Your Roundup I'm Listening, by Tom Garrett
Harold Fish was railroaded!
Community comments
Note: Payson Roundup doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
6 March 2007 at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I've kept quiet about the trial of Harold Fish up to this point because I believed that someone, somewhere would see what a travesty of justice had occurred and would correct it. But with the Governor's veto of a bill passed by OUR legislature which would have made the new law on self-defense cases retroactive, it is time to speak out.
First of all, the legislature was elected by the people of this state to enact laws that serve those people. That's us. You and me! As a body, our legislature represents US. They would not have passed such a bill if it were not obvious that the majority, and from I have read the overwhelming majority, of Arizonans believed it to be fair and just.
From where did the Governor get the nerve to oppose the will of the people of Arizona? Because, she says, allowing the law to be retroactive would allow “numerous other trials” to be heard again. That's good, dang it! Not bad! If people were convicted of crimes where they were required to prove that they were innocent instead of the state having to prove that they were guilty, that's the way things are supposed to work.
Or am I crazy? Has something changed in this country? Are we now supposed to have to prove that we are innocent when accused of something? When did that happen? How come nobody told me about it?
BAH!
double bah!!
6 March 2007 at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Tom, governors and presidents veto bills all the time. (They veto them unless, of course, they have a legislature with the majority in the same political party as the prez and they do exactly as the prez wishes.) If the legislature wants, they can go back, rewrite the bill and try again. If it was an overwhelming majority, they should be able to do that.
You know, as well as I, that it's often about the wording. Maybe the bill vetoed by Napalitano was too open-ended. Did you consider that? And did you read that there was concern that signing the bill as it was would open up many cases that shouldn't be re-opened?
Then there's also the very real possibility that the verdict in the Fish trial was right. Man with gun fears man running down hill. Man with gun shoots an unarmed man.
6 March 2007 at 7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Oh, man with gun kills unarmed man.
7 March 2007 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…
Tom,
Why do you think Fish was railroaded? He obviously did shoot an unarmed man and apparently was not threatened by the man he shot. He claimed to have been threatened by a dog. Then why didn't he shoot the dog?
Carry permits are all right for people who are not trigger happy, but this seems to be a case of exactly that - a trigger happy person who should have had someone with him to protect him from the wild animals and other scary things!
It is against the law to kill another person and he did exactly that.
7 March 2007 at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Ruby, you're right. Fish was afraid of running, barking dogs. Poor thing. I love dogs, but since he had his gun he should have shot the dogs - if they really were a threat to him. Rather, Fish shot Grant Kuenzli numerous times. One shot would have stopped Grant.
I met Grant Kuenzli at the dog park. He was a very gentle man, who had a way with dogs. I'll go further to say that everyone, who was known to me at the dog park, had only nice things to say about him.
I wonder if Tom's reaction is more to Gov. Napalitano's veto of the bill. I can't speak to the bill, as I haven't read it. I do know that the governor, according to the article on azcentral.com, spoke with prosecuters before she vetoed the bill in question. They apparently told her that, and I'm guessing this has to do with the way the bill was written, it would open cases that don't have any business being re-opened.
Just think how clogged the court system could become if it had to deal with convicted murderers now claiming self defense!
7 March 2007 at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Hey folks, Harold Fish shot a large man who was running at him shouting, “I'll kill you!”
If anyone was wrong it was the person who ran at an armed man with the avowed intention of doing him harm. If you do something like that you are asking to be shot. Try it with a policeman and see what happens.
Harold Fish was railroaded. He was the only person still living who was present at the time. He testified to what happened and was believed at the time by the officers at the scene. The forensic evidence supported his statement. There was no evidence introduced that controverted it. Yet he was convicted of second degree murder. That is obviously a travesty of justice.
Furthermore, since the state somehow or other managed to place the burden of proof on him, he should have been allowed to present evidence of prior incidents concerned the man who was shot, incidents which clearly show that he was unstable and perhaps even dangerous.
If you were walking in the woods and carrying (very sensibly!) a weapon to protect yourself from bears, and someone ran at you to attack you, what youYOU do. Shoot? You bet your bippy you would!
As for why Fish did not shoot the dogs, he is not the type that would shoot domesticated animals out of hand. He was doing just what you or I would do, trying to handle the situation without harm to anything or anyone.
I repeat: Harold Fish was railroaded!
And finally, it makes no difference whether or not other cases might have had to be retried. That is NOT an excuse for putting someone in prison for ten years! The only reason to do that is for something HE did, and not for any other reason.
7 March 2007 at 8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Forgot something.
You HAVE TO shoot an unarmed man who is larger than you and attacks you. Otherwise, he becomes the one with the gun.
Don't believe me? Check the records and see the number of police officers who have been killed with their own weapons because they exercised a bit of perfectly human forebearance.
The unarmed bit means nothing!
