Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

New hope for Harold Fish

Long ago, I wrote about the outrageous injustice against Harold Fish, a retired school teacher who, while hiking, shot and killed a man (a man, by the way, with a history of aggressive behavior) who threatened to kill him, and would not stop charging him. Incredibly, Fish was convicted of murder.

To compound the injustice, while Mr. Fish's case was pending, Stand Your Ground legislation was passed in Arizona, thus lifting the burden of proof of self-defense from the accused, and placing it with the prosecution, where it belongs (unless we have given up on the idea of innocence pending proof of guilt). However, a superior court judge refused to apply the new law retroactively to Mr. Fish's case.

It seemed that Mr. Fish (now in prison, having begun his ten-year sentence in August 2006) would finally get a reprieve when the Arizona legislature passed SB 1302, which would make the Stand Your Ground Law retroactive. Opponents of this measure justified their opposition in various ways:

The Arizona Prosecuting Attorney Advisory Council said making the change retroactive could affect numerous cases and that the impact of the bill was greater than the goal of the current legislation.

Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the bill, said it would lead to costly retrials and re-victimize victims by forcing them to testify again in court. "It will open old wounds," he said.
Well, there you have it--apparently, justice is sometimes simply too expensive, and not convenient enough, to bother with.

Tragically, Governor Napolitano must have thought so, too--because she vetoed SB 1302.

Fast forward to this month, and a new, more narrowly crafted bill. SB 1166, as amended (the main text of the bill deals with jury duty--it is an amendment that affects the self-defense law), would do much the same thing as SB 1302, but would only extend back to cases that were pending in April 2006 (Harold Fish's might be the only one). SB 1166 narrowly failed on the first vote last week, but was reconsidered, and narrowly passed yesterday.

Now, it needs to go back to the Senate, for a vote on concurrence with the self-defense amendment.

If that passes, perhaps Governor Napolitano will be willing to deal with the inconvenience of justice.

50 comments:

straightarrow said...

what makes Fish's case so bad is that the prosecutor had to go to his fourth grand jury to get a true bill. Mr. Fish was no-billed three times by other grand juries who thought he had acted properly.

Napolitano could and should issue a full pardon and sign the bill.

Anonymous said...

Sad case, but Fish's irrational fear got the best of him. Anyone who needs a 10mm to be in the Northern AZ woods should not be in those woods. We cant let scared pathetic types blow people away with pocket canons because they are continuously consumed by dreadful anxiety. Fish should have stayed at home and watched Fox news with his gun in his lap.

45superman said...

Sad case, but Fish's irrational fear got the best of him. Anyone who needs a 10mm to be in the Northern AZ woods should not be in those woods. We cant let scared pathetic types blow people away with pocket canons [sic] because they are continuously consumed by dreadful anxiety. Fish should have stayed at home and watched Fox news with his gun in his lap.

So are you saying that the Northern AZ woods are somehow strangely immune from ever harboring a threat that would require deadly force, or is it your position that the 10mm cartridge is somehow "excessive" for any such entity that does show up there?

Either possibility sounds pretty bizarre, to me.

Also, are you saying that the man that Mr. Fish shot did not present a threat--and if so, will you edify us with how you know that--or are you saying that this "innocent until proven guilty" part of what is supposed to be a cornerstone of the American justice system is wrong?

Just curious.

Antonio Troy said...

Sad case, but Fish's irrational fear got the best of him. Anyone who needs a 10mm to be in the Northern AZ woods should not be in those woods. We cant let scared pathetic types blow people away with pocket canons because they are continuously consumed by dreadful anxiety. Fish should have stayed at home and watched Fox news with his gun in his lap.

This is quite simply the most idiotic thing I've ever read. If Fish didn't have his gun on him, he'd be dead, and the hobo would probably still be walking around. It's not an issue of him "staying home and [watching] Fox news," you moron. It's an issue of him living or dying.

Anonymous said...

