" The AZ legislature was involved in this matter LONG before the appeals court handed down it's ruling. They passed a bill that changes the burden of proof in this case. The bill was introduced to the legislature back in February, but it wasn't acted on until just before the session ended due to the lengthy budget discussions.
Try doing a little research on the timing of the issue before slamming the Senate. (and looking quite foolish!) "

" Criminal actions are not private.

Goddard isn't even releasing Fish while his office appeals the decision. The case never should have gone to court in the first place. What a waste of taxpayer's money - millions. "

" If a legal appeal is pending why is the Senate involving itself in a private criminal action? The legislature is really sad, can't do anything right, including, can't mind its own business. I've lived in AZ for 30 years and they still are lame, worst education system in the USA, well, 47th, close to the worst and yet all this time to advocate for more rights for gun advocates. While this started out as an article about Fish the implications of incompetency, buttinsky-ness and plain foolishness are rife here. AZ dump our sad legislative system. "

" It would seem like the proper forum for determining if the new law should have been applied would be the appeal of his conviction by Mr. Fish. Why is the Senate getting involved in this, since an appeal is underway? Don't they have more important things to do with their time than prejudging what the court might decide? "

" The simple fact is that when Fish was tried, the court instructed the jurors and the law allowed that he was guilty unless he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent.

You call that justice? He deserves a new trial in which he is innocent until proven guilty. The new law requires that and he deserves it. "

" I consider carrying my gun as an insurance policy. These days you don't know who you will come across in cities or in the forest, and would rather be over protected than under protected. But it's a choice we all can make according to our desires. Calling people who legally carry firearms is immature and close minded. "

" Do some research and you'll find the dogs had been quarentined for attacking a sheriff at the Prescott courthouse I believe. "

" Hollow Point bullets are the standard ammunition for every law enforcement agency in the country, with very few exceptions, of course, the jury wasn't told that...... They use hollow point bullets because the are much less likely to pass through the intended target and injure an innocent bystander, or pass through walls and do the same.

The only real question here is "Does Harold Fish deserve a new trial?", to me the answer is yes.

Under the "old law", an Arizona citizen had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their use of self defense was justified, which flys in the face of the American judicial system, where one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the way, jwb, there is really no such thing as a "high powered" handgun, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be a 10mm handgun!

Lastly, if you don't want to be shot by someone, try keeping your aggresive dogs on leashes (like the law says) and don't attack old men that have a gun in their hands! "

" Thanks "Sanity". I feel the same as you about this. I spend a ton of time in wilderness areas. Never needed a gun. Not once. Never has crossed my mind. I think the only reason I would ever need a gun, is to protect myself from the insecure loonatics that feel the need to take them everywhere. Apparently bars now as well. Its 2009, the wild west was over long ago. "

" Everyone seems to take the word of Fish without question. Since there were no witnesses, we don't (and can't) know what really happened. But the fact that someone ended up dead -- shot three times in the chest, and the other person was uninjured (and unbitten by the dogs) clearly indicates that something isn't quite right here. Even if you classify the screwdriver that was in the victims pocket a "weapon", it was ; how is that threatening? What is up with Fish being so willing to kill someone? That could have been you or your children. I've spent a lifetime hiking and backpacking and have never needed a weapon out there. Kinda creepy that there are so many of you who seem to need to carry them out there -- how do we know that you know when and how to use your weapons? A person with a gun is much scarier than a bear, lion or snake, all of whom I've seen in the outback and never felt threatened by. "

" Shooting a man three times in the chest because two dogs were chasing after me, hmmm.....I think that I would have shot the dogs, not the man. (What did the dogs do after Fish shot and killed this man? Does anyone know? Did they still come after Fish? I wonder.) I love dogs and have several myself, but I would shoot a dog who I felt was going to attack me or cause me harm, NOT a human being. And if the owner than came after me, why not shoot him in the leg or something? But three times in the chest? Please... "

" Give me a break--
You obviously haven't read the facts of the case, so I'll help you out. Only one of the dogs actually belonged to the deceased. The other two were from the animal shelter and were taken out for some exrecise by Grant. The two dogs DID have a history of aggression, as did Grant.
You might want to check some facts before questioning someone's version of the story... "

" Enough wrote " I would not have wanted to have been an elderly man out in the wilderness, with no one else around and faced with 3 growling and attacking dogs and a large, possibly psychopathic, transient charging at me yelling that he was going to ,"Kill me"."

Wow, were describe it like you were there. Are you sure it wasn't 3 happy dogs with big smiles on their faces running up to get a pat on the head, and after a shot was fired their owner ran up to plead with man to not shoot his dogs whom he cared for like his own children? Would you have still emptied the clip then? Leave the emotional story twisting to the defence attories. "

" The first shot doesn't necessarily bring an opponent down. More than one shot under the circumstances is not an indication of anything beyond self-defense.

Ask any military if they only fire once at an attacker. "

" Simon-
I'll be glad to comment on your points.
Hollow point bullets are used for a couple of reasons. They're better at stopping the hostilities, and (most importantly) they're less likely to overpenetrate and cause damage to persons or property after they've passed through the target.
As far as the multiple shots, that's pretty normal. In all of the classes I've taken, we're taught to shoot until the threat stops. If Grant was still advancing after the first round, (not at all unusual for an angry person) then subsequent rounds ARE in order. "

" Still no comments on my point about the fact that Fish shot the guy THREE times in the chest with hollow pointed bullets for "self defense?" Those second and third bullets are what turn this case from one of "self defense" to one of murder. "

" Those who favor uncontrolled dogs in public places are no lovers of those dogs. They open them up to all sorts of problems often ending in the death or injury of the dogs from being legally declared vicious, to traffic accidents, to rabies and to giving dogs such a bad reputation that they get banned from many places. A well-behaved, leashed dog is safe, happy and a pleasure to have around. An out of control one is, like his human counterpart, a danger and a nuisance and unwelcome..

People who love dogs want them to be welcome and safe. "

" I am glad he is getting a chance, the fact that Kuenzlis history of being aggressive and threatning and attacking others in the past and his mental instability. I would not have wanted to have been an elderly man out in the wilderness, with no one else around and faced with 3 growling and attacking dogs and a large, possibly psychopathic, transient charging at me yelling that he was going to ,"Kill me". 3 rounds? I would have emptied the clip and left him to the dogs. Fish did the right thing by getting help and owning up, and he has been vilified by the dog lovers. HE had no criminal or psych history, HE was a working and contributing member of society, HE had a family and was a functioning member of society, HE had no record of harming or terrorizing others, HE got rail-roaded because the gun grabbers/Mormon haters wanted to feel like they had gotten something over on the gun rights people.
He is in Lewis as a level 3 inmate, that is an injustice in itsself. "

" jwb said:
"Military personnel who handle weapons are under constant evaluation by their peers and superiors. While not all personnel are required to pass formal psych evaluations (many are), every military person handling weapons must prove on a continual basis they are fit to use the weapons under the circumstances required. In the military--you must prove your mental fitness to handle firearms under stressful situations or you will not be allowed to use weapons in situations where you might harm a friendly or break the rules of engagement."

