interesting thread.. thought you guys may enjoy this...

kdstrick · Apr 30, 2009

over in W&S this is a thread there is a debate about a particular court case involving a hiker and a deadly shooting.

Some of the guys over there are pretty granola (life as we wish it were types) ... others pretty reasonable. Some pretty good debate no matter where you stand.

Anyway... thought the hogs may enjoy... :thumbup:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=641567

1Tracker · Apr 30, 2009

Hey, if it looks like a 3 on 1 then it's a 3 on 1! If I have 2 dogs and a crazy guy coming at me I'm taking the dogs out first, then the guy will know I mean business. If the guy continues his assault, I'd fight back physically before breaking leather. Mr Fish may have gotten tunnel vision, but he decided HIS LIFE was in danger from the nutcase and the dogs and took action. The Jury screwed him because they were gun haters from the get go. The Prosecutor was/is probably a granola cruncher in his reaching with describing the caliber as greater than the police use. Mr Fish lawfully possessed his firearm and CCW and used preservation of life to guide his actions. Hard to judge the guy without having stood in his shoes at the moment of the shooting. Just wait til TSHTF in this Country, when the smoke clears it won't be granola crunchers judging you, more like your buddies who also took Frontline classes....

LMT66 · May 1, 2009

I like the part in the news story about 300 signatures collected stating he was a nice guy.
Every time i see a tragic news story about some guy shooting his wife then his kids then himself...the neighbors are interviewed and state, "He always seemed to be such a nice guy" (until he shot his whole family dead)
If the guy that was shot did indeed state he was going to kill him while coming at him, case closed. Those are strong words. I'm sure he was a nice guy but not at that moment. He was dangerous.
How many LEO's thesedays instruct a car to pull over and they ignore them and keep driving leading to a high speed chase.
How many LEO's instruct a suspect to stop and put your hands on your head, then watch him run away.
How many LEO's instruct a suspect to put down a weapon, then have to shoot the suspect when he doesn't and instead raises it?

What happened to common sense?

Control your dogs, calm your temper when you cant control them and expect others to be very mad and threatened when loose dogs are harassing them.
I'm a dog lover but I know that had I been in that situation and had I felt the dogs were about to act from instinct and attack..... both dogs would have died.

I had to stab a dog that some moron had loose. He was fishing about 100 meters down the shore from me. His Shepard came down to me and was attempting to get at me. I had my mountain bike between me and the dog and it was seriously trying to get to me and eventually got around the bike. All this time I'm screaming at the guy telling him to call off your dog or i'm going to kill it. His reply was, "He won't hurt you, hes just messing around". The dog jumped up at me like a ton of bricks and I stabbed it in its chest and twisted the knife a few times but not before he took a chunk out of my heavy coat. The owner then comes running at me screaming bloody murder. I picked up the bike again and put it between me and him and had the bloody knife in hand. By this time, two guys in a boat who watched the entire thing from their boat, beginning to end called the police who were just arriving.
After questioning me, the dogs owner and the two guys in the boat, i was told I could leave if I didn't wish to press charges. I stuck around. The dog owner was charged for possesion of alcohol at a no-alcohol lake, possesion of canabis and the DNR was called for no fishing license, no dog leash on a DNR site. He didn't have a valid DL and his car was in the parking lot...he was alone.
I'm sure he's a nice guy some of the time, but not that day.

nizrulesall · May 1, 2009

wow that is a great thread read the whole thing but decided to stay out of it... Everything i feel more or less was already said.

I also treat most people i don't know with caution....because to be honest "common sense" is NOT that common.

Maqua · May 1, 2009

That's outrageous. Mr. Fish's lawyer was apparently either incompetent or a granola cruncher as well.

steelnut · May 1, 2009

PorcupineMtns66 said:
I had to stab a dog that some moron had loose.

That's a good story

What happened to the dog, and what knife did you have?

MORIMOTOM · May 1, 2009

strange story. could easily have gone either way for mr. fish.

iamtoast · May 1, 2009

Its interesting every time this story comes back up.

Hypnos · May 1, 2009

Some thoughts:

1)What is unusual is that the jurors made a judgement about the bullets. Isn't the function of a bullet to deliver an incapacitating transfer of energy in the form of hydrostatic shock? WTF? There's a reason hollowpoints are used! If the defense was on the ball then these dumb-ass comments wouldn't have been made by the jury.