This Harold Fish cat is a vile, disgusting crumb who somehow escaped the gene pool and is masquerading as a human being. He deserves to spend the rest of his miserable, worthless life in the labyrinth like fenestrations of institutionalized concrete walls and steel doors.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how anyone proved that Harold Fish's life was really ever in danger. He was not in his own home, he was in a public place, and having not been there to see what happened for myself, I kind of feel shooting the man to death seems excessive. A lot of things "could have" happened, but he could have ran away or defended himself with his hands, I believe there were probably other options, and ending another human being's life is serious. Bottom line, I don't think Harold Fish's life was in danger...I believe that he made a split second decision...he was wrong...and he was convicted.

Anne Britton said...

I can't believe that anyone feels this man should serve any jail time or receive even a reprimand. This story made me sick; what little glimmer of hope I had for the justice system is gone. Anonymous persons suggest he could have run away - and then have been attacked from behind? He could have taken his chances and fought a younger, mentally unstable man with his fists? You all say "maybe this, maybe that" but he had to react in seconds - he did not have the advantage as you do to sit back and pass judgement and come up with possible alternatives. How about this alternative - Fish could have been seriously injured or killed, period. He defended himself, and shot at his attacker to bring him down. Anyone else would have done the same, including the prosecutor - no one in their right mind is going to stand there and be attacked if they can help it. I absolutely agree with his choice to carry a gun for the same reason women carry mace, stun guns, knives - to protect themselves from attackers. Anyone out there who chooses to attack and threaten someone - be aware that you might come out on the losing end, as shown in this case. Would you be so quick to judge a woman who shot an intruder dead in her home, or someone who shot an attacker on a subway or as a park jogger? Would you all say, "she could have run away, called 911, one shot should have been enough", etc.? If Fish would have shot someone trying to complete a terrorist threat, you would call him a hero, but because he had to shoot an unknown mental patient with two aggressive dogs, you put him in jail? For 10 years?? Every one of you would want him there if YOU were on the hike with him, and someone was coming after you or your family. I support Fish and will continue to follow this case and do what I can to help his defense.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's good to know there are still intelligent people in this world!!! Right on!

Anonymous said...

Harold Fish should have been found guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

I believe he would have been acquitted if he had shown the slightest bit of sorrow over the tragedy.

Why didn't he fire a warning shot for human life, like he did for the animals?

Anonymous said...

The fact that both sides are over looking (wether you think him innocent or guilty) is that fish could have simply shot him once. I truly feel that he believed he was in fear for his life but the guy was not displaying any kind of a weapon. When you are excessive in thought and behavior things like this can happen. This was so easily proven by the prosecution.

Anonymous said...

So the human being shouldn't have been intelligent enough to have fiqured out the warning shot at the dogs was a warning shot to him also and that if Mr. Fish had waited for the attacker to get to him, since he kept coming knowing Mr. Fish had a gun, and then he could have wrestled the gun from him and been shot with his own gun. People be real.

Anonymous said...

I have had a few run-ins with some mental people on the street. Once I was airing up a tire and kneeling down when approached by two dunk men asking for money. When told I have none to give them they walked away. I turned and knelt back down and caught then circling behind me in my blind spot. When confronted they backed off. Probably would have been a couple stomps to the back of my head. But then again I am not 59 years old.

Anonymous said...

Another time I was on a payphone when a homeless man approach and asked for a cigarette. I told him I was speaking on the phone. He waited until I hung up and then demanded his cigarette. I told him I did not appreciate him getting in my face and interupting my conversation and that I would not give him a cigarette. He became enraged, pulled a club from his shopping cart and began swinging it wildly in the air a screaming profanities. I told him that if he touched me or my vehicle with that club I would stick it where the sun dont shine in not so many words. At which time his other homeless buddy approached. Now its two on one and them with clubs. When I became aggressive and advanced towards then they backed off. Then again I am not a 59 year old retired school teacher! This was over a cigarette no less!

Anonymous said...

So some aggression on my part defused both situations. Mr. Fish had fired not one but TWO warning shots and was clearly armed. Yet the man was still aggressively running toward him. I think that if I was a 59 year old retired school teacher faced with a younger more powerful aggressive crazy man running toward me in an aggressive manner after firing TWO warning shots then I probably would have reacted in the same manner.

badmoon said...