And you know this how? Please state what unit you served in the military under. Oh, you didn't serve your country? Then kindly stop lecturing to those of us who have. I was there. You weren't. Obviously. Nothing worse than civilians lecturing vets and serving military about weapons. You should have enlisted and learned more about them, jwb. Guess you were busy complaining about guns while the rest of us were picking up the slack for you.

All of you "My dog doesn't need a leash" are saying you break the law. So why should we listen to anything you say? You break the law, who knows what other lapses of judgement you exhibit? "

" JK writes:
"Most dog-owners I've met on the trails have their dogs leashed walking happily by their sides. If you don't, you're just a scared little bully using your dogs recklessly against people and inviting trouble. "
I'm in total agreement! "

" Daniele cady- Once you admit to intentionaly disregarding the law, your arguments and opinions have ZERO value. NONE. I obey the laws, and you admit to breaking them. That's all I need to hear.
Come back and join the discussion when you mature enough to realize that the laws apply equally to everyone. "

" Processes of conflict resolution generally include negotiation, mediation and diplomacy. The processes of arbitration, litigation, and formal complaint processes such as ombudsman processes, are usually described with the term dispute resolution, although some refer to them as "conflict resolution." Processes of mediation and arbitration are often referred to as alternative dispute resolution.

I believe that is EXACTLY how and why there is a leash law in this area.

Conflict resolution while facing 2 unleashed snarling dogs and a rampaging human is probably a no-starter ...the very fact that the dogs were unleashed shows that the human owner had no interest in resolving conflicts. "

" "But the leash law was never intended to prevent polite companion dogs from accompanying humans into the outdoors in their roles as working animals."

WHEREAS the ARS Sec. 11-1005(A)(4) authorizes the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, for the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, to regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, except dogs used for control of livestock or while being used or trained for hunting...
http://www.coconino.az.gov/uploadedFiles/Health/EnvSvc/Dog%20at%20Large%20Ordinance.pdf

So your dogs, Mr. Cady, are controlling livestock or being used for hunting??? Or are you just rationalizing that the law doesn't apply to you??? Did you ever think of walking and carrying your own pack and keeping your dog leashed???

There is no evidence that Mr. Keunzil's dogs were being used for either hunting or controlling livestock.

From the Dogs Rule website:
Coconino National Forest - The CNF is managed by four Ranger Districts that oversee all or part of 10 wilderness areas and over a million acres of meadows, mountains, canyons, lakes and streams. Pets are welcome but leash laws are in effect on this forest; all dogs must be contained or restrained on a leash at all times.

Mt. Elden Summit (Elden Lookout Trail #4) - Kachina Peaks Wilderness (Coconino NF) - 6 miles RT - Elevation: Low 6,900' High 9,295' - Leashed dogs welcome.

Humphrey's Peak Summit (Humphreys Trail #151) -Kachina Peaks Wilderness (Coconino NF) - 9 miles RT - Elevation: Low 9,300' High 12,633' - Leashed dogs welcome.

Kachina Trail #150 - Kachina Peaks Wilderness (Coconino NF) - 10 miles ONE WAY - Elevation: Low 8,800' High 9,600' - Amazing views and a definite chance for wildlife sightings if you are lucky. Leashed dogs welcome. (This is a CHCoA favorite)

Kendrick Peak Summit (Kendrick Mtn. Trail #22) - Kendrick Mtn. (Kaibab NF) - 7 miles RT - Elevation: Low 7,700' High 9,250 ' - A must do in the fall. The views are amazing! Don't forget to bring something yummy to share with the fire lookout (summer only). Leashed dogs welcome.

O'Leary Peak (FR 545 A) - (Coconino NF) - 8 miles RT - Elevation: Low 6,400' High 8,938' - Another must do in the fall. The Aspens contrasting up against the volcanic rock is surreal. Bring a hat this trail is pretty exposed. Leashed dogs welcome.

Sandy's Canyon Trail to Fisher Point - (Coconino NF) - 5.8 miles RT - Elevation: Low 6,600' High 7,033 - Leashed dogs welcome. (This is a CHCoA favorite)

Slate Mountain Summit Trail #128 - (Coconino NF) - 4.8 miles RT - Elevation: Low 7,360' High 8,215 - Leashed dogs welcome. "

" Assuming that azxjer has ever stepped foot into a wilderness area or ridden a mountain bike (which I seriously doubt), she, and not the wildlife, is likely to be the most dangerous animal out in the woods. Utterly blind to the reality of the outdoors, she seems unable to distinguish between a dog at large roaming her neighborhood and a dog loaded down with a backpack boulder-hopping in West Clear Creek or one running beside a bike at A-1 Lake - leashes in either latter instances would only increase the risk of harm to the dog or the owner. Her fantasies of danger contribute to a climate of threat, where taking the law into her own hands based on a nearly autistic moral rigidity could result in unnecessary conflict. With a sufficient number of azxjer's and Fish's in the world, the great outdoors would look a whole lot like Disneyland and have all the flavor of tapioca pudding.

I actually support the leash law, in so far as it essentially eliminates dogs at large from the neighborhoods and consequently the number of dogs injured by automobiles. That is a great thing. But the leash law was never intended to prevent polite companion dogs from accompanying humans into the outdoors in their roles as working animals. I doubt that I will ever meet azxjer in the woods, but if so, I do hope she is not armed to the teeth. She seems ferociously inclined to exhibit pugilism. "

" Wow... I've been vehemently opposed to guns all my life... but after reading this posts, I'm thinking that perhaps there is a good reason to carry a firearm in the woods: to protect myself from all the loonies out there who won't even consider that there are other options than taking a life to resolve conflict. "

" "-People go hiking with their dogs. The vast majority who do have them off-leash. No big deal if the dogs are under voice command and behave themselves which is what I see almost all the time."

It's a big deal to me and others who have to share the trail with your unleashed dogs. Just by not having them leashed you show yourself not to be a responsible, law-abiding person. That alone is a big deal when police are far away.

And it is also against the law - a VERY big deal if your dogs cause any harm you will be legally liable for any and ALL damages. It's like making a left turn in traffic - if you hurt somebody or something while doing so, it is ALL your fault for using poor judgement. Keunzil was responsible for poor judgement and he died for it.

Most dog-owners I've met on the trails have their dogs leashed walking happily by their sides. If you don't, you're just a scared little bully using your dogs recklessly against people and inviting trouble. "

" jwb- There is NO "disconnect " for most of us. The overriding theme in this thread is unleashed dogs ARE an issue. The practice is dangerous for the dogs and the owners, and it's AGAINST THE LAW. Why is that so difficult to comprehend for you? The rest of us understand the concept.
I've never understood your "type"...you want to make additional laws/regulations for OTHERS, but you trivialize breaking laws yourself. Do you see why you have a serious credibility issue here, and why the rest of us think your mindless rants are laughable at best? "

" Google turned up more than 5 million links on my search.