8 March 2007 at 3:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
I thought I read that the coroner said the first gun shot was in the guys side and looked like a defense wound. Remember, it was a jury that voted unanimously that Harold Fish was guilty. That has to mean something, doesn't it?
8 March 2007 at 5:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Yes, Cheri, it most certainly does mean something. In fact, it means everything.
And, Tom, you refer to Grant as a large man. Did you ever see Grant in person? Because I did. I'm 5'8” and he wasn't all that much taller than I am. He was actually slim and fit.
8 March 2007 at 5:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
I don't think I have ever posted about this,(MC would know), but I do not think Fish was railroaded. I think he shot an uarmed man because he was a coward. If he was so afraid, what was he doing taking that long hike by himself?
I also think Tom may just be trying to get something going on here??
8 March 2007 at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
The only people that were at that scene, besides the dogs, were Fish and Grant.
Now one of those people is dead.
And now we are supposed to believe the dead guy yelled “I'll Kill You!” And we have that information from the guy that killed him!
But we will never hear the other side of that story, because one of them is dead.
8 March 2007 at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Pat, thank you for having the nerve to say what I have felt since the day I heard about Fish killing Grant. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for Harold Fish.
Dean, you might be interested to know that all three of the dogs were adopted and, by all reports, are doing well. Grant's dog, Maggie, was one of the sweetest dogs one could meet.
8 March 2007 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
Susan, I'm glad to hear the dogs are doing well. I wish we could say the same about Grant, who by all accounts was a nice man that loved animals and people.
Tom, you're statement..”You HAVE to shoot an unarmed man who is larger than you and attacks you” got me to wondering if Fish had not had the gun, what would have happened?
They would both be alive and Fish would not be in jail.
Did Grant try to wrestle the gun from Fish? Did he almost succeed? Is that when Fish decided to kill him? Had Grant put his hands on Fish? Had he even touched him? Did Fish have marks on him where Grant had tried to attack him and kill him?
Did those dogs attack Fish? Did they bite him?
I don't know the answers, so I will go back and read all I can about the case.
8 March 2007 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Robin_Morris (Robin Morris) says…
Dean & pat I think you are both right here.
If neither one of them had of had a weapon, then, they both would have been alive.
Just a fist fight, no big deal.
I knew Grant and he had his moments, but he was not a killer, PERIOD!
It is so sad to see two lives ruined.
Don't get me wrong I am a staunch supporter of personal gun rights.
9 March 2007 at 12:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Good stuff, folks, very interesting, but also a bit speculative.
For example, Cheri, ask yourself how the prosecutor knew that the first gunshot wound hit Kuenzli in the side. Answer: He didn't. He was just putting a spin on things for a gullible jury. “If this was the first shot fired….” This is a typical ploy used by lawyers to make you think the way they want you to think. They try to make it look as though what is mere speculation is fact. I draw your attention to the fact that the statement was also made about the same shot in the side that if it was not the first shot fired then it would appear that Grant Kuenzli had turned and was not charging Fish. Again, that's mere speculation. It's the old, “if you don't believe this theory of what happened, then here's another one.” Putting a man in prison for ten years requires more than spin; it requires evidence.
And Susan, what it usually means when a jury “unanimously” finds someone guilty is that twelve people decided to settle their differences and come down on one side of the fence or the other. One of the worst parts of the jury system is the fact that people on a jury who disagree with the majority are cajoled or coerced into agreeing with them. If I ever have to be tried for some offense I will ask for a bench trial, one where a judge who knows the law will decide on my guilt or innocence.
And Dean, yes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we ARE supposed to believe the only living witness if his story is credible, which Fish's story was. Suppose you were Harold Fish and had not only done your best to help the man after you shot him, but honestly and forthrightly went down to the highway, flagged down help, led the officers back to the scene, and did everything that could be expected of a decent person, instead of simply running away. Wouldn't you expect to be believed?
And Robin, if neither of the two men had had a gun, each of them would still have had weapons—fists. Fists are dangerous weapons, more dangerous than most people realize. The human body is far more fragile than we imagine. Most of the faked blows struck to the head and face in films would cause major injuries, perhaps even death, if struck in real life. If you are thinking that no harm would have come to either of the men had there been no gun, let me point out that just a few years ago, right here in the rim country, an older man was attacked on his own front lawn by an angry younger man and killed, beaten to death with bare knuckles.
Folks, in a court case there is a search for what is known as the “proximate cause,” which means “the one thing, absent which, the incident being considered would not have occurred.” In the Fish case the proximate cause is self-evident. It was Kuenzli's decision to charge at an armed man. If he hadn't done that, there would have been no shooting, no one hurt, no trial, and nothing to argue about.
Harold Fish was railroaded.
9 March 2007 at 3:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
Oops, meant Mr. Kuenzli.
9 March 2007 at 3:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
The clock gremlins are at it again.