Here is a case where the prosecutor got lucky and ended up with a jury of paranoid dog lovers and gun haters. This is a travesty of justice and just goes to show you that there are lots of people who think it is OK to let their dogs bother anyone they wish without consequences. And to top it off there are so many judges who can steer the case the way they want by allowing or disallowing evidence. Bad judge! As soon as I heard the prosecutor ramble on about the, "big gun" BS it was obvious that this case was nothing more than dog lovers VS. gun haters. Then to hear the jurors talk after the fact about why Mr. Fish needed such a big gun, I knew where this was going. I do not know anyone who caries a pistol that may not do the job they want it to do. (by the way his gun was not such a big gun to the rest of the world, just big to the people who do not know anything about handguns) Knowing these kind of shows are edited to make them more suspenseful I wonder how much was left out but after listening to the jurors who both were ignorant when it came to understanding gun sizes from the numbers they were called. In any case this really came down to the jury wanted to convict this guy on something and they had nothing else to convict him on but Murder 2. This is wrong and should have been thrown out by the judge. I cannot find any grounds of murder two in this case. Bad Judge and a bad prosecutor. Mr. Fish needs to be let out and at the very least given a new trial or better yet a complete dismissal of charges.

Anonymous said...

To all of you that have an issue with the "big scary gun" and hollow point bullets... If someone shoots you three times in the chest with a .22 caliber loaded with ball ammo, are you any less dead? This case is a travesty.

badmoon said...

I have read several posts now about the 10mm pistol being way to big a weapon, bigger than what a cop carries. Please someone out there tell me what this means when we are comparing whether I shoot you at ten feet with a 9mm 140 grain bullet at 1300fps or a 10mm with a 170 grain bullet at 1300 fps. Just to be fair I will not shoot you with a hollow point, I will use a soft point. Now, are you going to be any less dead? Will that 100 foot pounds of energy less from the 9mm be a nicer death? Realistically there is so little difference your body will not respond much different. Dead will be the same kind of dead! You will have a hole in you that is nearly the same size and it will go plenty far enough to do what the handgun was designed to do. So, what does all of that rhetoric have to do with this case. This is not an overly large handgun. Just because the prosecutor said it was a big gun does not mean it really was. He pulled that stunt out of his hat hoping to find gullible people just like the ones who posted, “OH BIG GUN BIG GUN, not fair it too powerful.”

He got some of you people who do not understand much about ammunition to believe that 10mm is too big for the normal person to carry and that somehow means he is a danger because it is bigger than a police persons gun.. He got you people hook line and sinker. If you went to a gun show and started talking about it being a big gun you would be looked at like a moron. Oh yea, a pocket cannon. LOL The 10mm is a medium sized handgun caliber. It has good power for its size and makes a good personal weapon. It is far from being a personal cannon. There have been more people killed with a 22 and more animals killed with a 22 than any other weapon on earth. So where does the 22 LR rim fire fit in to your over sized guns. It must be there somewhere because it owns the record for killing people and animals. It then must be the most deadly. You cannot throw out the number of a weapon and know anything about its deadliness. That is not how they are rated for being effective.

One must take the weight and speed of the projectile to determine energy, as the numbers seldom mean anything at all. Personally I have run into the same situation with two people trying to rob me while I was in a roadside rest taking a leak while two guys came out of the stall behind me and said, cough up all my money. I pulled my handgun from a shoulder holster while I was going and managed to back up and get the drop on them. Had they moved forward I’m sure they both would have died because one was behind the other. They drop a knife and stood frozen. I told them to get lost and out the door they went. I had peed all over myself and it was something I will never forget. I had the hammer back on my pistol and I had already decided to shoot if they came any closer. Lucky for them and me they changed their minds.