Mr Cady ...at least one AZ lawyer seems to specialize in Flagstaff dog bites:
http://www.arizonadogbites.com/dog-bite-prevention-flagstaff.php

Every seven seconds, a person is bitten by a dog in the United States. That's 4.7 million dog bites each and every year. Of the 4.7 million dog bite victims, over 800,000 require medical attention, with 386,000 requiring emergency treatment. ...

Here is a partial log of some serious dog attacks sorted by breed of dog.... the deaths and maimings are significant numbers...
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

..."the very traits that make certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner. Thus publicizing their potentially hazardous nature has tended to increase these breeds' popularity."
...

... In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the
life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous
behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost
always the victims."

Mr. Fish is an elderly person. "

" evaluations...

Unlike CCW permittees--police officers and military personnel are subjected to rigorous psychological evaluations and screenings. Yet, a CCW permittee can carry a weapon just like a police officer--but without the training and experience that comes with being subjected to real-life situations on a regular basis. While a police officer may have years of training and experience--a CCW permittee may have as little as 8 hours.

Military personnel who handle weapons are under constant evaluation by their peers and superiors. While not all personnel are required to pass formal psych evaluations (many are), every military person handling weapons must prove on a continual basis they are fit to use the weapons under the circumstances required. In the military--you must prove your mental fitness to handle firearms under stressful situations or you will not be allowed to use weapons in situations where you might harm a friendly or break the rules of engagement. Evaluation doesn't necessarily mean sitting down with a psychologist.

There seems to be a disconnect concerning the reality of unleashed dogs in Arizona--particularly on hiking trails.

-People go hiking with their dogs. The vast majority who do have them off-leash. No big deal if the dogs are under voice command and behave themselves which is what I see almost all the time.

So all you dog-scared weapon carriers need to chill out. It's really not that big a deal...at least not to the rest of us. "

" Let's consider -- should GK have been allowed to keep large, snarling dogs?

Did he have licenses for them?

Did they have up-to-date rabies shots?

He routinely disobeyed the laws with regard to keeping his dogs on leashes and under control. Is that equivalent to drawing and aiming weapons at the general public in defiance of law.?

He knew they could be scary so he was being knowingly belligerent and threatening toward others he might meet on the trail.

He had a long history of mental health problems and an assault record and would not have been allowed to get a gun. Why was he allowed to use 2 large dogs as unleashed weapons?

Who trained him to use dogs as a weapon?? "

" jwb said:
"The permit process does require a background check. But it does not require a psychological evaluation to determine if an applicant is capable of making proper decisions under stressful situations--the kind of evaluations police officers and soldiers receive."

And here, jwb, you betray your ignorance of the subject entirely. I served in the United States Army. In fact, I was a small arms repairman there, meaning I handled weapons from the M1911A1 pistol to M2 heavy machine guns and 81mm mortars on a daily basis. Never once did any of us get a "psychological evaluation" in basic training prior to being issued our M16A1 service rifles or after. When I was in, they needed soldiers badly because most Americans didn't see it as their duty to serve their country. I suspect you'd fit into that category of Americans who did not serve, jwb, since you know so little of actual military training.

Give it up, jwb. You lost this debate long ago. You just have an irrational fear of firearms. Well, I'll tell you a secret, jwb. I must have repaired several thousands of weapons and inspected several thousands more in my time in the army. And you know what? Not once did any of them jump up off the repair bench and shoot someone. And any soldier could have gotten ammo from any gun shop off post or stolen it from a live fire. Yet, no shootings when I was there. And no "psych evals", either. "

" The obvious question is..why would a CCW holder in the woods NOT be concerned by a person with unleashed dogs? The dog owner has already proven a disregard for the law, so why should I believe he's otherwise safe or even rational?
Keep your dogs leashed! It's safer for all concerned, and it's THE LAW! "

" Why is it that unleashed dogs are commonly found on local trails if it is illegal ??

A lot of threatening lawless bullies for owners???

Sounds like a good argument to carry a gun to me. "

" Dan cady- Your arguments just lost all credibility to many of us. You have an issue with law-abiding CCW holders, but freely admit to breaking the law yourself in letting your dogs run loose. Nice try... "

" what to expect...

It's important for everyone to understand what to expect from CCW permittees.

1. Obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon requires the applicant to complete an 8 hour CCW course along with a written application. Yes, that's correct--a person with only 8 hours of training may carry a loaded, concealed weapon into a local business establishment (unless business is posted "no weapons allowed" or serves alcohol.) Guns may be carried into churches and schools (with certain restrictions).

2. CCW training does not include alternate methods of conflict resolution such as the use of non-lethal or less-lethal methods. CCW permittees are trained how to kill with a firearm and when it is legally permitted to kill. That's why Harold Fish fired 3 times into the torso of Grant Kuenzli--it's what he was trained to do.

As evidenced by the responses in this thread--CCW permittees do not consider how to resolve conflicts without violence--they are thinking about how and when to use deadly force. Even police officers are trained to use every means available at their disposal before using deadly force. CCW permittees are not trained to employ any means of self defense other than the use of their firearms.

They do receive minimal training on threat assessment and when it's legally ok to kill someone. But how much training can you receive in 8 hours?

The permit process does require a background check. But it does not require a psychological evaluation to determine if an applicant is capable of making proper decisions under stressful situations--the kind of evaluations police officers and soldiers receive.

All this brings to mind some compelling questions:

1. Was Harold Fish psychologically prepared for this encounter? He was permitted to carry a weapon but may not have been emotionally capable or prepared to deal with the situation he encountered.

2. Based on responses in this thread related to unleashed dogs: Do you think said commenters should be allowed CCW permits given their animosity towards unleashed dogs which are common on local trails?

3. Would a person with better training and the passing of a full psychological evaluation been able to resolve the situation with Grant Kuenzli without resorting to deadly force?

4. Are we really safer as a society allowing CCW permits or are we simply putting weapons into the hands of individuals who carry weapons because they harbor more fear than the rest of us?

5. Was Harold Fish trained on how to resolve conflicts peacefully before resorting to deadly force? If not: Why not?

6. Why did Harold wait 1 hour before reporting the incident? What was he doing during that hour? Why did he lie about the timeline? "

" The goverment gives us two options, defend ourselves and go to prison, or allow someone to attack us and die. I woulda shot the dogs too. "

" disturbing...

It is disturbing to read that CCW advocates do not support the use of non-lethal or less-lethal methods of self-protection. According to their statements--they feel carrying a lethal firearm is their only option for self-defense.

It is also disturbing to read the tone of their responses--which ooze fear and paranoia. They perceive threats even when statistical data overwhelmingly concludes those threats to be minimal at best.

CCW classes may teach proper use of firearms--but they obviously do not teach rational thinking.

So what we have is a lot of well-trained concealed weapon carriers who clearly overestimate threats to their personal safety. They are also openly stating that they would not exhaust "less-lethal" methods of self-protection before using deadly force.

Given the facts they've stated and their opinions on self-protection--it is not surprising at all that an incident like this occurred with a CCW permittee (Harold Fish).

