Arizona Self-Defense Murder Conviction / Ammo

[maee]

Can any LEs on this board chime in with the type of ammo they carry in their on-duty 9 mms in Mass?

http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/23902

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Concealed_Weapon_legal_issues

Some CCW holders in the United States have elected since 2006 to switch from carrying hollow-point bullets and especially 10mm Auto caliber weapons to instead favor carrying smaller caliber weapons after the conviction of retired school teacher Harold Fish in Arizona for second degree murder during a self-defense shooting. His conviction for killing a homeless man with a history of mental instability who attacked him while hiking on a remote trail was obtained through a jury trial by stressing Fish overreacted through choosing to use the increased stopping power of 10 mm hollow point bullets. State law in Arizona has subsequently been changed, such that the state now has the burden to prove that a self defense shooting was not in self defense, whereas the burden previously before the Fish incident was that the shooter on trial had to prove that the shooting was in fact done in self defense. Meanwhile, many CCW holders have elected to switch to carrying handguns loaded with FMJ bullets in calibers smaller than 10 mm. A choice often advocated for selecting the correct stopping power in CCW training classes is to select to use the exact same type of bullets (FMJ or hollow point), in the exact same caliber that are used by the local police, to avoid being accused of overreacting during any self defense post-incident trial.

 

[FunYun]

Did you read the article you linked to? He was not convicted because of the gun or ammo he used. He was convicted because the jury was not allowed to hear the whole story.

"The reasons, said McDonald, centered on the fact that the jury was not allowed to hear volumes of pertinent evidence -- like Kuenzli's history of violence and aggression and the fact that he was armed with a screwdriver at the time of the shooting, among other evidence."

basicly, as far as the jury was told, he shot an unarmed, non-aggressive man for no reason. Which very likely is no where near the truth.

Simply put, there is no reason to pick your weapon based on how it will look to the jury. They will either be intelligent enough to look beyond the weapon used, or not. The law has no bearing on how you defend yourself, only that you defend yourself till there is no longer a threat. Any judgment based on other facts is wrong in the first place.

Better yet, using a shitty non-effective weapon will probably ensure you won't be alive to stand trial in the first place. What good is that?

When your life is on the line, the last thing you should be worried about is that which you have absolutely no control over.

 

[jcr]

I saw a show on the Fish trial, and my inclination was that his self-defense claim was credible. Moreover, with law change to the burden on the prosecution to prove it was not self defense would surely have resulted in his acquttal.

The caliber and type of bullet may have been argued at his trial, but the TV show certainly did not present that at the primary prosecutor's argument. They tried to show Fish as "trigger happy" -- too quick to assume an attack from "nice, friendly dogs" and a "good guy", homless, fellow hiker.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

I followed this trial when it was going on. At least one juror was swayed by the prosecution's argument about the devastating hollow point ammunition.
If I can find the article, I will post her quotes.

 

[M1911]

Did you read the article you linked to? He was not convicted because of the gun or ammo he used. He was convicted because the jury was not allowed to hear the whole story.

Yes. And no.

The prosecutor did make a big deal out of the fact that was carrying a 10mm. There really is no way to know just how much this affected the judgment of the jurors. Even the jurors themselves can't say how much this emotional appeal affected their decision.

 

[BOBKATT]

230 gr. .45 ACP JHP

Smile for the camera.

 

[Palladin]

the basis of his appeal, filed this year

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/replybrieffinal2.htm

 

[Palladin]

hiking in Arizona...can you say 'Mountain Lion' ? I'd have the biggest thing I could carry also.

 

[Palladin]

I followed this trial when it was going on. At least one juror was swayed by the prosecution's argument about the devastating hollow point ammunition.
If I can find the article, I will post her quotes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/5/
And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

 

[pdm]

230 gr. .45 ACP JHP

Smile for the camera.

"Smile, Wait for Flash"

 

[Raoul Duke]

It sounds to me that, while the jury was bothered to some extent by his choice of firearm and ammunition, the conviction really hinged on the question over whether or not he could have defended himself in some manner beyond shooting the homeless guy. I don't infer that the 10MM hollow point was critical to the jury's decision. I could be wrong.

 

[M1911]

RD: The problem, IMHO, is that even the jurors themselves don't know what testimony swayed their decision. People will come up with a "logical" framework for justifying their decision. But I think the reality is that most of us actually make such decisions on an emotional basis which we then try to use "logic" to support.

 

[Raoul Duke]

RD: The problem, IMHO, is that even the jurors themselves don't know what testimony swayed their decision. People will come up with a "logical" framework for justifying their decision. But I think the reality is that most of us actually make such decisions on an emotional basis which we then try to use "logic" to support.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[n1zfg]

RD: The problem, IMHO, is that even the jurors themselves don't know what testimony swayed their decision. People will come up with a "logical" framework for justifying their decision. But I think the reality is that most of us actually make such decisions on an emotional basis which we then try to use "logic" to support.

And that is something that sharks and politicians understand and capitalize upon at every opportunity.

 

[clinotus]

Seeing that this is based on more aspects of the story than just the carry ammo, I would say the lacking evidence is what is granting more credibility to the 'over the top' ammunition argument being presented.

Than being said if I want to carry .454 casull, .500 S&W, or slugs in a modified SBS in the wilderness I'm going to. I would not have woken up in the morning with the foresight of just what threat I was going to come across in the woods or the wilderness, I would carry the most powerful ammunition and handgun configuration I could reasonably strap to my body. And if that means I stop a charging moose with a .500 or dispatch a rabid band of chipmunks so be it.