There is no time to panic; everything you do is by instinct. There is so little time between perceived life or death you are lucky if you get to have a conscious thought between the time you pull your weapon and pull the trigger. You fall back to your training that is all there is time for. I would hate to ever be in that position again because it could have gone the other way just as easily. I would not have wanted to go through the process of having to live with hurting someone and then get prosecuted for murder too. No, I don’t think so. I also had a weapons permit and I carried a S & W model 29 and I did not use hollow point bullets I used soft points in my gun. Am I better or nicer than the guy who carries a 10mm, or as the prosecutor said a pocket cannon?

I am curious why is the caliber of a handgun so important to some of you? If you are going to shoot someone who is trying to kill you don’t you want to do it in a manner that is most effective? You do not shoot someone to injure him or her, you shoot to stop the person. Unfortunately that means someone may die in the process. This is the reality of what can happen when someone attacks another. This is a very unfortunate part of violence, someone usually looses. This time we blamed the guy who defended him self. If any of the twelve jurors were in the same situation I’ll bet ten would have done the same thing and the other two would have just missed. When you honestly feel your life is in danger you become a different person and see things very much differently.

Those two boobs who were interviewed showed just how ignorant they were by their stupid uniformed comments. It is sad to think those two clowns had that poor mans life in their hands. I find it hard to believe out of twelve jurors no one ask for clarification on certain point and stood their ground they just caved to the pressure of the others. Unfortunately the bullies in the jury were on the side of the dogs and not the people. Again, with judges who feel they can influence a case by removing valuable evidence will assure these kinds of results are going to continue and become commonplace. Had the judge allowed the evidence of the crazy man’s many violent altercations with police, doctors, students, security and others who were attacked by this man there would have been a different outcome. I know a normal person would never want to hurt anyone and to take another persons life would haunt them forever. This sucks and every time I see something like this it makes me sick. This was a sad case and no one came out ahead except the prosecutor, who got a new notch in his belt. Goodie for him. I am always amused when the press asks the prosecutor if he really believes that he was accurate in his prosecution of the case. Yea, like he is going to say no. LOL Yea, I know he was, not guilty, but I had to prosecute the guy. Doughty doo dee dough DUH! Did I do good? Huh? DOH! Can I be a judge now? Ah come-on, I won the case, even if he was innocent. Please let me try on the big black robe. My turn. LOL Only a complete moron would ever ask something so stupid and expect any other answer. SO WHY IS IT ASK SO OFTEN?
Regards,
badmoon

TheTruth said...

Harold Fish is innocent! This case makes me sick. I saw post conviction juror interviews and i cannot believe some of their reasons for conviction. His life was in danger and he acted appropriately.

Sailor said...

Unbelievable. Defense Attorney definetly NOT Perry Mason material.

Bobby Y. said...

I have a couple of comments regarding this case. They are;
The 10mm Cannon:
There are many weapons out there that have as much or more power than the 10mm. The old reliable 357 magnum (720 ft lbs energy with 147 grain JHP at 1500 fps) the 357 Sig (very close), the 40 S&W + P (a 10mm short), the 45 ACP +P even the 9mm with +P+ can develop 460 foot lbs of energy, this is in the middle of the 10mm load ranges. Then you jump to the next class of hand guns, 41 mag, 44 mag, 454 Casul, 480 Ruger, 500 S&W. The bottom range of these guns pick up where the 10mm tops out at. The intent is to stop the attack, not slow it down.

A gun so powerful that even Law enforcement will not carry it:
The FBI did issue this weapon for a while. They quit carrying it not because of the brute power but because the speed of the bullet is fast enough to shorten the barrel life requiring more maintenance to the firearm.

He shot him three times:
In hand gun training you are taught to do follow up shots, double tap or triple tap. The only surprising thing here is it was not two to center mass and one to the head.

The force used was out of line with the threat:
I don’t know about the rest of the folks out there but I am 60, a little over weight and walk on two artificial knees. This takes fighting and running out of the equation so stopping the attacker is all that is left. One shot on some one pumped up on drugs or adrenalin may well not stop the threat and as the indictment said he was shot at point blank range, read that as he was on top of Mr. Fish, not a lot of reaction time.