I support CCW permits--but only if the applicant submits to a full psychological evaluation--an evaluation that screens for abnormal threat assessments. "

" To 'JK' : No, of course I wouldn't ignore my lawyer's legal advice, regardless of how much I paid for it. I was only posting to correct your statement, which implied that Mr. Fish's lawyers wouldn't ALLOW him to testify at his own trial. That is not the case. They ADVISED him not to testify because of the damaging information that would come out about him during cross-examination, and he (quite intelligently) took his lawyers' advice. "

" Scott B - Any person going to trial has a right to remain silent, and can waive that right at any time. You seem to be saying that Fish was not given the opportunity to speak. That is simply wrong. He elected not to speak. It would be reasonable to conclude that he decided with counsel that the strength of the evidence would not support a conviction... or at least the strength of the evidence did not outweigh the risk of Fish testifying. If he testified, he would then have been subject to cross examination by the prosecution, and that is likely to have been very sticky indeed for Fish.

The mental health history of the dead man is not relevant in that it is only pejorative. There is little evidence support the myth that mental illness increases risk of violence, except in the case of substance abuse or ADHD. Additionally, there is no evidence that the dean man was, at the time of the incident, experiencing any form of illness.

Finally, it is not Mr. Fish I am concerned about in the woods (except to the extent that I often hike with my dogs as pack animals, and consequently off leash). Besides, Mr. Fish is now safely and justifiably in prison. The people I am concerned about are those who post here who contrive scenarios of threats that do not exist in nature and then proffer bullets as the solution. Do you people go to sleep at night thinking about all the ways you might get attacked in the woods? Seriously. Name any incident recently other than Fish where someone was attacked in the woods by a dog. Google any combination of dog, attack, woods, hiking... go ahead. Find me a case remotely similar to Fish.

Rest assured Scott, that I take far greater caution with my dogs in the woods that you can apparently ever fathom, and this is in part due to the readiness I perceive in the writers here to kill me or my dogs at the slightest hint of fear. It is a stupid argument by people who think guns mean safety. Fish's victim discovered at the cost of his life that guns are not safe in the woods. "

" jwb, thanks for your rational and well-thought analysis and your summary of the facts concerning the likelihood of being attacked by a wild animal in Arizona. I've come upon rattlesnakes (BIG ones!!) on several occasions and found that if you simply don't insert your foot in their mouths, they leave you alone. The pro-gun folks are showing their true colors on this one... "

" jwb regales us with his self-defense expertise. You miss the point: Keep the dogs leashed! What is so hard to understand about that? And I bet if someone pepper sprayed or used a walking staff to strike an unleashed, threatening dog, the owner would become belligerant and threatening rather quickly. As in, "How dare you hurt MY dog! I'm going to teach you a lesson about that!" So, what's your advice then?

So, according to jwb, when hiking, you need a king-sized can of pepper spray, a taser, a stun gun, and a walking staff. But then jwb says people don't need to be armed in the woods. You just contradicted yourself, jwb. All those things you mentioned? They're weapons. One is a chemical weapon, in fact. You said people don't need to be armed while hiking, yet you're giving out incorrect advice about the weapons to carry. You just proved you're biased against guns and not biased against being armed in the woods. Therefore, you admitted yourself that it is necessary to be armed while hiking. Ergo, those carrying guns are correct and heeding the very advice you offer, just not in the way you directed.

Perhaps someone could carry a sword in the woods? A reproduction Roman gladius would be a great choice. Would that be better, jwb? No? Then perhaps I should remind you that a walking staff can easily kill a person with a blow to the head. And perhaps you missed the Daily Sun article where a police Taser killed a former Flagstaff resident. These weapons you select, with the exception of the staff, are not "non-lethal" weapons, they're called "less-lethal" weapons because people can and have died from them being used on them. The walking staff is a lethal weapon. Use it to assault someone and you might be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

You just lost this debate, jwb. You advocate the carry and use of weapons. It's just you don't like guns, for whatever reason. You said it, not me. You admitted the need for weapons, not me. You admitted there are aggressive dogs out there. So, thanks for confirming all these things. "

" To JD, if you are paying half a million dollars for legal advice would you then ignore it??? "

" jwb should do a little research before writing:

Here is a map from USGS about the distribution of grizzlies and Arizona IS part of their habitat though they are rarer here nowadays... I ran into a biggy not that long ago and I will not report it because some do-gooder would be sure to go out and "collect" the sample.
http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/research/projects/grizzly/grizzly_na.asp

The rest of jwb's "advice" is similarly lacking in validity.

Healthy wildlife will usually avoid humans unless one surprises them or corners them accidentally. Wild animals infected with rabies are unpredictable - do you want to be bitten? Two legged crazies are definitely the most dangerous of all - with or without their dogs. All of these may harm one unexpectedly.

Rely on bear spray if you like. ROTFL.

If Mr. Fish had died that day from unleashed dogs tearing his throat out would you care?? It would have been even more tragic for his family than his use of his gun.

All I would have to see is snarling teeth on two unleashed large dogs and a rampaging human to feel very threatened and at risk for loss of life and limb. Three to one, against, are not good odds with only a can of bear spray, hair spray, or a big smile. "

" jwb, your statements are continually amusing, as is your lack of knowledge on AZ's wildlife.
Such as...
"There are no Grizzly Bears in Arizona" Umm...OK. The FACT is that black bears are MUCH more likely to attack humans for food than grizzlys are. A simple search would turn that fact up for you.
"Rattlesnakes can easily be avoided by simply watching where you step. If you're lucky enough to see one--don't walk near it." NO idea why you brought that up. Rattlesnakes have NEVER been a human predator. That's just too funny.
"In Harold's case--the firearm did not protect him--" Wrong again! Mr. Fish is ALIVE, which is certainly better than the alternative. I'm sure his family would agree also.
"Harold had so many options." Wow, so you're the physic one. LOL. Well, you weren't there, so you don't KNOW if he had any other options. In a CCW class, we're taught to shoot to stop the threat. That means shooting for the center of mass. (chest) An intentional leg shot to wound is nothing but Hollywood fantasy.

If a crazed younger man is running at me threatening my life AFTER HE KNOWS that I'm armed, I have to assume he's serious about doing me harm. Mr. Fish acted correctly, and a new trial (using the CORRECT updated law) will quickly prove this. I still say that if this had taken place in ANY other county in AZ besides here in liberal la-la land, there would never have even been a trial even with the former law in place. "

" To 'JK' : Lawyers can advise their clients not to testify, but they cannot prevent them from testifying. Remaining silent always hurts a defendant to some extent, because juries naturally want to hear from the defendant and evaluate his credibility. Therefore, defense lawyers only advise their clients to remain silent if the cost of testifying outweighs the benefits. "

" Of Course he deserves a new trial based on realistic self-defense laws. If for no other reason that if a female had killed a guy w/two dogs "threatening" her on a hiking trail, there NEVER would have even been charges brought against Her! How about some gender Equality under the law?! "

" the high cost of firearms...