9 March 2007 at 4:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
Tom, it seems you are the only one that believes Harold Fish was railroaded. (On this board anyway) And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I, personally don't believe he was. I did not know either man, I just base my opinion on what I have read. I believe in our justice system. There was evidence, such as what the coroner reported in his testimony. Mr. Fish shot Mr. Grant three times!! Not once to stop him, but three times. You will never convince me that was self defense. Apparently, I am in agreement with the jury.
9 March 2007 at 5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
david_vaughn (David Vaughn) says…
Lots of armchair 10am quarterbacking going on here, so let me add some firsthand accounts of shooting another person.
First off, the movies depict a person being thrown backwards several feet when shot with a .45, 9mm or .357 handgun, at a distance of several car lengths. Think just how small that projectile is, in relation to the human body.
Secondly, for the most part one round from a handgun is not going to stop a determined, aggressive person, focused on harming you…unless of course it is a fatal shot.
Thirdly, law enforcement is taught to shoot multiple rounds at a target to stop the threat, knowing that under stressful conditions, our aim will not be as good as on the range shooting at paper targets.
A critical incident I was involved with in the 80's in which an aggressive person died as a result of gunshot wounds…
After being hit by several .45 rounds, the offender was not thrown backwards at all. He merely turned to one side, placed the weapon in his other hand, and raised the weapon to shoot at police. A focused individual, determined to overcome his adversary.
Unless you've been there, done that, don't speculate on what you don't know.
If Kuenzli was shot 3 times, why do you think that was? Most likely because that little bitty projectile didn't slow him down one iota.
Think about it.
Respectfully,
David
9 March 2007 at 6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
I've been thinking about this thread and have a couple of thoughts, besides those that I've already posted.
Until Officer Vaughn posted, the conversation was really among 5 women and 1 man. So, now make it two men. Anyway, I really believe that men and women look at violence differently. For women, violence is likely, I believe, to be the last option. For some men, it is the first, which was, it seems, in the case of Harold Fish.
Even I, who has actually handled only a BB gun some 45 years ago, am not going to “blame the gun.” I do wonder, though, about what must go through one's mind when they choose to carry a gun. Yes, there's a possibility that a person, hiking in the forest, might come across a mountain lion, a rattle snake, a black bear. However, from what I have heard from people who hike in fhe forest regularly, very few choose to carry one.
The justice system, specifically our justice system: When the outcome is to our liking, or is one with which we agree, it's wonderful. Tom seems to question the system, which apparently ran as it should have in the case of Fish. I don't believe that he has had any successful appeals to the process, which is why he and his lawyers hoped so much that the legislature's bill would become law.
We, as parents, talk a lot about accountability and the consequences of actions. Harold Fish is suffering the consequence of his.
9 March 2007 at 8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
Tom says if Grant had not charged at Fish, none of this would have happened. Tom is blaming Grant for getting killed. This makes no sense to me at all.
Fish fired a shot at the dogs didn't he? Why? I believe Grant would not have let the dogs attack Fish, but I'm wondering what Fish had done to make the dogs run at him..if they did run at him. There we go again, the only one that could tell us that side of the story is dead.
It seems to me this incident was testerone fueled, and bad things happened that can't be undone.
Does anyone reading this board know how badly Fish was hurt, or if he was hurt at all? Or why didn't the dogs rip Fish apart when they saw him kill Grant?
9 March 2007 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Dean, all questions with answers which will never be known for certain.
One has to believe Fish's story (a fish story?) in order to “know.” The jury, there for the entire trial & heard all testimony, didn't believe him. That's good enough for me.
Your thought about it being fueled by testosterone goes along with my theory that men are quicker to act violently than are women.
9 March 2007 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…
A note to David,
Police training is quite different, David, and you must be well trained in self defense measures. It is essential that you stop a criminal suspect who obviously wants to do you harm.
Harold Fish was a school teacher, made no claim to having had police training, and certainly did not show any common sense. If you met someone in the woods while hiking and their dogs barked at you, wouldn't you call out to him to call and hold his dogs? Apparently Fish didn't even do that !
You as a law enforcement person would have handled the situation a lot differently. Pat is right - Fish is a coward !
The jury decided on evidence and Tom disagrees with the verdict.
Tom, the majority has overruled you! Now we can go to other topics.
9 March 2007 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
My husband and I went to see a movie (Sawmill Theatres) on Sunday afternoon. There was a “kid” - anyone younger than 40 is a kid to me, but this one was probably 19-20 - standing in line with a gun holtered at his belt. Why in the world does anyone need to carry a gun to see a movie?
And why are guns allowed virtually anywhere???
9 March 2007 at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
“In 2004, according to the Department of Public Safety, more than 37,000 seniors or people older than 50 in Arizona carried concealed weapons.
While Thomas has never had to pull or point his gun at anyone, on three occasions he has told a person he was arguing with that he had a firearm in his possession.
“Three times I told a person I had a gun and the argument was over with,” he said. “I have never had to use one, don't want to use it, but the fact is I have one.”
