[fordman650]

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/


Boy this will make you stop and think a little scarry

 

[InfidelIllini]

I wonder why the "victim's" medical records were excluded from trial. As soon as the ME said they found anti-depressants in theraputic concentrations in his body it should have made his medical history fair game. And who in the world would hit the BG with the pistol as opposed to using it properly? AZ is messed up.

 

[Brother Michigan]

I get sick and tired of prosecutors in cases like this trying to make people who carry hollowpoints out to be murderers just looking for someone to kill. He's hiking alone in the wilderness, is he supposed to just hope that a hardball round will be enough to stop a bear or a bobcat?

 

[NYPD]

Being an AZ LEO I can tell you that this State is one of the best to live in if you are a gun owner or CCW permit holder.

At least when lawmakers witness a case like this they have the balls to actually make a change. (see below)


"Arizona law was changed recently, in part, because of this case. Now, instead of a defendant having to prove he acted in self-defense, the burden is on the prosecutors. They must prove a defendant did not act in self-defense. Arizona’s Supreme Court is expected to rule later this month on whether the new law applies to a similar case. That ruling could affect Harold Fish’s appeal."

 

[thunderjohn]

Good for AZ. Hopefully it will spread.

 

[TNT-Truth]

This story just drives home the point that carrying a firearm for personal defense is a heavy responsibility
and not for the impulsive, or the faint of heart. Very sad that a good family man not only has to live with the fact that he had to take anothers life and in the process lost his own in one sense.
Tragic!

 

[texastaurusguy]

I get sick and tired of prosecutors in cases like this trying to make people who carry hollowpoints out to be murderers just looking for someone to kill. He's hiking alone in the wilderness, is he supposed to just hope that a hardball round will be enough to stop a bear or a bobcat?

The fact is, an over zealous prosecutor will come after you for having hollowpoints, or for having FMJ - whichever promotes his/her career. The defense for carrying hollowpoints is that police carry them, and also that they are much less prone to overpenetrate or ricochet if they pass through their target. FMJ is much harder to defend, it is proven to over penetrate and bounce to hell and back when it goes through the target. Much better to have to mount a defense from strength instead of weakness.

 

[Myetball]

.

 

[texastaurusguy]

It is the defense lawyer's burden to combat bad information by showing them good information. There are specific issues and cases that can be brought up to defend against this sort of attack.

Regardless, if you have to pull the trigger, you'd better plan on spending $50,000 minimum on your defense, even if it was justified. You just don't know when you'll run up against an ambitious DA, or even the mutt you shot in civil court.

 

[Myetball]

.

 

[InfidelIllini]

At least when lawmakers witness a case like this they have the balls to actually make a change. (see below)

I saw that quote at the end of the transcript and it made me wonder. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn Express but what happend to the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence? This was a murder case, Fish was charged with killing the vagrant. Fish's statements to police claim was he was attacked by the "victim's" dogs, then by the victim after firing a warning shot. The prosecutor's responsibility is to disprove that claim. Based on the msnbc article he did not disprove it at all. He colored the emotions of the jury by scaring them with the evil "hollow point bullets". That being said Fish's attorneys let him down by not bringing in expert witnesses to testify about the ammunition choice and by not getting the "victims" medical history brought into evidence after the ME mentioned the pharmaceuticals in the corpse. I will admit this may have been omitted for time or other reasons, it was a television show and not court records. This seems to me to be a case of a judge and a county attorney sharing an anti gun agenda and using this case to further it.

 

[mp3mogul]

I can't say that I agree:

There is "NO" way that I would ever shoot an unarmed person... there is absolutely no way. Yes, perhaps my wife could with an angry person such as this, but myself... no way.

 

[InfidelIllini]

I can't say that I agree:

There is "NO" way that I would ever shoot an unarmed person... there is absolutely no way. Yes, perhaps my wife could with an angry person such as this, but myself... no way.

