-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Court throws out conviction
- Thread starter KMaurer
- Start date
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
Like GSG, I too think the warning shot was a big mistake. It sends a signal that the threat "wasn't serious enough" to justify deadly force, as well as
shows escalation on the part of Fish. Another big fault the guy made was running his mouth to investigators/police. The prosecution used
his inconsistent statements to destroy his credibility as a witness- and since he was the only witness, what else does the jury have to go on?
I hope if he goes to trial again he gets a better attorney. There's no way that a good attorney would have let him get trampled like he did. If he does plea
out, I hope it's not for a shitty one but something where he gets out immediately.
-Mike
shows escalation on the part of Fish. Another big fault the guy made was running his mouth to investigators/police. The prosecution used
his inconsistent statements to destroy his credibility as a witness- and since he was the only witness, what else does the jury have to go on?
I hope if he goes to trial again he gets a better attorney. There's no way that a good attorney would have let him get trampled like he did. If he does plea
out, I hope it's not for a shitty one but something where he gets out immediately.
-Mike
Last edited:
I agree about getting out immediately.
I also fully believe this guy feels 100% justified in what he did. He tried to give the guy first aid, summoned for help, etc. As you said, his BIG mistake was opening his mouth to the police. There wouldn't have been contradictory statements if he would have just said "This man threatened my life, came after me, and I used my gun to stop his attack. I would like to speak to my lawyer now please." and not said another word.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,527
That sounds like good advise when dealing with people, however, with animals the warning shot could actually be considered a very loud noisemaker rather than a "warning". I remember reading a report that persons who use a handgun as a noisemaker to scare off grizzleys had a better survival rate than those who shot the bear.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
A good attorney certainly helps, but opposing counsel and, most importantly, the judge also have votes.
Just because you have a good attorney doesn't guarantee that you will receive justice.
Last edited:
I first heard about Fish on Glocktalk IIRC, and I wanted to learn more about it, so I read everything about it that I could. I read a ton of info on the case, including the unedited transcripts of his interviews with detectives.
You could tell he was an honest guy who wanted to do the right thing, and it seemed like he thought that the more details he gave, the better off he'd be, because they'd know that he was really trying to do the right thing. They asked him every question you could think of, learning the distances and his thought process during the event and everything else.
Then they charged him with murder.
As is evidenced by my posts in a few of the locked cop threads here on NES, I'm not an anti-police kind of guy. But seeing how bad things turned out for him really made me think about how to talk to the cops post self defense shooting (God forbid). I came to the conclusion that with all the excitement and adrenaline and the intensity of the situation, I might say the wrong thing, or get some stupid little facts messed up, or come off as a jittery nutcase, so the best way to protect myself from an overzealous cop/prosecutor (and maybe even from myself) is to keep my mouth shut.
"I shot him in self defense. Here's my LTC, there's the gun, I would like my attorney present before any further questioning."
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,527
For a minute there I thought you were going to say you would shoot your buddy in the leg so you could outrun him
Someone who has "been there, done that" (as a winning defendant) once told me "Justice is a product just like any other, and how much justice you get depends on how much you can afford".
Keep in mind that both sides have seen the other's playbook from the original trial and no doubt each would refine their strategy.
If you get a chance, read a police interrogation textbook - it's a real eye opener.
Last edited:
I'm not an expert on Mr. Fish's case but from what I've read his attorney did a poor job of countering the DA arguments. I have to admit shooting someone's dogs is for me at least a tough thing to do,having 3 dogs myself and a dog lover in general. My other opinion for what it's worth I'm in the same age bracket as Mr Fish,fist fighting someone larger than myself and 20 years younger and in a state of rage is a sure fire trip to the hospital or the morgue. Given the facts of the case I'd have done the same. Also it seems to me that the DA had a serious hard on to put Mr. Fish in jail.
Last edited:
Um, he never shot the dogs.