It's so important to exhaust every option before choosing to use a firearm. In this case the cost of using one was incredibly high....

-one man dead.
-one man in prison
-7 children essentially fatherless
-wife with no husband to support her and heavily in debt
-Arizona taxpayers responsible for Harold Fish's care while in prison

These are the facts you will never hear from the NRA. Any other option would have been better for Harold Fish that day. "

" for the record...

-There have been 2 confirmed mountain lion attacks (non-fatal) in Arizona in the last 119 years.

-Over 50 percent of dog bites occur on the dog owner's property. The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

-In 2009, Arizona has recorded 1 human fatality by dog attack--a 2 week old toddler mauled in its crib by the family dog.

-At the time of the incident--Harold Fish had no knowledge of Grant Kuenzli's criminal record or mental health history. Therefore--said criminal record or mental health history would have no bearing on his decision to shoot Grant Kuenzli. That is unless Harold was psychic.

-There are no Grizzly Bears in Arizona.

-Rattlesnakes can easily be avoided by simply watching where you step. If you're lucky enough to see one--don't walk near it (duh).

-The fact that Harold Fish has 7 children and a wife has NO legal bearing on this case.

If you're concerned about dog attacks you can do the following:

1. Carry bear spray. If it will work on a charging Grizzly it will work on dogs.
2. Carry a heavy walking stick. This has worked for me.
3. Learn how to defend yourself if you are attacked by a dog or dogs. A gun is not even the best way to defend against an attacking dog. They are small, moving quickly and difficult to target. Experts on bear attacks recommend spray as opposed to firearms. It's been well documented that using bear spray is more effective than using a firearm during a bear attack. It's logical the same would be true for dog attacks. And you don't have to spray directly into a dog's face--all you have to do is fill the air around or in front of you with spray. A dog's nose is so sensitive that even a small whiff of the spray will send it away.

It is also well documented that a personal firearm is far more likely to harm the owner (or a family member) than it will protect them. In Harold's case--the firearm did not protect him--it landed him in jail and most likely ruined his life, his wife's and severely impacted his children's. Even if he does snake his way out of this--the emotional and financial damage will have been done. Conclusion--Harold would have been better off that day without a firearm.

Harold could have used bear spray on the dogs if the situation was that dire. However, if he'd used the spray, it is likely Grant would not have heard anything and therefore not had a reason to come running. The dogs would have wimpered away and Harold would be a free man.

Harold had so many options. Too bad he didn't considered them. But I guess he's got plenty of time to think about them before he takes his next hike.

Oh, and even if he does get a new trial and Grant's prior history is introduced--that doesn't mean a jury will look upon the case any different. The fact remains--Harold had no knowledge of that history when he made the decision to fire.

Maybe someday Harold's conscience will speak louder than his mind and he'll have to face the sad fact that he most likely could have avoided this situation. That will be the second worst day of his life. "

" Being attacked by large dogs and their human is more than just "not liking" them.

Every person has a right to feel safe. Self defense is allowed. Proving that it was not self defense is the proper stance for the prosecutor so the new law is an improvement over the old one.

I expect Mr. Fish's lawyer would not let him testify. That is typical for lawyers of defendants both guilty and innocent. "

" To 'Scott B' - Mr. Fish was never called to testify because he CHOSE not to testify. He chose not to testify because he knew that testifying would allow a great deal more information to be presented to the jury through cross-examination -- information that he did not want the jury to know because it would have done him more harm than good. So your statement that Mr. Fish 'was never given the chance to tell his story in court' is false. He had the opportunity. He simply made a strategic decision not to exercise that opportunity. "

" geezer tells us:
" Sorry, but anyone who needs to carry and use a gun in the wilderness is a world-class wimp."
This statement is truly comical, and is very difficult to take seriously. There are MANY reasons why a person would choose to carry a firearm in the woods. Arizona DOES have animals that see humans as a food source. These 4-legged predators (and the 2-legged variety) can be found throughout the forest. The bottom line is I AM responsible for mine and my family's saftey, and I take that responsibility seriously. The police can't be everywhere all the time.
The Constitution also gives me the RIGHT to bear arms, so I exercise that right on a daily basis. If that makes me a "wimp" (in your eyes), than I'll take the title proudly and simply consider the source. "

" To Dan - U should feel far safer in the woods with Mr. Fish than Grant K. In over 50 yr of hiking etc, this was the 1st problem for Mr. Fish. Grant K. spent very few yr in the woods (and wasn't from AZ) and yet was well known to the Forest Service etc. as a problem. He also accosted several people across AZ.

And to those that keep crying NRA, only a very small amount of legal fees were received from them. Mr Fish's bills were well over 1/2 million dollars. Care to pay for that on a retired school teachers funds???

To jwb - Grant K. was a "crazed lunatic" as you correctly stated. Go look at his medical records. He tried to kill himself twice-once by jumping into the Grand Canyon-does that sound like a reasonable person to you??? And Fish wasn't on a "casual hike". He was hiking a section of the Arizona Trail and had hiked over 10 miles through difficult country when Grant K. attacked him. Some of this country has wild animals that could take a man down if hungry enough. Why not be prepared?

For those of you that want an accurate account of this injustice Google up Harold Fish Defense and be prepared to be amazed at the truth.

And finally Harold Fish did show remorse on several occasions about this incident. If you watch the sentencing you will be convinced how sorry he was that he killed Grant K. Try to remember that Mr. Fish was never called to testify at his trial, and so was never given the chance to tell his story in court. "

" Yep... don't like someone or their dogs? Just shoot and kill 'em. Sorry, but anyone who needs to carry and use a gun in the wilderness is a world-class wimp. Fish got what he deserved... I don't understand why this couldn't be handled through a regular appeals process. There is no rational reason why our fear-and-hate-mongering, pro-gun, right-wing legislature has to undermine the judicial system. "

" I agree with Kevan. If your unleashed dog threatens someone, I think that person, or anyone, has every right to shoot it if they think doing so will protect them. Do you want my dog, vicious or not, running up to your kids or elderly mother? Leash your dog - it's not just the law, it is about being fair and respectful. Dogs are wild animals no matter how much you love them.

If you come across an unleashed dog on the trail or in the park, you can take a picture of it and the owners on your cell phone to submit to the police department.

Thanks to the great dog owners that do leash their dogs. "

" jwb said:
"Harold was carrying a high-powered, automatic hand gun on a casual hike in the woods. Is this normal behavior? Most people would not think so."

Lots of people carry handguns while hiking. If you don't or others don't, that's up to you. That's your choice. While you're choosing what to do and what not to do, how about choosing to obey the law and keep your dogs leashed? I, for one, am tired of seeing unleashed dogs harrassing the native wildlife here. "Oh, it's so cute! They're playing!" No, they're not. The wildlife fears for its life and most dogs will kill squirrels or other wildlife. Some of these same people are environmentalists who would be picketing downtown if people did that to wildlife with ATVs. But because their dogs do it, they think it's cute. Hypocrites. And some of these people are anti-hunting, but when their dogs (or free-roaming housecats) kill wildlife, they just think that's fine.