Hollow Point ammunition, this stuff is designed for one thing and that is to kill:
Once again the object is to stop, not slow down. Is the prosecutor so ignorant of the face that every bullet manufactured is considered lethal? Call Winchester, Remington, Black Hills or any other ammunition manufacture and ask them what round you should use to shoot someone with if you only want to wound them. Hard Ball, Hollow Point, Soft Point, and FMJ do not qualify as “LESS THAN LETHAL”.

The only reason I don’t carry a 10mm is the price of the ammo, so I will stick to my 40 or 45 with 165 or 200 grain EFJ loads.

Where is the NRA with this, I would have thought member or not they would be all over this.

TXharleyrider46 said...

I hadn't heard about this case untill a few nights ago, and now I am trying to find all I can on it. Can someone post a link with the latest info on his retrial if there is even going to be one? Our system has sadly failed for Mr. Fish. I won't even comment on what the "Anonymous" person above had to say, they are just another sheeple in the hurd willing to be taken victum by someone out to do them harm. Maybe some day that harm will come to you and you will have a different outlook on someone protecting there self from a crazy lunitic or someone wanting to do you or your family harm. I hope not, I wish no harm on no one, but I'll be damned if I set by and let someone do me or my loved ones harm. You are a fool Anonymous!!!

Anonymous said...

These Anon comments are posted by people paid by the Dem Party. The instructions are to disrupt, distort, disparage not matter what the issue is or the evidence. This is my last day as one of these trolls. Tomorrow I get my self respect back.

Anonymous said...

How very sad for Mr. Fish and his family. How even more so for our judicial system that has allowed such a miscarriage of justice to go on so long.

Hey Arizona!! Vote in a true American governor that will rectify this blemish on your states reputation.

Stay strong Mr. Fish, you will be exonerated.

What really surprises me is that he allowed this attacker get so close to him. Where it me, I would have shot him 5 times.. and had I had a .50 caliber I would have shot him just as many times as I would were it a .22 caliber.

Oh, and the point to hollow-point bullets is to STOP the threat AND to limit collateral damage by reducing the chance of over penetration and therefore hitting someone down the "street" or in the next house. (Think drive-by shooting to define collateral damage)

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the jury would have voted if they had confronted a mad man with snarling dogs on a hiking trail?

Anonymous said...

I just watched the Dateline: Trail of Evidence episode pertinent to Mr. Fish's case. It is now 2:05 am and I cannot sleep because I am so upset at the tragic abortion of justice. Silly me, I thought in this country defendants were to be presumed innocent unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. "Guilt" in this case meaning Mr. Fish was NOT acting in self defense when he shot the decedent. I simply cannot fathom how a thinking person would look at the evidence/testimony and NOT concede the POSSIBILITY that Mr. Fish was in fact, in fear for his life. The jurors interviewed stated they thought Mr. Fish simply "panicked" and made the wrong decision. I cannot think of ANY emotion more connected to panic, than FEAR! So, if the jurors are right and he did panic (which I frankly do not believe), then shooting was the result of Mr. Fish being in a severe state of fear! Clearly the decedent was a disturbed man with a violent history. But because the decedent is the 'victim' he could not possibly have any responsibility in what happened to him. This is the kind of erroneous logic I see (alarmingly) in many of my fellow Americans. I live in New York but last year I visited Arizona and did some hiking around the Cocconino (sorry-spelling)/Flagstaff area. You have a beautiful magnificent home state. Please continue to support Mr. Fish and hold your state government accountable! I'll continue to fight my formidible battles in New York.

Anonymous said...

Wow, just when you think there are smart people with logical thoughts. I come on this board and see morons who somehow have a problem with a guy who acted in self defense.
What gets me the most about the idiots in here is comments like excessive force. Are you kidding? I think tomorrow I will go find some "slow down" bullets.
Sorry to those of you in Arizona who are smart, but I am glad I don't live in that state with your jacked up laws and moronic leadership.

Anonymous said...

What a nutcase.
Who takes leisurely walks through the forest with a 10mm with hollow points strapped to his side like John Wayne?
1 out of 1000, 1 out of 5000 people?

