Injustice in Arizona

A grave injustice done to a man who legally defended himself now faces prison time for it.

Harold Fish, a retired Arizona high school teacher, was convicted on June 14 this year of Second Degree Murder in a convoluted case of self-defense and now faces a prison sentences of 10 to 20 years.

Fish was just completing a hike in the rugged and remote Mogollon Rim country of Eastern Arizona when several large and apparently vicious dogs approached him in an aggressive manner. Fish's response was to deploy his 10mm Kimber and fire a shot into the dirt between himself and the animals - a seemingly reasonable response to the threat posed.

Unfortunately, the dogs' owner, who was making his way toward the commotion, apparently thought Fish had actually shot one of the dogs and in a rage charged down the trail toward Fish screaming threats and obscenities.

Any reasonable person would react the same way in this situation. With an immediate threat to ones self, a reasonable person would shoot to stop the threat, which includes deadly and lethal force.

In a deadly altercation, that level of skill and training can mean the difference between walking away and being carried, but in this instance it could be that very training which has destroyed Harold Fish's life. Had Fish had less training he might have attempted to shoot his attacker in the leg or the shoulder like they do in the movies. Or he might have tried to use the gun as a club or dodged like a football player as the attacker charged down on him. Had he taken such action - contrary to his training - he might not be in this situation today - and he might very well be dead or crippled. Instead, Harold Fish did exactly what he had been trained to do; in that brief moment, gun in hand, vicious dogs in the area, with limited mobility on the steep trail, a heavy pack on his back, and a large enraged man screaming death threats charging down upon him, Harold Fish had few options; he faced his attacker, gave verbal warnings, and at the last possible moment, since the crazed man made no indication of second thought or hesitation as he charged directly toward the still smoking muzzle of Fish's Kimber, Fish obeyed his training and pulled the trigger.

What would standard police training require under the same scenario? One of these same dogs had previously threatened an officer to the point that the officer had drawn his gun; what would police training dictate if in the next moment Grant Kuenzli had violently charged at that officer? It would dictate that the officer do exactly what Harold Fish did; fire at the center-of-mass of the attacker to stop the attack.

The initial reports from the Sheriff's Office indicated that the shooting was clearly a matter of self-defense and that no charges would be filed, but news reports of an "unarmed man" being "gunned down," and a loud outcry from friends of Kuenzli started the wheels of injustice slowly turning. A charge of Second Degree Murder was presented to a Grand Jury and an indictment was handed down. A variety of possible scenarios, options, and alternatives were presented in court and the press with the bottom line being that Harold Fish didn't have to kill Grant Kuenzli. In the end, the jury agreed and Harold Fish was found guilty of Second Degree Murder and might well spend the rest of his life in prison because he obeyed his training.

Media bias and anti self defense 'experts' (read that as leftist groups like the brady campaign and handgun control groups) portrayed a simple case of self defense as cold blooded murder and may put a man behind bars for most of his life. This is the mentality we have to deal with squarely in order to perservere.

If Harold Fish is able to get a new trial, let's hope that his defense team (assisted by the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund) will call a number of expert witnesses and ask the simple question, "What would a police officer be expected to do in a situation like this?" and that the jury will respond accordingly.

We'll all hope and pray that Harold receives a new trial with an impartial jury this time, one that can understand what defending yourself is all about.

Thanks goes to Jeff Knox, of the Knox Report, and Wayne Smith, of ConcealCarry.org for bringing this to light.