I, for one, am tired of some of these people who think their dogs have some kind of right to run amok and harrass people while hiking. Does that make Fish's reaction right? No. But, at the same time, some of these "My dog right or wrong!" people need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults and start following the law like responsible adults do. Some of these same people think carrying a gun in the woods ought to be illegal but they don't follow the law to keep their dogs leashed. These people are the typical hypocrites who think laws are for the "other people" to follow, not them.

So while some of you are complaining about people carrying guns in the woods, I suggest you keep your own weapons---your unleashed dogs---under control. I've never seen a holstered handgun jump out and shoot someone without the owner's handling it. But I have seen unleashed dogs attack people while the owner just sat there weakly asking the dog to stop. I have been attacked by an unleashed dog myself some years back and, no, I don't think your dog is "cute" when I don't know your dog or its intentions towards me. Some of you need to go back to grade school and learn the basics of respect towards others. That means not letting your dog jump at people. Because not everyone likes dogs, which I am sure you're saying "How could anyone not like dogs?" Well, get attacked by a Rottweiler and see how fast you don't trust dogs off leashes anymore.

I keep hearing people demanding the respect they don't give others. You let your dogs harrass others on trails and then get upset because you see people with handguns on the trails. Here's a thought: Try leashing your dogs and perhaps people won't feel threatened by your threatening behavior. This nonsense about "not showing fear" to a barking dog is hogwash. The owner should be controlling that mutt or he/she should not be allowed to own such an animal. People who wrongly brandish firearms soon lose the right to own them. But people with threatening dogs just go merrily on letting their dogs intimidate others and nothing happens to them. News flash for you: Your dog is an animal, not a human being. "

" Actually the old AZ law under which Mr. Fish was tried was very like Iranian law -- one was presumed guilty unless one could prove himself innocent. The new law is more American - one is presumed innocent and the prosecutor has to prove one guilty.

Very different. Napoleonic law was full of dungeons and chopping blocks. "

" Thumper -- I pointed out who helped to pay for Mr. Fish's defense because another comment claimed he was poorly represented. I suspect Mr. Fish's attorney would take issue with that characterization. Many advocacy groups use legal defense funds to support their causes -- no problem with that -- just pointing out that Mr. Fish had the powerful and flush NRA behind him. "

" This was a huge injustice, and Mr. Fish deserves a new trial. Under the old law, one had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were justified in using force. Last time I checked, it is the government's obligation to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person committed a crime!
And to the online editor: What difference does it make who pays for the attorney! The ACLU provides attorneys free of charge for every wacko who wants one. "

" This law was enacted before the trial and was meant to be retroactive. The local judge opted to not obey the law. A new trial is warranted and not with the same judge. "

" Why doesn't the Govenor just pardon him? "

" Those of us who support Mr. Fish should not allow ourselves to be blinded to the dangerous precedent that the legislature is trying to set here. We have separation of powers for a reason. Are we going to let the legislature pass retroactive laws to overturn any court decision it doesn't like? Think about that. The precedent set here will go far beyond the Harold Fish case. "

" Three shots for self defense? Maybe one shot in the chest with a hollow point bullet for self defense, maybe. But the next two? How much of a threat was the "attacker" after he had been shot in the chest the first time? "

" mental states...

A lot has been said in this case about Grant Kuenzli's prior criminal history and state of mind. But the only thing that matters is his state of mind on that day. He ran screaming at Harold after a shot had been fired at his dogs. Of course he did! What devoted dog owner would not have? Harold says Grant's intent was to do bodily harm. But you could just as easily speculate that Grant was only trying to save 3 dogs in his care. What was he supposed to do? Sit back and watch somebody murder his dogs? Maybe Grant was the brave one. He ran to rescue his dogs even after a shot had been fired. He knew there was an armed person out there and still ran to the dogs defense. We'll never know for sure--but there are plausible alternatives to Harold's story that should be considered.

What we have here is Harold's word only. Harold, quite naturally, is inclined to spin and exaggerate the story to protect himself from legal repercussions. And, he's likely trying to protect his conscience. Nothing wrong with that--it's natural.

All he saw was snarling teeth. Ok, guess we'll have to take your word for that Harold--even though you have every reason to exaggerate that statement. Grant charged him with a crazed look in his eye. Possibly so, but maybe that crazed look was due to the fact that somebody was shooting at his dogs? Shouldn't Harold have considered how a dog owner would react to someone shooting at his dogs? Harold didn't know Grant or his personal history at that moment. He just shot at somebody's dog. Isn't it logical the dog owner would be upset?

There are many things Harold could have done to avoid killing Grant Kuenzli--here a just a few:

1. Remained calm during initial contact with dogs. This alone may have diffused the entire situation.
2. Fire warning shot at Grant. It worked with the dogs.
3. Wound Grant instead of dropping him with 3 shots. One shot to the leg would have ended all supposed hostility. Harold had the superior weaponry for god's sake.
4. Carry a stun-gun or Taser and not a high-powered hand gun. Even police officers use every non-lethal method first before taking a life.
5. Move away from Grant to allow more time to react in a non-lethal manner. Certainly Harold had time to do this.

Harold and the pro-gun lobby painted Grant as some crazed lunatic bent on killing Harold. But what about Harold's state of mind?

1. Harold was carrying a high-powered, automatic hand gun on a casual hike in the woods. Is this normal behavior? Most people would not think so. The threat of bodily harm is so low that carrying a gun would seem extreme to most. And if hiking in the woods required a weapon--most people would choose not to go hiking.

2. Harold's first reaction was to pull his weapon when dogs came barking. Dogs come barking all the time. It doesn't seem natural for an experienced hiker to react this way. It's possible Harold had an unreasonable fear of dogs.

3. 3 shots to the chest of an unarmed man? That's overkill. What kind of person reacts this way?

In my opinion--it is equally plausible that Harold Fish is entirely responsible for this incident. He was the one carrying a lethal weapon. He had a duty to react more responsibly.

I believe Harold's vigorous defense is designed to protect his own conscience and to protect the gun-lobby who are threatened but such cases. "

" jwb said:
"Is hiking in Arizona so dangerous that we need to carry lethal weapons?"

I don't know, are some of you so incapable of following the law that you can't leash your dogs as the signs so clearly tell you to do? "

" A jury listens to evidence and returns a verdict of guilty. Subsequently there is a move to change the law and make the change retroactive so that a retrial might occur under new rules.

Then people start writing comments about this news story, basically personalizing and rehashing NRA talking points and illustrating hip-shot armchair decision-making while employing poor English language writing skills and even worse logical analyses.

I'll stick with the original jury verdict. Fish was guilty. His victim was not guilty. The dogs were not vicious. There was no self-defense justification. I'm happy that Fish is in jail for a long, long time.