He recalled a time when he thought two men were getting ready to rob him. He said all he had to do was flip up his shirt to show he was armed.”
This was part of a story in the Roundup from June 27, 2006, by Michael Marish. When I read it then I was amazed!! This guy likes to flip up his shirt and show his gun.
Read that article and you will see the same thing I do. When someone straps a gun on, they cop an attitude! And they like to show off for people, don't they? This guy Thomas settled arguments by just lifting his shirt and showing his gun.
Give me a break!!
9 March 2007 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Dean, my response to your post, ended up before it. Hrrmph.
9 March 2007 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…
Tom, I agree with you that Harold Fish was railroaded, but he was his own worst witness. When the VP had his hunting accident the following was posted from Alan Korwin @ gunlaws.com
The following rules generally apply after a shooting incident (accidental or self-defense), whether you are the Vice President of the United States or not. Thanks to my friend Dr. Bruce Eimer, Ph.D., a clinical
and forensic psychologist, for reminding me of these important basics, and providing facts.
For some mysterious reason, little of this has come out in news reports.
1. All shooting incidents are traumatic for the good guys, especially when innocent people have been hurt.
2. Post-shooting trauma is REAL and every good person involved in a shooting incident gets it. Sleeplessness, flashbacks, disorientation, remorse, malaise and other post-trauma symptoms are routine,
expected and must be dealt with.
3. You have no legal obligation to contact or talk to the press, and defense attorneys advise against doing so.
4. A person is least capable of making a coherent and consistent statement, with good word choices and chronological
accuracy, immediately after a shooting incident, even though the urge to talk is typically great, and everyone around you will encourage it.
5. Knowing this, the police have adopted good standard procedures you can use as a guide. Remove yourself from all public contact, and go on “administrative leave” (with pay), until an official statement can be released in writing, in cooperation with a team of lawyers, within two weeks.
6. No statement of any kind should be made until conferring with attorneys.
7. You are advised against talking with police unless your lawyer is present.
8. The first concern must be for an injured party. Timely reporting to law enforcement authorities is also essential, and it would be improper for police to leak this to the press (both rules were observed in the Cheney incident).
9. Allow yourself time to appropriately psychologically process your post-shooting psychological trauma, and debrief this critical incident for 24 to 48 hours. Only then should you consider making a statement to the press, the authorities, or anyone. Expressing sadness, contrition and assuming FULL responsibility for the accident (as Cheney did in this case) is appropriate.
10. Do everything you can to avoid such situations.
We all have the right to keep and bear arms but don't forget we also have the right to remain silent! If Fish had exercised that right I think he would be free man today!
9 March 2007 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Maybe, but he didn't and he isn't.
9 March 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…
Pat, you call Harold Fish a coward because he defended himself from an attacker. What would you label the prominent businessman Tom was referring to in his post ?
“…let me point out that just a few years ago, right here in the rim country, an older man was attacked on his own front lawn by an angry younger man and killed, beaten to death with bare knuckles.”
9 March 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
Tom,
I shouldn't respond to it, but your post 3-9-07 at 1:40am.
The last part of the third paragraph from the bottom is CRAP.
He died 5 days later and cause of death was reported as smashed or broken carotid artery. You don't live 5 days with that. You bleed to death within about 15 minutes. He was not taken to the hospital that night.
You really are trying to start something on here .
None of these people are elected officials or gov. employees. Not fair game.
9 March 2007 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
Mike, are you saying Fish should have just walked away and never said anything to anybody about the dead guy laying out in the middle of the forest?
That's cold, Mike, really cold.
Fish got just what he deserved. Maybe when he gets out of jail he will put his gun away and go hiking with a can of pepper spray. And it's unlikely he will serve the full sentence, hardly anybody does.
9 March 2007 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Chief1942 (Ronald Hamric) says…
Tom,
I frequently think of a saying attributed to A. Einstein when I read opinions about these highly charged issues. “There are two things that are infinite, the universe and man's stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.” I'll let you surmise where I stand regarding the topic of this thread.
9 March 2007 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…
No Dean, I am not saying Mr. Fish should have walked away and left the scene. Remember rule #8, The first concern must be for an injured party… dial 911 and render aid to the injured by employing the four life saving steps.
After reporting the incident, and officers arrived, Mr. Fish should have simply remained silent until his attorney was present.
10 March 2007 at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
Then why did he wait so long before he tried to get help as reported in the news?
This subject has been beaten to pieces ever since it happened and no one is changing their minds.
I am probably one of the few people except the jury that believes O.J. is innocent.
10 March 2007 at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Here's a review of the “evidence” as I know it. I particularly want to point out that what I am listing here comes from the newspaper articles I researched. I wanted to be careful to point this out to you so that you would not think I was quoting from trial testimony. I'm not. I don't have that information. I can only report what I have read. I believe it's all good stuff or I wouldn't offer it to you it, but you should take it for what it is worth.
