Fish, you can tell he is an angry old man who would shoot anything that crossed his path."
Really? You can ascertain guilt just by looking at a photo of a person? I haven't heard of that ability since judges in the pre-1964 South could ascertain guilt just by noticing a defendant was African-American. What an uncanny ability! How do you do it? "
Obvious John wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:56 AM:
" AZxjer....the travesty is when your Mr. Fish gets his hands on another gun.
Gun control is a subject that I would like to discuss with this kneejerk killer! "
Gun control is a subject that I would like to discuss with this kneejerk killer! "
Azdude wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:08 AM:
" "A possible drawback to Fish's release is if the Attorney General files a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to review the appellate court's reversal, Phillips said. Such a petition might require Fish to remain in prison until the appellate process has concluded."
Terry Goddard wants to run gor Governer, appealing this would be very bad for his record IMO.
Free Harold Fish and let the Appeals court decision stand!! "
Terry Goddard wants to run gor Governer, appealing this would be very bad for his record IMO.
Free Harold Fish and let the Appeals court decision stand!! "
flag local wrote on Jul 17, 2009 9:42 AM:
" So what does fish and o j simpson have in common ? Theay both killed someone and got away with it. Nice court system. Thats the way it is ot west. "
Pete wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:40 AM:
" I think the Appeals Court acted justly. There are only two people who really know what happened that day on the trail - and one of them is dead. Without other incriminating evidence, such as prior confrontations between the two, there should be no convection. "
Brick Tamland wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:38 AM:
" But, just looking at the picture of Mr. Fish, you can tell he is an angry old man who would shoot anything that crossed his path. I hope I don't cut him off in traffic, or walk towards him on the sidewalk, or even look at him crossly.....
Go back to Mesa before you kill someone else. "
Go back to Mesa before you kill someone else. "
Chris wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:13 AM:
" Many, many have dealt with aggressive threatening dogs, particularly on trails and on bicycles. Even big ones. Rarely, rarely is anyone hurt at all, and if injury occurs it's a dog bite or getting knocked off the bike. It happens all the time.
But Mr. Fish has a world view that leads him to carry a weapon on his strolls. This is the fundamental difference between his encounter and those other thousands. What happened, exactly? Only Mr. Fish survives to tell. Barking and aggressively behaving dogs are everywhere - the difference here is that Mr. Fish had his gun. When he discharged it at the animals, rather than just yelling or talking to the dogs as the unarmed would have, he began an escalation of a common if uncomfortable situation, leading to deadly consequences. Mr Fish's choice, beginning with the decision to carry the weapon.
Mr Fish chooses to carry weapons in the forest - Mr Fish, we, and our meddling legislators should accept the consequences of this zealously guarded right. Mr. Kuenzli is dead because of it, and Mr Fish should be held responsible for it. "
But Mr. Fish has a world view that leads him to carry a weapon on his strolls. This is the fundamental difference between his encounter and those other thousands. What happened, exactly? Only Mr. Fish survives to tell. Barking and aggressively behaving dogs are everywhere - the difference here is that Mr. Fish had his gun. When he discharged it at the animals, rather than just yelling or talking to the dogs as the unarmed would have, he began an escalation of a common if uncomfortable situation, leading to deadly consequences. Mr Fish's choice, beginning with the decision to carry the weapon.
Mr Fish chooses to carry weapons in the forest - Mr Fish, we, and our meddling legislators should accept the consequences of this zealously guarded right. Mr. Kuenzli is dead because of it, and Mr Fish should be held responsible for it. "
A Lawsuit is coming wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:44 AM:
" Mr. Fish and his family have suffered greatly for this scandalous travesty of justice. How much will Mr. Fish and his family be awarded in the coming lawsuit?
The Appeals Court was unusually critical in their decision to overturn the verdict. Dig deep fellow taxpayers, we are going to be paying big for this malicious prosecution by our county attorney and failure of the judge to properly instruct the jury. "
The Appeals Court was unusually critical in their decision to overturn the verdict. Dig deep fellow taxpayers, we are going to be paying big for this malicious prosecution by our county attorney and failure of the judge to properly instruct the jury. "
Bill Hazelton wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:30 AM:
" This is the best piece of news I've seen regarding this case. The courts have acted in a fair way this time around, and Mr Fish should be returned home ASAP> "
amy wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:27 AM:
" Juror misconduct also should have been factored in. Also, the dogs attacked a deputy in Prescott and were quarantined at some point.
If I were alone and a crazy man with vicious dogs was threatening me, you bet I'd defend myself. "
If I were alone and a crazy man with vicious dogs was threatening me, you bet I'd defend myself. "
All comments will be reviewed before being posted. Comments that contain profanity or are obscene, resort to name calling, are libelous in nature, or make personal attacks won’t be approved. Criticism should focus on the ideas or arguments presented — not the person.
Comments are not always reviewed immediately, especially when posted on weekends or nights.
We reserve the right to delete any comments that, upon further review, fail to meet our guidelines.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide.
Click to see the complete policy
Advertisement
News Photos Slide Show
Advertisements
Site Index
[ About Us |
Contact Us |
Job Opportunities |
Advertise |
Terms of use |
Privacy policy |
Legal Statement ]
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
CW wrote on Jul 29, 2009 4:28 PM:
I'm not against guns. Occasionally one will go off on its own and hurt someone, but accidents happen. Guns are only really dangerous in the hands of people. Unfortunatley there are a lot of people that can't handle the responsiblity of gun ownership. It's them that ruin it for the rest. We can't control the nut jobs, especially when they get off the hook like this. So, we have to control the guns. "