The guy obviously had James Bond syndrome with that gun.
Cross me and you die!
Glad he's in jail and not hiking in the forest where I might accidentall bump into him and get the gun pulled on me.
"I said: extra ketchup on that burger. Don't make me pull my 10 on you!"

bob said...

What a nutcase.
Who takes leisurely walks through the forest with a 10mm with hollow points strapped to his side like John Wayne?
1 out of 1000, 1 out of 5000 people?

The guy obviously had James Bond syndrome with that gun.
Cross me and you die!
Glad he's in jail and not hiking in the forest where I might accidentall bump into him and get the gun pulled on me.
"I said: extra ketchup on that burger. Don't make me pull my 10 on you!"

45superman said...

How anyone can think that shooting with 10mm hollowpoints is somehow less justifiable than 9mm FMJs is utterly beyond me. Deadly force is deadly force, and if it's justified (such as when a mentally unstable man charges you, shouting threats), it's justified with 10mm hollowpoints, .600 Nitro Express elephant gun rounds, or a belt of .50 BMG.

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe Fish's attorney. Did he show how fast an event can unfold? If I ran at you from 30 yards away you would be in fear for your life. This"victim" was a transient who was unstable. I have encountered these people many times in the Coconino, Tonto, And Prescott Forests. I carry a .40 cal. Glock to defnd my life. We live in America. Don't like honest people with guns? Go live in France. Fish is innocent.Was he supposed to get the crap beat of him first and then shoot? I think he didn't want a beating and defended himself.

45superman said...

Anon--I think it's quite fair to raise serious questions about the competence of Fish's legal defense.

Almost have to wonder if there's grounds for a mistrial, just based on that.

Anonymous said...

The defense did the best it could given that the judge tossed out all the relevant evidence and the prosecutor even threatened the police investigators with jail time if they didn't give the testimony he wanted.

Both the judge and prosecutor clearly should be disbarred because of tjheir misconduct in this case. And preferably sent to prison themselves.

Scott Brannan, MD said...

The defense attorney in this case, Mel McDonald, literally took years off his own life in trying this case. His dedication to this client was superhuman. The Dateline piece was limited by time. Given that limitation, they couldn't possibly explore the myriad ways in which the prosecutor and judge seemingly colluded to hamstring the defense. The procedural and judicial details of this case, if reviewed in an objective milieu, would almost certainly rise to the level of criminal malfeasance.

The outcome for Mr. Fish and his family has been tragic; the outcome for citizens of Arizona is nothing short of catastrophic. History will look upon this era of malignant prosecutorial misconduct and deliberate judicial legislation with unflinching disdain. When the pendulum swings back toward individual liberties, these men and women will be exposed as criminals. The defense of, "I was only following orders, working within the system, etc…" has historically rung hollow. If the current foray into retroactive criminalization of executive/municipal conduct (Attorney General Holder considering domestic prosecution of Bush administration officials and avowals of cooperation with Spanish courts in criminal prosecution of Bush appointees) is a bell-weather for future events, the judge and prosecutor in this case should not delude themselves with anything near to a feeling of security.

Anonymous said...

As the numbers of these apparently unjust cases mount, advancement-motivated prosecutors will be continuously emboldened and insentivized to convict at all costs. In the consequence-free environment we have established for our judiciary, there is no natural check or balance to the powers of the prosecution. You have the unfathomable powers of the State aligned on one side in the form of the police, the judge, and the prosecutor against which the defense, on the opposite side, relies solely upon the citizen's private means to investigate and hire counsel. This extreme mutation from the originally intended criminal justice system cannot possibly persist in a free society. Pervasive and obscene injustice within the criminal prosecution system has been an unfortunately and silently endured reality for the poor and under-represented for decades, commencing in earnest with the "drug war" legislation of the 80's. But now the emboldened and inured prosecutorial (persecutorial?) system has begun to practice it's ministrations upon more mainstream and well-resourced members of society and the early signs of an impending reckoning are nascent.