I am disturbed that this case keeps coming back like a zombie as it seems to intensify with each re-telling. I feel it stirs the more animalistic innards of the gun-whackos whose sole purpose in life seems to be looking for opportunities to find justification to kill something. Preemptive road rage is all the fashion in the gun crowd. Frankly, I want to feel safe in the woods, and knowing these morons are out there makes me feel far less safe. "

" I'm astounded by the support for this man who took a life with absolutely no signs of remorse. The bottom line is that he had any number of other options. If he really had to shoot (which is debatable) he could have incapacitated Kuenzli. I hike alone all the time and have never felt the need to carry a gun. Fish made a very bad decision and is paying the price -- as he should. Retrying this case sets a bizarre and disturbing precedent, and it completely undermines our judicial system. "

" "But what would happen if all of us pulled guns every time barking dogs approached? "

Barking dogs, unleashed, were rapidly approaching folllowed by a menacing man.

A lot more people would keep their dogs on leash as the law requires and behave themselves if they had to confront a gun once in a while. People that threaten other people using their dogs are bullies. They don't love their dogs or they would not let them run loose in an area with known cases of rabies. And they certainly don't care about other people or they would obey the leash laws. Kuenzil disobeyed the law once again in his long history of breaking laws -- and that last time cost him his life. Unfortunately it also sent an elderly man to jail who has a large family to support and had not been in trouble with the law before.

And yes, Arizona is a dangerous place. Even walking or driving down the streets at night is dangerous in FLG. Check the rest of today's paper for at least 2 cases. And that can be said every day. Even the park rangers are now often armed and for good reason. "

" Mr. Fish was tried by the judicial system and has the opportunity to use the appeal process. This isn't Iran. Fish's guilt or innocence is not the real issue here, however. It is the misuse of power by Arizona legislators, most of whom on any other day would likely claim that the government should stay out of people's lives. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. This legislature fails to address the needs of its citizens and has created an atmosphere that makes Arizona look like a backwoods, redneck state. They need to focus on real issues that impact our daily lives. As for Fish, they tell you in weapons training classes that once you decide to pull the trigger, your decision making is over. A whole host of consequences fall upon you that you no longer control. "

" How so many try and make a change in law, Good or bad,a personal life threatening thing, when it only happens that a local case will be effected by the change. Not that the local case was the reason for the change in law. I feel threatened, by lose out of control dogs, not to mention the screw driver brandishing homeless man. It was self defense. Mr Fish should not be in prison. "

" Let's not forget that Mr. Fish is a father of 7 children and a husband. Doesn't he have a right to defend himself for their sakes? As a father I will defend myself against harm for the sake of my wife and children because I know they expect me to come home for them. This wasn't a selfish or thoughtless act as some of you want to think. Also Fish was nearly 60 at the time - Grant Kuenzli in his 40s. Believe me, that's a big difference and Kuenzli knew he had a gun but charged anyway. If you really want to know the truth...look at each individuals criminal records. Fish had never been arrested before this incident. Kuenzli had a record amile long and had been fired from jobs etc. etc. A disturbed man that finally met someone that wouldn't be attacked. He was also on the drug effexor(spelling?) that has a very bad record.

It's a tragedy when anyone dies, but when the system fails to help a sick individual others have the right to protect themselves, especially when they are responsible for the lives of a wife and their children at home. A new trial will only shed more light and this is fair considering most don't know the whole story, simply because the prosecutors were able to keep it from the trial. I know because I sat in the court room and heard the lead investigator for the prosecution testify that he was ordered NOT to investigate Grant Kuenzli. How is that fair and un-biased. The medical records(extensive) on Kuenzli were not allowed to be admitted. How is that fair? The several witnesses that came to testify in Fish's behalf were not allowed to tell about the vicous encounters they had with Kunzli. None of it fair - You can see why Fish was convicted when the jury knew only a part of the story. "

" alternate reality...

Dogs instinctively become agitated when they sense fear. How many times have any of us been approached by barking and sometimes aggressive dogs? The worst thing you can do is show fear or aggression--which only makes a dog more aggressive. The thing to do is stand your ground, show no fear and most dogs will calm down once they realize they are not being threatened.

In this tragic case--Harold Fish did just the opposite.

When Harold pulled his weapon and yelled at the dogs and their owner--he displayed extreme agitation--which as expected--escalated the situation.

What if Harold had kept his cool, remained calm, and not yelled or pulled his weapon? I guess we'll never know. But I guarantee you--Harold's conscience knows. And that's what matters the most and where the ultimate truth lies.

Which brings to mind a few pertinent questions. If Grant's dogs were so dangerous: Why didn't they attack either Harold or emergency personnel? Truly dangerous dogs would not have stopped attacking after Harold fired. Instead, they retreated after Harold fired into the ground and were later found curled up in Grant's vehicle. Do those sound like vicious dogs? Again: How many of you have been approached by barking dogs? It happens and it can be unnerving. But what would happen if all of us pulled guns every time barking dogs approached? There would be a lot of tragic situations like this one. Fortunately most people have more common sense and courage than Harold Fish did.

It is also unlikely that the Humane Society would have allowed Grant Kuenzli to care for a trio of dogs if those dogs were deemed dangerous. The Humane Society screens all animals and volunteers. Labs as we all know will lick you to death. The shepard mix was known to be very friendly and the chow was known to be a biter--but only when cornered.

I'm speculating, but my instincts say the dogs approached barking because they were startled but most likely would have chilled out once they realized there was no threat.

Now, all the armchair warriors will argue that lethal force is sometimes necessary and that if used--their consciences would be clear. What a crock. It's so easy to be flippant about these matters when you've never experienced them.

Which is why we should ask any police officer what they fear most--being killed in the line of duty or having to use lethal force to kill a human being. I think many of you brave warriors would be surprised to know how actual police officers would answer that question.

Officers I know have told me--their greatest fear was ending a human life in the line of duty--no matter how justified the circumstances were. That's because they heard all the stories about officers who did end a life in the line of duty--who never emotionally recovered. It seems so simple to gun nuts--end a life in self defense--no big deal. Well folks, it is a big deal--just ask any soldier or police officer who has done so. Many never recover and wish they had done anything but use deadly force.

So as we ponder these tough questions--we need to remind ourselves of the realities that lie beneath the surface. We need to understand that using a gun in self-defense is never a cut and dry situation. We need to begin asking ourselves: Are we carrying and using guns because of real threats or are we simply reacting to our own mostly irrational fears?

Is hiking in Arizona so dangerous that we need to carry lethal weapons?

Or would Grant Kuenzli still be alive and Harold Fish enjoying the remainder of his life if he had simply been a bit more measured in his reaction?

Who knows--maybe the dogs would have calmed down after realizing Harold was no threat and Grant and Harold could have had a nice chat about the weather that day..... "

" So the elected Senators, in this time of economic crisis, are more concerned about releasing a convicted murderer! Lets remember the roll call at election time.

Is it even legal? Why have appellate courts??? "

" To Astounded:
If you would research Grant Kuenzli's discharge from a Municipal community position in Maricopa County, you might be better informed .
It is too bad that you and Your family didn't rescue Kuenzli and make him a member of your family!
He might be alive to day, or maybe not! "

" I would have been gobbled by the dogs. I don't carry a gun. Have you ever seen the pictures of the women who have had their faces eaten by dogs??