Here we go. As far as I know, these are all the facts that exist:
1. Kuenzli's dogs charged at Fish in a menacing way. This is not disputed.
2. Fish is a practiced marksman, but rather than kill or wound one or more of the dogs he fired a bullet in the air. He did not fire at the dogs. This is not disputed.
3. Kuenzli apparently thought that his dogs were fired upon and charged at Fish, yelling he would “kill” him. This comes from Fish's original statement, made at the time the officers arrived on the scene. It is not disputed.
4. Seeing an angry individual charging at him, Fish feared for his safety. This is not disputed.
5. Fish did not immediately fire upon Kuenzli; he waited until Kuenzli was so close that he would have been upon Fish in seconds. This is supported by forensic evidence gathered at the scene.
6. Fish did not flee the scene.
7. Fish attempted to aid the wounded man, even placing his jacket under his head. This is attested to by officers who first arrived on the scene.
8. Fish ran down to the highway and flagged down help.
9. Fish returned to the scene with the police and both then and later made full, voluntary statements concerning what occurred.
10. Fish had no prior record of violent behavior.
11. Fish is a retired schoolteacher with an excellent record and is a respected member of his community.
12. Kuenzli, though described by those who knew him as a “gentle man” who loved his dogs, was a loner and a rather odd individual who had a prior record of violent or irrational behavior. (These facts were not allowed to be brought in during the trial.)
13. The officers who first reached the scene, those who took Fish's statement, and the decision-making authorities in the sheriff's office, after completing their on-scene investigation, looking into Fish's background, and weighing the evidence, were of the opinion that Fish had acted in self-defense and would not be charged with an offense.
Those are the only actual facts I have been able to find. All else is speculation.
Now I ask you, in all fairness, based on these facts, could you honestly say that you, as a juror, would be willing to swear that you believe that Harold Fish is guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt, of second degree murder?
10 March 2007 at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Forgive me, folks. Going to do two postings.
First a few comments:
David,
You told it like it is. Thank you for an expert opinion.
Susan,
I don't really question the system; I only question the ability of some juries to make objective decisions based on fact rather than emotion, preconceived beliefs, or speculation. OJ got off despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt; Fish was convicted despite a lack of evidence. Actually, in any case I tend to place my faith on the judgment of the trained police officers first on the scene. If they say a crime has, or has not, been committed, they are unlikely to be wrong. In the Fish case the sheriff's office decided not to file charges. That is VERY significant.
Shovelhead,
Best advice I've ever read regarding what to do if involved in such a mess. Hope I never need it.
Pat,
The whole point of my comment was that fists are dangerous weapons; I stand by that judgment.
Chief,
The people commenting on this string are obviously willing to accept the pain that comes with the search for truth. They know that if their only concern is for themselves, that if they ignore what happened to Grant Kuenzli and Harold Fish, they abandon any chance to find whatever truth may lie hidden within that tragedy. Will they discover absolute truth here in this forum? Probably not, but thinking about and talking about what happened on that quiet hiking trail that day may help each of them to define his or her own self-truth, and that certainly is a worthwhile and wholly admirable endeavor for which I applaud each one of them.
Along that line, I might point out that Albert Einstein also said: “If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result must be a state of insecurity, fear, and promiscuous misery.”
10 March 2007 at 11:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
msmike2003 (Mikey Kerns) says…
Tom:
Just because I'm curious: Who reported “facts” 1 thru 4 on your list above? Presumably Fish. You state that the facts were not disputed. Who could possibly dispute them? My conclusion: They could be facts, or they could have been self-serving statements. Again, presumably by Fish.
Just curious.
11 March 2007 at 3:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
If the sheriffs dept did such a good job investigating how come one of the jurors found another shell caseing at the murder site?
Remember that?
Just because David is an officer doesn't mean he is right.
He is human like the rest of us, only he wears a badge.
11 March 2007 at 5:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
After doing some real hard thinking, I think that maybe instead of second degree murder, they should have charged Fish with one of the manslaughter charges and given him a lesser sentence. I don't think he should be absolved of all guilt, because I believe he over reacted and used poor judgement. I have certainly been guilty of that myself, but thankfully never killed anybody. For what it's worth, that's my opinion.
11 March 2007 at 6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Tom, while I certainly respect, and depend on, the police, they are not always right. As has been said any number of times on this forum, they are human - humans who make mistakes, humans who may be guided by their own personal bias. Was a bias, in favor of gun owners/carriers, a determining factor in the sheriff's department in Cochonino Co. the reason for their decision not to press charges?
As it is, with the fact that we will NEVER know what really happened in the forest, as it is, with the possibility that the prosecuters are on the other side of the gun issue, we have only the jury system left to sort things out.
Cheri, you are probably right about the lesser charge of manslaughter. You're also corredt that Fish, no matter what the charge, should not be absolved of guilt.
No matter what happened that day in the forest, Harold Fish killed Grant Kuenzli. Period.