The Duke Lacrosse case is the most highly publicized recent example of criminal prosecutorial malfeasance, but the general public may have missed the point in that circumstance. The media chose to portray the prosecutor in that case as a rogue wing-nut with a vendetta against jocks. That portrayal provides a pat scenario and a scary story that can be dramatically unwound over the course of 60-minute special broadcast, but the truth is far more terrifying. The Duke case was extraordinary not because of the actions of the prosecutor; he was painting by the numbers, using the standard prosecutorial playbook for high-profile (potentially career advancing) cases. No, the Duke case was extraordinary because the prosecution attempted to perform its standard practice upon a group of well-funded, reasonably well-connected young men with the means to reveal the truth independent of the court's and prosecution's manipulations. The case starkly and horrifyingly revealed the destructive potential of unbalanced prosecutorial power and interestingly demonstrated the evolution of an axiom: It has long been held that "wealth and power can secure an innocent verdict for a guilty man". The Duke case showed us that when the awesome powers of the State are aligned now "an innocent man requires wealth and power to avoid a guilty verdict."

Vicki said...

I dont understand this, and Im frustrated that this turned out the way it did. Is there nothing left for us to do? I am certain this man is innocent. To make this look like a violent person walking through the woods and just shoots someone who is standing there, outrages me. What would have happened if Fish didnt have the gun? What if he had been the one killed? Either way, this man loses his life. He protects himself, he goes to prison. If he hadnt of protected himself, he may have died. Something is really wrong with this case. 10 years?? I was shocked when I heard this. I dont get how people are saying this man is guilty. I was not there, but I can safely say If I had to make a choice without hearing the deceased persons statement, Fish is not guilty. If he was the type to try and get away with crime, he would have walked away and simply said, "it wasnt me". And to the person who posted "we cant let scared pathetic types blow people away with pocket canons" My thoughts on this can easily be said. We cant let people who are proven mentally ill and violent run free all over the country. Im much more afraid of someone with a known history of a short fuse than someone with no record of any crime.

Anonymous said...

Bob, the ignorant a@#, said . . .
What a nutcase.
Who takes leisurely walks through the forest with a 10mm with hollow points strapped to his side like John Wayne?
1 out of 1000, 1 out of 5000 people?

The guy obviously had James Bond syndrome with that gun.
Cross me and you die!
Glad he's in jail and not hiking in the forest where I might accidentall bump into him and get the gun pulled on me.
"I said: extra ketchup on that burger. Don't make me pull my 10 on you!"

#1: James Bond carries little guns, idiot.
#2 You wouldn't have had the gun pulled on you if your weren't acting like a complete ass, like the dead man in the case.
#3 I don't think you can get a burger with extra ketchup on a hiking trail, unless under some sort of planned circumstances.

Let the liberal, fascism with a smiley face scumbags come out. So we know who is real and who is fake. God Bless America!

Anonymous said...

Defenders of Fish point to his own version of the murder victims actions as if that was proof in itself that he needed to pump THREE rounds into an unarmed man's chest. It's as if his supporters have their own NOW type truism: "Men don't lie about murders (Why would they???)"

Do you deep thinkers consider it a possibility that a man on trial for murder would lie about his victims actions or is that too surreal a notion for you.

Fish shot an unarmed man three times, each shot not a wounding shot but a killing shot and you suck it up as if it is a CBS "unimpeachable source".

45superman said...

Anon, your telling "point" about the "THREE rounds" means a hell of a lot less than you seem to think it does. When defending your life against a charging lunatic, you don't shoot, pause to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the shot, then shoot again if necessary--you shoot, and keep shooting, until you know the threat is neutralized. In this case, that was probably when his assailant hit the ground.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the lesson on how to defend oneself against unarmed "lunatics", Mr Superman.

I've been pro-gun rights all but forever but it is obvious that many of my fellow pro-rights colleagues are simply nuts and think that the right to carry is also the right to murder.

Shooting unarmed men is not a pro-gun position, all these wackos protestations to the contrary.

45superman said...

Anon, unarmed people kill every day. The fact that the assailant didn't have a weapon does not mean that Mr. Fish did not legitimately fear for his life.

http://blogs.myspace.com/persecutionofstevegilmore said...