I think I understand where you're coming from but you may want to add qualifiers to that. There are times when it would be legally and morally justifiable to shoot an "unarmed" man. Are you saying it would be allowable for your wife to do it because she is giving up size and strength to a male attacker? This could very well be the reason Fish used his weapon. I did not see the program, I only read the transcript, so I don't know how the two men involved compared physically. Some PD's discourage their officers use of fisticuffs for fear the BG captures the officer's service weapon and turns it against them. The defendant in this case had a CCW and had undergone training. There was nothing in the transcript which stated he violated any protocols of that training. If what Fish said is true he was flanked by a pair of dogs who had already made agressive moves towards him and the "victim" was making verbal threats, threatening gestures and moving towards him. Did Fish react inappropriately? Maybe, I wasn't there I can't say for certain. Was it Murder 2? I really don't think so.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Since the prosecutor did not/could not prove premeditation it can't be Murder 1, but may have been voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

That better fits this case, but unless the prosecutor could prove Fish to be lying I'd tend to side with the defendant and his claim of self defense.

 

[Maverick7340]

No matter how innocent you think you are, EVERYTHING you say can and will be used against you. Talking to the police only gives them a means to use it against you. The police aren't looking for a way to prove how innocent you are, they are looking for a way to make a case against you.

In this case the best thing to do is shut up and get a lawyer.

You can't unring a bell and you can't take back something you said.

A DA will use anything they can to make a case. They will be the Monday morning QB and sift through everything you did and said, no matter how innocent it seemed at the time.

If I ever have to shoot someone, the fight doesn't end there, it only just started.

There is no way you are going to talk your way out of it. So don't try.

You are now part of the system. The best thing to do is let your lawyer do the talking for you.

 

[Maverick7340]

Here is a 27 minute video about not talking to the police by a law professor.


http://www.alexrudloff.com/2008/06/07/dont-talk-to-the-police/

If you think you should cooperate with the police after being involved in a shooting this video will be an eye opener for you.

There is another video in the comments area about the advise a cop going to law school gives about his reasons why he WANTS you to talk to the police.



Watch it, learn it, live it!

 

[Doctor_Venkman]

Definitely something to worry about.

 

[InfidelIllini]

I watched both videos, very enlightening. I agree Fish shouldn't have talked to the Sheriff's Dept. It doesn't change the fact that charges were brought against him by the county attorney, after the SD decided not to pursue it, due to public pressure initiated by the "victim's" friends and family. That reeks of an elected official seeking votes, not the pursuit of justice. That elected official got his conviction by using an emotional appeal to the jurors humanity by demonizing Fish's choice of weapon and ammunition. Fish had the certification to carry and expert testimony he did not violate the training he received or the conditions of the certification in this instance. A 10mm handgun and hollow point ammunition are not illegal, Fish's attorneys should have countered that argument more effectively.

 

[texastaurusguy]

I think his defense attorneys must not have focused on rebutting the demonization of his weapon and ammo nearly enough. To me, the caliber gun has an obvious defense - the FBI uses the 10mm as a standard carry gun. That right there is enough to prove that you're not just packing a cannon that no person who is just worried about self defense would have any business carrying.......I already touched on the hollowpoint defense, this is what almost all LEO's use for their own weapons - that makes it very hard to demonize it.

I just can't imagine this happening in AZ !!! This sounds like the worst sort of nightmare from an over zealous prosecutor in NY or CA or IL but not in a gun friendly state......the prosecutor should be ashamed of what they did to this man.

 

[Robby]

Here is what I plan to give to the LE, if I should ever be involved in a shooting.
It fits on a business card.

If I have given this to you, it has been necessary to take actions to defend innocent life. I am willing to sign a criminal complaint against the perpetrators(s). I will point out witnesses and evidence.

As you may have experienced yourself, this is a stressful and traumatic experience for me. Therefore, I wish to make no further statements until I have contacted an attorney and composed myself. I also do not consent to any searches. I will cooperate fully once I have consulted with an attorney and calmed down. As a lawfully armed citizen, I ask for the same courtesy that you would show a fellow officer who was involved in a similar situation.
Thank you for your understanding.
.Printed 05/01/2008

I have already placed that in my wallet, it will be with my CCDW permit if it ever arrives. I got the idea from another site I frequent.

 

[InfidelIllini]

That's a good idea Robby.