11 March 2007 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
Maybe my question about the dogs has been answered, but I haven't seen the answer, so, I'll ask again.
Did Harold Fish have any marks on him after the incident, and did the dogs go after him? Did any of them bite him? Either before or after he killed Grant?
11 March 2007 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
I never read anywhere or heard on radio or TV that he had any marks on him. If the dogs attacked it seems he would have had some kind of marks on him, maybe from falling down. And he still had two shells left if it was a six shooter, he could have killed or wounded one of them with his training??
I would bet after the first shot the dogs ran.
Give it up Tom, you are debating with a bunch of women.
So far it is 6 women and 1 man against 3 men. Perhaps the jury was right?
11 March 2007 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…
Nobody will win this debate ! But Tom really got a lot of mileage out of his comments - maybe that is the whole idea as Pat suggested A LONG time ago on this very thread!
My time is now your time - we are on daylight savings here so I can figure out the postings (time, but not content!) until fall.
11 March 2007 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Dean, I don't recall all that I read or heard about Grant being killed by Fish. (Yes, I keep repeating that Fish killed Grant. My saying it is intentional.) However, I think that the three dogs came running and barking. It is my recollection that Fish fired his gun, but don't know that he actually fired at the dogs. Rather, I remember reading that Fish claimed to have been frightened by the barking dogs. I do not recall any claim that the dogs actually got near enough Fish to make a mark.
I also recall that Grant came running after hearing the dogs bark and the gun shot.
11 March 2007 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
Susan, there are so many things no one will ever know for sure. I wonder if Grant took dogs out for walks in the forest quiet often or was it the first time, and was it the first time he actually encountered another person. And I wonder if Fish hike that trail before, or other trails, and if he had ever encountered other people with dogs. And I wonder if the jury had found Fish NOT guilty, would this send a message to others that they could get away with murder if they just claimed an unarmed person yelled “I'll kill you!” And I wonder if Fish just tried to act a little “macho”, and it back-fired on him?
11 March 2007 at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Dean, no, it wasn't Grant's first time in the forest. In fact, I believe he was camping in the forest. It seems to me that, while Grant had a place to live, he chose to “live” in the forest, I believe. As I understand it, Grant liked being outdoors. Two of the dogs with Grant. were actually from the humane society. He worked with the HS regularly, walking dogs, etc. He made trips with HS representatives to the valley, where they tried to place dogs outside a store in the Fountain Hills shopping center, on Shea.
The only thing I know about Fish is that he was a teacher. Oh, and that he's married and has kids. Was he trying to act macho? Who knows. I'll keep my opinion about that to myself.
Frankly, I doubt very seriously that Grant yelled, “I'll kill you.” From what I know from those who knew Grant, it's more likely that he would have yelled something about the dogs being with him.
11 March 2007 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
I can understand wanting to be outdoors. Sometimes if I'm having a bad day it changes immediately when I go on top of the rim, or drive to the East Verde River, or just anywhere away from the phone and people. I believe the best anti-depressant there is, is a walk in the forest.
So sad someone lost their life doing just that, and seemingly for no good reason.
Ruby and Pat are right, this could go on forever, and no one will win the debate. So I think I'll get on with other things.
11 March 2007 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
Tom,
If this continues, please start a second thread, I forget what I want to say by the time I get to the bottom of this one.
If you don't start a new one, I'll switch subjects on you. (: (:
11 March 2007 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
I don't know about anybody else, but I have enjoyed hearing what others think on this subject. I try to keep an open mind and really think about the other posts and the point or points the author of the post is trying to make.
Pat, if you can't remember what you were going to say, maybe it wasn't that important? (joking, not attacking) (-:
11 March 2007 at 8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
I wish it would go back like it was before. The last post at the top.
Of all the letters to the editor, articles in the papers and posts on here, I stayed out of it untill Tom made the remark about fists.
When I owned a bar, no guns or weapons were allowed, Liquor Dept law. The gun part has been changed now, but what is considered a weapon?
I wouldn't let anyone in with a knife showing.
A lot of bars have gone to plastic beer pitchers instead of the heavy glass ones, also ashtrays. I understand a lot of bottled beer now comes in plastic bottles.
Plastic bags and pillows could be considered weapons to smother someone. I have an evil mind. (:
I don't know if anyone else on here remembers or ever saw the saddle rings that the boys that liked to fight wore, but they looked just like a minature saddle and the saddle horn was a vicious little thing to be hit in the face with.
Cheri, sometimes I can't remember what I went into a room for, but I know it was something important.
12 March 2007 at 2:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
Pat, I do the same thing. Isn't it aggravating!
12 March 2007 at 6:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
That is scarey, but so glad to know I am not the only one.
I was crying around here the other day because I didn't have my income tax info. ready for the tax person. Guess what? When I got out my papers to get the information, I already had it all written down.
Now that is scarey.
See we are going to get this thread changed on Tom.