My father always carried a gun when he went hiking. It wasn't out of fear -- just common sense when hiking where one might run into danger a long way from any help. He figured it was his duty to protect the rest of us if we ran into smugglers or other unsavouries. We often walked where there were cougars and rattlesnakes as well as grizzlies. He only used it as a last resort. The only time I ever saw him use it was early one morning when we accidentally surprised a large rattlesnake in striking distance of my mother. He took the head right off.

If he had a large group along on one of the horse treks he would carry his rifle in a saddle holster. He never used it except for target practice but once we met several heavily armed men leading a string of mules packing contraband. They saw he was armed and went well around us. We were a long way from any official help and in a region where people disappeared and were found murdered weeks later on a fairly frequent basis. AZ has never been a tame place.

I'd go hiking more if he were still around to hike with. All the people he took on trips into the wilderness came back alive and well. The local sheriffs used to call him when they needed to go out and find hikers who were often not so fortunate. Some of the men around FLG with their unleashed dogs are a lot scarier than the cougars and snakes ever were. Cougars and snakes and even grizzlies are smart enough to avoid humans if they can. Mean dogs are not. "

" If it were possible to move Flagstaff to San Francisco, a
few of our local citizens. would feel right at home!
I'm grateful that more rational ideas and policies are in the majority. "

" I would strongly encourage folks to check the Daily Sun archives for our coverage of the incident and trial as a way to refresh our memories of the facts.Mr. Kuenzli had a screwdriver in his back pocket. Is that a concealed weapon? And let's not forget that the NRA helped to pay for Mr. Fish's well-known attorney out of Phoenix. On this I think we can all agree, a fascinating case with tragedy all around. "

" I would have done the same except for one thing, I would have used a bigger gun. "

" Great! More of the "if you have a problem shoot it" mentality that our state is known for. I cant wait for the state legislature to come up with a plan to shoot climate change. How barbaric are we really? Torture, murder and guns in the name of law and order is blasphemy. And people not the least bit ashamed to show their ignorance and even glory in it. 2000 years since the birth of Chirst and we are still stunted in our moral and ethical values. Shame is the only appropriate responce. "

" MESS: Did you know Grant Kuenzli? On what are you basing your assesment that he is not a person you would feel comfortable with anywhere? Because he was homeless? Does this mean that Fish had the right to kill him?
I agree with OMG and Margurite, the legislature is overstepping it's bounds in making this a crusade to free one man. This is going to affect a lot more than Harold Fish if it passes, and may free some people you aren't so comfortable with freeing. Don't change the laws for one man. Keep the separation of powers. The jurors unanimously agreed that he was guilty. Not one believed his story of self defense. The legislature has no right to overturn their decision. "

" So we're going to change the entire criminal law in Arizona for the benefit of one man? "

" Of course Mr. Fish deserves a new trial! After the last circus convened, the jury foreman admitted that if
they had been allowed all of the pertinent eveidence available to the prosecutors, they would NOT have
convicted Fish. Mr. Kuenzli (the deceased) had a concealed weapon, he had extensive psyche files with 2 different mental health care facilities and had attempted suicide on at least 2 different occasions.
When the public of Arizona heard about this case after Fish indicted, they began to stream out of the woodwork to tell of their own encounters with Mr. Kuenzli and how he had threatened their lives. One man drove from Mesa, against his doctors orders, (due to recent surgery), to say that Mr. Kuenzli was the single most frightening man who had ever been in his courtroom, when he was a jutice of the Peace. Another testified that Mr. Kuenzli had beaten him over the head with a telephone for simply talking to his girl friend. It goes on and on and on...but I am limited by the space provided here. Please contact your Gov. and urge her to pass this bill!!! "

" I hope justice is served......I think lawyers loose sight of it (justice) in the quest for victory. From the district attorney to the defense attorneys justice seems to suffer when there win loss record is on the line. "

" fishy story....

Harold Fish was a fearful man--which compelled him to carry a gun.

On that fateful day--he instinctively reacted with fear--pulling his weapon first instead of using common sense like the rest of us would have (I've had dogs come barking at me when hiking--and have always been able to peacefully resolve the situation).

And then he fired 3 rounds into the chest of an unarmed man who was in a defensive posture and only trying to protect his dogs.

Maybe someday Harold will have the courage to admit what many of us already know--that it was his own fear that caused this dreadful situation.

The gun did not protect him that fateful day--it killed an unarmed man and ruined Harold's life forever.

I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life knowing I'd killed a man simply because I could not manage my own insecurities.

Keep telling your story Harold--maybe someday your conscience will actually believe it. "

" A man with two unleashed large dogs is not an unarmed man. He was armed and dangerous. "

" The only problem that I have with Mr Fish is the probable fact that he showed no remorse for killing that man. Usually when most people kill in self defense they are sorry that they took a life...not Fish. Their are many forms of psychopathic behaviors, one which being no remorse for any actions against others. "

" Two things. If you are armed and someone attacks you it should be assumed that they will try and wrest the weapon away from you. Preventing this constitutes self defense. I seem to remember the "victim" claiming he had a knife or a screwdriver before he charged?
The other thing I wish to mention is that everyone should read "The tyranny of good intentions" by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence m. Stratton. It describes how the legislative state gave way to one that is purely administrative. It will illustrate how cases like that of Mr.Fish are hardly rare. "

" Harold Fish should never have been charged with a crime!
I sat and watch the trial daily.
An over zealous Coconino County Prosecutor, should have dismissed the charges.
A change of venue should never have been allowed, to try this case in Flagstaff.
Did the trial Judge, ruled incorrectly?
Apparently, the State Legislature thought that justice was not rendered!
Grant Kuenzli , was not a person, I would be comfortable with, anywhere.
It was not right, that his past history wasn't allowed to be brought before the court and the jury! "

" you still shot an un armed man. "

" Whats the point of the criminal justice system - the lawyers (both the prosecutors and defense attorneys), the judges and juries, if the legislature thinks they can do better and know better, and is going to play favorites?
"Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, said SB 1449 is designed to spell out that, despite what the trial judge ruled, Fish's trial should have been conducted under the revised law. She wants Fish to have a new trial, this one under the rules which put the burden of proof on prosecutors to prove that Fish was not justified in the shooting."
Linda Gray needs to stay out of it!!!! "

" Unbelievable! What happened to separation of powers? We can't just create new laws after the fact to help our white friends out of a conviction--and then overturn a JURY OF HIS PEERS.

People should be outraged--I don't care which side you think is right. The AZ legislature is out of control. "

" It is time to right this wrong. A person has the right to defend themselves, period. If someone is running at me telling me they are going to kill me, I would have the inclination to believe them and do whatever I could to stop them from killing me.

The only things that were proven during the Fish trial was that the attorneys for the County Attorneys Office were better lawyers than the lawyers that defended Mr. Fish, and that the jury selection system is flawed. "

" I can only hope that the House and the current governor approve this measure. Mr. Fish does NOT belong in prison for protecting his life! "