People sitting in chairs and comfy offices for some reason seem to believe that you have the option of picking how to respond to a deadly threat, they seem to believe that you have the ability to go through your stores and pick out, at the moment of confrontation, your .22 revolver, your slug gun, your shotgun loaded with non lethal rounds, some mace, or your cellphone that has an emergency beacon to the national guard/police.

Life is not like that.

 

[ephemeratta]

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

As opposed to the bullets that are just supposed to mildly irritate?

The biggest benefit in a personal protection scenario, in my opinion, to loading HP's is the significantly reduced risk of over penetration. If people are stacking mags with fmj's then rounds fired stand a good chance of continuing on through the target and pose a very simply mitigated risk to innocent people. I'd feel better knowing people were loaded up with HP's or frangibles.

 

[abiffmaster]

IANALEO but I believe most are carrying or upgrading to 40mm caliber...

 

[bishop375]

IANALEO but I believe most are carrying or upgrading to 40mm caliber...

Um.

40mm?

Can't wait to see LEO's carrying an M79 around as a side arm.

 

[M1911]

The 40mm is the little one, on the left:

So do they have mounts for the Crown Vic? Or are they towed behind?

 

[bishop375]

So do they have mounts for the Crown Vic? Or are they towed behind?

They could use the M32 with 6 rounds each, I guess. Mount it on the hood, it'll look like a blower.

It'd make COPS a more interesting show to watch, for sure.

 

[jcr]

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

Hindsight in knowing how to defend a client is much easier than doing it live.

But [and you knew there would be one], if there was any pre-trial indication that the prosecution was going to try to "play" this angle, it would seem to have been prepared to neutralize it.

If any of the prosecution witnesses that were testifying on the gun/ammo used were hunters (and it'd be easy to find out), a questions along the lines of "When you hunt do you use ball ammo? Why not?"

It seems likely that Fish would be more concerned about wild animals than humans, that day.

 

[jcr]

Officer Selby ... did NOT paint a picture of Fish as calm and calculated, giving a rehearsed statement.

I find this very troubling.

It seems the State tried to depict a cold blooded killer -- even when testimony showed a different demeanor.

What if he had rehearsed a line that has been suggested in leathal force classes all over? "I was in fear of my life. I had to stop him. I want a lawyer."

Shesh, the DA would have been saying he planned the killing months ahead and was waiting for the chance to kill someone/anyone.

 

[jcr]

Based upon Fish’s experience with firearms, the State argued that Fish should have shot to injure, not to kill Kuenzli.

Arrrgggghhh!!!!

 

[vicpinto]

Last time I checked a 45ACP has a diameter of over 11mm and is a much more common caliber. I fail to see the hangup over the fact this guy used a 10mm.

 

[bishop375]

Last time I checked a 45ACP has a diameter of over 11mm and is a much more common caliber. I fail to see the hangup over the fact this guy used a 10mm.

Because to the uninformed masses, hearing "10mm round" sounds like some big scary bullet capable of taking down tanks.

 

[vicpinto]

Because to the uninformed masses, hearing "10mm round" sounds like some big scary bullet capable of taking down tanks.

Then shame on him for not getting a lawyer who could properly edumacate the jurors.

 

[Titan]

Because to the uninformed masses, hearing "10mm round" sounds like some big scary bullet capable of taking down tanks.

One 'silly millimeter' bigger than what was standard for police and military issue at the time.

That's all it takes for a prosecutor backed by anti-gunners to defeat an incompetent defense lawyer.

 

[M1911]

How do you know he was incompetent? Have you read the trial transcript?

Trials are a crapshoot. The good guy doesn't always win.

 

[highlander]

hypothetically if fmj rounds are so good why don't the local constabulary carry them?
Me I carry what ever the local LEOs carry be it 9mm,40/10mm or 45acp hp,if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me. IIRC that same point was never brought up by Mr.Fish's attorney.

 

[mark056]

Massad Ayoob, whether you love him or hate him, has written about the Fish case several times. This is his latest answer to a letter to the editor that said that Fish was rightly convicted. This from the November 2008 issue of "Combat Handguns Magazine":

...The history of the deceased shows he was an extremely violent man, fully capable of using his bear hands to fulfull his verbal threat that he would kill Fish. Moreover, his attacking a man with a drawn gun (drawn to ward off dogs who had attacked Fish moments before) was indicative of manifest intent to disarm Fish and kill him with his own 10mm pistol, and indicative also that the assailant considered himself capable of doing so.

If this shooting happened tomorrow even in anti-gun Massachusetts, where the caselaw of Commonwealth vs. Adjutant allows prior bad acts of the assailant to be presented to the jury, even if unknown to the man who shot him and is being judged for the act, I suspect the verdict would have been different.The jury that convicted Fish didn't know what the investigators knew, or what we know.

This is the real crux of the issue, I feel.

I personally think a good defense team could have argued that there was a reason Fish carried a 10mm. That it was essential safety gear that ensured Fish's safety. A round that was used by the FBI who replaced it because it wasn't effective enough. As far as using what the police carry, please consdier this: not all departments carry the most effective anti-personnel round, and while I don't think that any departments in the United States are currently carrying hardball, this was not the case when the NYPD first went over to the semi-auto. It took several years before hollow points were allowed. 9mm hardball has its problems as an anti-personnel round, so from both a stopping perspective, and a penetration perspective, carrying what the police carried in that instance would have been less safe, both to the shooter because he or she might not be able to neutralize the threat, and for bystanders who could become victims of an overly penetrative round.

Mark L.