2)The victim was a troubled individual and the mental status should be entered as evidence

3)The defendent does seem to have over-reacted. Why is there no picture of where the charge down the hill started and the body collapsed? Was there time for a warning shot or a kneecapper?

4)What does it matter that he used a 10mm with hollowpoints? He'd be just as dead with three 9mm centre-mass slugs in his chest.

5)How can the victim's family be in such denial about his mental problems?

I agree it could have gone either way. Up here in Canada the defendant would have been made an example of, but had he been a child molester he'd be out in a year or two.

kdstrick · May 1, 2009

It seems as if Mr. Fish had horribly inadequate legal defense. The hollow point ammo point has been defeated in court many times. Ayoob has written about it.

One significant advantage of hollow point ammo in a defense gun is that it is far less likely to over-penetrate and injure an innocent bystander behind the perp due to the expansion of the bullet.

MORIMOTOM · May 1, 2009

Hypnos said:
Some thoughts:

1)What is unusual is that the jurors made a judgement about the bullets. Isn't the function of a bullet to deliver an incapacitating transfer of energy in the form of hydrostatic shock? WTF? There's a reason hollowpoints are used! If the defense was on the ball then these dumb-ass comments wouldn't have been made by the jury.

if presented with only one point of view, jurors will make their decision based on that. they likely knew little to nothing about firearms or ammunition.

2)The victim was a troubled individual and the mental status should be entered as evidence

probably, but sometimes prior behavior is inadmissable.

3)The defendent does seem to have over-reacted. Why is there no picture of where the charge down the hill started and the body collapsed? Was there time for a warning shot or a kneecapper?

who knows. if there were mitigating factors, it would have been the job of the defense to submit any evidence.

but i agree, it appears the dog(s) disengaged. there also does not appear to have been a deadly threat presented.

prima facie, i wouldn't have shot him, but i wasn't there. being a civilian, i don't think he is afforded some of the legal defense avenues a peace officer could apply. but he may not have been able to articulate his use of deadly force beyond "he was running at me and screaming he was going to kill me".

4)What does it matter that he used a 10mm with hollowpoints? He'd be just as dead with three 9mm centre-mass slugs in his chest.

it doesnt matter, necessarily. see response to #1.

5)How can the victim's family be in such denial about his mental problems?

many people are in denial regarding all sorts of problems, personal and those of others.

kdstrick said:
It seems as if Mr. Fish had horribly inadequate legal defense. The hollow point ammo point has been defeated in court many times. Ayoob has written about it.

One significant advantage of hollow point ammo in a defense gun is that it is far less likely to over-penetrate and injure an innocent bystander behind the perp due to the expansion of the bullet.

true, but this must be presented in court by an expert in such things.

kdstrick · May 2, 2009

thanks for your point of view Mark... :thumbup: you, undoubtedly, have much more experience in these sorts of things than most of us and provide some valuable insight.

The other thread has become almost unbearable as the sheeple chime in.

MORIMOTOM · May 2, 2009

kdstrick said:
thanks for your point of view Mark... :thumbup: you, undoubtedly, have much more experience in these sorts of things than most of us and provide some valuable insight.

The other thread has become almost unbearable as the sheeple chime in.

i find that whole subforum to be a bit odd. kind of like practac jr.

that thread is going to wind up in current events if they can't be civil.

id be interested in reading the transcripts, sure sounds like mr. fish had an inadequate defense.

another point re: the alleged threats that were made. the verbal threats, in and of themselves, are not grounds for deadly force (or perhaps any force).

-the victim must believe the threat, and be in fear for their life or safety.
--this element pretty clearly exists, since mr. fish shot the other guy.

-the victim must believe the suspect is capable of carrying out the threat.
--im guessing this is where mr. fish's defense had problems. if he did in fact believe an unarmed man was going to kill/seriously injure him, he must be able to articulate this. ie, if mr. fish did not shoot, he thought the other guy was going to send the dogs again, he was reaching for his waistband (weapon), he was reaching for mr. fish's weapon, etc. he must establish aggravating factors to justify deadly force. a verbal threat with nothing else just isn't enough.

mr. fish's indicating he did not believe the other guy was armed may have done him in.