I am currantly watching a re-run of the Dateline program and I am floored for I am currantly going thru an ordeal that is way to similar and yet much more egregious.
http://blogs.myspace.com/persecutionofstevegilmore

I was attacked at home in a state that has the most liberal, most precise self-defense law in the country, yet w/o an eyewitness, with the forensic evidence refuting the states case, the state "ALTERING" evidence and the judge perjuring himself to suppress a not guilty verdict, there is another trial date set for April 12, 2010.
When I just heard the Justice of the peace say that Coonsley would either kill someone or someone will kill him is vertually the same thing the local sheriff told the county posse shortly before this happen to me, however, the sheriff took the stand and said he had never heard of the man that attacked me that night, he had permanate restraining orders against him he had pulled guns on several neighbors, he had one family afraid to go out into their own yard, yet I cannot get any assistence for I cannot afford my own counsel and a judge who has lied to suppress a not guilty verdict is NOT going to appoint some one that will have them investigated for obstruction of justice.

Anonymous said...

I have been where Harold Fish was, except I was acquitted. My children have a mother because I ve the God-given right to defend my life. No one, and I mean no one, can say what they would do in that sitaution until they're in it. And let me tell you, it is a SPLIT SECOND decision, there is no time to think, just act. I never wanted to take someone's life, but I had to if I wanted to save mine.

45superman said...

Anon, I am gratified to hear that you prevailed, both against your assailant, and against those who have the audacity to wish to punish you for defending your life.

Thank you for commenting, ma'am.

Anonymous said...

The complaints that Fish "could have" done X or "should have" done Y are ridiculous. America's greatest jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, "Detached reflection is not demanded in the presence of an upraised knife." It is easy to sit safe at home (or in a jury room) and play Monday morning quarterback. It is another thing to be violently assaulted, and to be forced to make a life-or-death decision in a split second.

Anonymous said...

Fish's critics, with their loaded phrases ("pocket cannon," "John Wayne," "James Bond syndrome," "Fox News,") are just revealing their own prejudices.

Anonymous said...

The prosecutor not only had to go to a fourth grand jury to get an indictment, he had to go out of state to find an "expert witness" who would testify that Fish's 10mm pistol and hollow point bullets were excessive force. Why not subpoena ordnance experts from the local police department? Obviously, the DA could not find any local experts who would say what the prosecutor wanted.

Anonymous said...

The prosecutor apparently made a big issue of the hollow point ammunition, to make Fish look blood thirsty and trigger happy. But I'll bet that the Coconino County sheriff's deputies and the district attorney's own investigators carry hollow points in their service weapons. If they don't, they are an exception to the rule. Most law enforcement agencies use hollow points, both for stopping power and to reduce the risk of over-penetration that would endanger innocent bystanders.

badmoon said...

Every time I read this a little more steam comes out of my ears. Until someone has to make the choice to shoot or not to shoot, they have no bloody clue. A normal person simply has everything in their brain telling them not to kill. These idiots who think this was done by a non caring person has sheite for brains. Oh man, the gun size is another thing that just chaps my hide. The look in peoples eyes when someone says the word pocket cannon and then says 10mm. OOoOoOOoOoo scary! It is worse than having a Mk 7 16 inch navel gun in your pocket. Look out, were all gonna die. Come on people don't listen to someone whose job it is to lie their behinds off, do some research your self.

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann said...

Thanks for all the recent comments, guys, and I agree on all counts--although I am a little puzzled about how this 5-year-old post on an obscure blog like this one even got noticed. Anyway, I'm glad you found it, and am grateful for the comments.

In the wake of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting, the anti-gun cud-chewers have redoubled their efforts to argue that Stand Your Ground laws aren't necessary, because self-defense is already legal.

Harold Fish would presumably beg to differ.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you hear gun owners say, "I live in a red state, so I'm not worried about getting railroaded over a justified shooting." Arizona is a red state if ever there was one. If it can happen to Harold Fish in Arizona, it can happen to anyone, anywhere.