I realize that,what I should have said is rather than shooting the dogs he opted to shoot in to the ground not wanting to kill the dogs as to shoot a dog is a difficult thing to do.
Big Daddy 45acp
Instructor
No retrial for trailside shooter.
Too little too late in my book!
http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/07/17/news/20090717_front_200040.txt
Too little too late in my book!
http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/07/17/news/20090717_front_200040.txt
Wow, did anyone check out the comments to the article linked in the OP? There's some moonbat on there saying that they can understand maybe 1 or 2 shots, but 3 shots? Hoo boy, that crosses that particular moonbat's "murder line."
Bill Nance
Banned
The kind of comment you reference is ignorance, not necessarily "moonbattery."
If someone has no exposure to guns, no clue whatever about defensive tactics or carry guns or any of the rest of it, they're going to make all kinds of stupid assumptions, especially when they're fed nonsense by an equally ignorant press.
It's our job to educate them, not just call them names.
I'll grant that, up to a point. Some people just won't listen to reason.
Bill Nance
Banned
I honestly think those people are in the minority of voters.
SOME people wiull never be convinced no matter what facts they are shown. But those are a distinct minority.
Not to bbash anyone's comments in particular, but on this forum and several others I frequent, the outreach stops at name-calling.
WE are in the minority and unlesss we get off our collective asses and do something we will stay there.
I'm frankly sick to death of hard-right fools screwing up efforts to get people elected to office and judges appointed who will be sympathetic to our cause or at least willing to listen.
Probably 70% of what I see out of this forum is wingnut stupidity that actively hurts the cause of 2A rights. No one who matters will listen to us for five seconds when it starts with Obama isn't a citizen, Clinton assassinated Vince Foster and all the rest of that crap. We need to get our message mainstream. the 22% of people who agree with the most extreme part of the right won't win us any battles. It's the moderates and "Blue-Dogs" who will save our asses.
Others have suggested it on this board before, but it's worth saying again. Try taking people you know who aren't "gun people" to the range for some actual shooting. Anyone I've taken who was iffy on guns beforehand wanted to know how to get some of their own afterwards ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
. That'll help some of those who think "guns are bad m'kay".
As for those in power, I don't know. Can we get a "take your legislator to the range day?"
. That'll help some of those who think "guns are bad m'kay".As for those in power, I don't know. Can we get a "take your legislator to the range day?"
Big Daddy 45acp
Instructor
I have to partly disagree here.
From what I have seen over the last 30 years, is the dearth of Hard Right Wingers. Frankly we need more.
The "conservatives" who try to appease the hard left have cost us more than we gained.
Bill Ruger championed the AWB to further his business. Bush Sr. signed the import ban and Bush Lite did nothing to further our cause. The only reason we don't have another AWB, at the moment, is because they could not get one through the house and senate. Had they done this, he would have signed it!
Every election cycle, the left swings further into Fruit Loop Country and the right swings into the middle to try to appease them.
Bring on the hard core Conservatives and Constitutionalists!
"Compassionate Conservatism" failed for 8 years. Look what we are stuck with.
Frankly the moderates are a bunch of candy asses who do not hold any true values. They are sheep who will do whatever is politically expedient for them.
I think it is time to cull the herd.
The more this country shifts to left and the inevitable Socialism, the more common cases like Fish's will be.
Last edited:
UPDATE: The prosecutor has decided not to retry Mr Fish. This decision was partly prompted by the Court of Appeals' allowing the defense to introduce testimony on the "victim's" propensity for violent behavior whenever anyone didn't just love and adore any dogs in his care. What probably simplified his decision was the fact that the Governor signed a law last Monday that would apply retroactively to this case, putting the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that a defendant's actions didn't constitute self-defense.
Ken
Ken
They need a special law to make people innocent until proven guilty? Really? Sad... [sad2]
Great news though!
Self-defense is an affirmative defense everywhere I know of. That means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the actions qualify as self-defense. Arizona now becomes an exception.
Ken
Ken