12 March 2007 at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
Dean,
I'm a morning person. I'm usually in bed by 8 or 9 at night though! Not much of a social life here!!
12 March 2007 at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Goldplay (Dean Shields) says…
I'll bet Tom didn't know how badly he would be outnumbered on this issue, and usually we don't disagree with him. Tom, no disrespect intended to you, I just see it a lot different, and it seems most of the ladies have sympathy for Grant, and very little for Fish.
And Cheri, what the heck are you doing up so early? (Actually, I am a bit envious “cause I'm not an early riser, but wish I was, you can so much more done in a day.)
Pat, the thing I hate about “not remembering” is when I get up to do something, and it's already been done, but I don't remember doing it.
12 March 2007 at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
There are times when a man should not try to debate a woman. I would bet that Tom knows that there are times when his wife is going to win an argument, no matter what. Certainly my husband knows that's the case!
I think when the discussion is about harm caused by the use of a gun, it is, more often than not, a “guy” thing. That's not to say that there aren't women who share an interest in guns, but it goes back to the choice of violence over non-violence. Women, as a rule, simply do not choose the violent option first.
Cheri, I've been meaning to ask if Fiesta Business is yours. You mentioned your dog, Marvel. If you are that woman, I have made purchases in your store and love your dog.
To all, not remembering is the single most frustrating thing that I can think of. It doesn't matter if it's trying to remember why I'm leaving one room to go to another or trying to remember the name of a song. My mom refers to these times as “senior moments.” If that's the case, I could have classified myself as a senior long ago!
12 March 2007 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cheri (Cheri Holiday) says…
No, Fiesta Business is not mine. But if you saw my dog, you would love him too. He's awesome!!
12 March 2007 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Wow, two dogs named Marvel. What kind of dog is your Marvel?
12 March 2007 at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Folks,
Here is what I honestly think is the bottom line on this string at the moment.
I presented you with all the evidence that I know of. I asked you if you could honestly say that it is sufficient evidence to put a man in prison for ten years for second degree murder.
The answers I received can be summarized this way: I don't care what the evidence was; I just want Fish put in prison for shooting Kuenzli.
I'm not criticizing you or arguing with you; I just want you to realize what it is you're saying. You have every right to your opinion. God knows I would fight for your right to hold it. But go back and read your own answers. Not one of you said that there was sufficient evidence to put the man in prison; you simply said that you wanted him there.
The whole point of this string when I started it was that Harold Fish was railroaded because he was convicted of a crime without the neecessary evidence. No one has denied that. No one has attempted to show that the evidence WAS sufficient. Everyone, except for David of course, has commented from an emotional viewpoint rather than from a logical one.
I could be wrong you know. Maybe there was enough evidence to convict Harold Fish. Why doesn't someone point out what that evidence was and clean my clock?
I'll listen. I stand ready to be corrected. I don't ever feel that I have to be right. I've been wrong many times and will wrong many more times. And when I'm wrong I will accept that fact, admit it, and be glad that I learned something.
The things you have said have merit. In fact you may be surprised to read the column I am putting in the Roundup about the Fish case. I too value life, particularly human life, but even the life of an animal. I too bleed that Grant Kuenzli died. It was a tragedy, and one that can never be reversed.
But you see, I also value Harold Fish's life. And I believe very strongly that his life, or his liberty, and yours or mine is a precious thing which should not be taken from him, or you, or me without the full protection of the law, and the proper exercise of our judicial system.
12 March 2007 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Tom, I didn't attend the trial, so honestly know none of the evidence presented to the jury. That he was railroaded is your opinion, but I just don't see it that way.
We do know these facts. Harold Fish used his gun to kill Grant Kuenzli. Grant Kuenzli was unarmed. I would imagine that these two facts, along with whatever claim Fish made, just didn't add up to self defense (for the jury).
How nice that you value Fish's life. He risked his liberty when he made the decision to shoot and kill Grant Kuenzli. If he hadn't ever thought about the consequences, before his taking his gun into the forest, before he fired his gun and killed a man, then he really does have only himself to blame. He'll serve a few years, but he'll return to his family and will live out the rest of his life. That's an opportunity that he took away from Grant. Fish will get no sympathy from me.
It's important that you know that I only met Grant once, at the dog park. I didn't know him. We talked for about 2 minutes - about his dog and my dogs. I observed him, as he interacted with the dogs. He did have a way with them. Beyond that, I never thought about him again, until I heard that he had been killed. After that, I did talk to a number of people who knew him, some of whom were deposed and were to testify at the trial. Whether or not they testified, I don't know.
Finally, I understand that you believe that Harold Fish was not given “full protection of the law.” As for the judicial system, he had legal defense, as guaranteed by our Constitution. He was judged by a jury of his peers. I just don't see that there was a failure of the system in Fish's case.
If you really want to know what the evidence was, I guess you'll have to read the trial transcripts.
12 March 2007 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
Tom,
Just because our logic and the way we present it doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean we are speaking from an emotional viewpoint.
If I was walking down the road with my dog and he barked at you, would you be justified in shooting me? I think not!
12 March 2007 at 2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Pat, there are men who assume that a woman can only present an emotional argument, rather than a thoughtful and reasonable one. I don't know if Tom is that sort of man.
12 March 2007 at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
If shooting first out in the forest isn't an emotional reaction I would like to know what one is.
12 March 2007 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
Pat, you just posed the most reasonable question yet.
12 March 2007 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llandproud (Susan Grubbs) says…
I should have said you'd posed the most reasonable statement, not question.
12 March 2007 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
I have my moments. (:
12 March 2007 at 7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Pat,
Of course I'd shoot you. Where shall we meet? :-)
13 March 2007 at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
patrandall (Pat Randall) says…
Tom,
Could your comment be considered a threat? Remember the police are reading these posts.
15 March 2007 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I think what we have going here is this: SOME of you, certainly not all, have an emotionally held position that Fish should be punished regardless of whether he was legally guilty of anything or not. That's more or less what you have said. Since your viewpoint is based on emotion, there's no use in arguing the law or in keeping on trying to introduce logic into the discussion, so I am ending my participation on this string with this closing statement:
My viewpoint, my position, is that I don't have a viewpoint. I am neither a dove nor a hawk. I don't worship guns or hate them. I do not think that my feelings, or lack of them, about either Fish or Kuenzli are pertinent.
What I DO believe, and what I genuinely think you too should believe, is simple:
(1) Conviction, regardless of offense, requires evidence.
(2) Guilt or innocence must be determined by the application of logic and law, both black letter law and common law.
(3) Emotion and preconceived viewpoints do not belong in a jury room.
(4) The scales of justice must tip in the direction of an innocent verdict unless the evidence of guilt is clear cut and decisive.
That's the way our legal system is supposed to work.
In the Fish case, I offer you this wrap-up based not on personal feelings but on fact:
(1) The FACT that that the sheriff's department did not recommend an indictment indicates that men and women trained to seek out and punish criminals made a decision based on logic and experience which cannot be ignored.
(2) The FACT that the grand jury chose not to indict indicates that the evidence in the Fish case did not rise to the level needed to charge him with a crime.
(3) The decision of the trial jury flies in the face of the available evidence, so much so that the verdict should be overturned.
Th-Th-That's all folks.
Oh, except for one more thing: If you are ever charged with a crime, if someone breaks into your house and you harm that person, or if someone grabs you in a parking lot and you respond with force, you had better pray that the system works the way it's supposed to.
20 March 2007 at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Anybody watch the NBC program (Dateline) on the Fish case?
Proves exactly what I've been saying all along.
The jury, for God's sake, did not look at the evidence. They decided that because Fish was carrying a gun capable of killing someone he was therefore guilty of murder.
Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 June 2009 at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
It is with the greatest of pleasure that I finally bring closure to this string.
Never in my life have I felt more vindicated that I feel at this moment as I quote the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals:
–
Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PM
The Arizona Republic
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.
Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense. And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word “attack.” The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.
Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.
The panel also noted that the lower court had “sanitized” evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such “prior bad acts” are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.
The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially “dangerous instruments,” furthering Fish's self-defense claims.
Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
–-
Just as I said, Judge Moran erred, and erred badly, when he did not allow Fish to introduce pertinent evidence regarding the prior actions and mental condition of the person who attacked him.
Harold Fish was railroaded. Both the judge and the prosecutor should be out of a job.
My guess is that Harold Fish will not have to stand trial again, that he will simply be allowed to return to his family, where he should have been all this time.
2 July 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I forgot to say: hallelujah!!
2 July 2009 at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fred_franz (frederick franz) says…
According to the news out today (02 July, 2009) Fish will be re-tried.
He will remain jailed until his sentence is revised or dismissed.
He could have been sent home on his own recognizance.
Has Justice been lost along the way.
-Fred
2 July 2009 at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DonEvans (don evans) says…
My best guess, the prosecution will not re-try him and he will be released.
6 July 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Fred,
“Has Justice been lost along the way.”
Yes!
I don't know why Fish always get the crappy end of the stick, but he does. You know what I think it is? I think it's anti-gun people. If you go back and read this string you'll see that they were big on putting Fish in prison. They always say they don't want to take away the guns from the people, but whenever I hear that it always reminds me of the Wizard of Oz.
You know?
“Pay no attention to that little man behind the screen…”
Would you believe that one of the reasons the jurors said they convicted Fish was because he was carrying such a powerful handgun. And the prosecutor made a big thing out of repeating that over and over again. What did they think he should carry to protect himself from bears? A .22?
Don,
I think you're right. And watch them drag their feet so he spends the maximum time in prison for a crime he didn't commit.
I understand the legislature may again pass a bill making the burden of proof law retroactive to Fish. This time, with a conservative minded Governor it won't get vetoed.