[itr674]

Just finished watching "Trail of Evidence" on Dateline Saturday'



It was about an individual using a firearm in self defense, but the person shot was not armed, and the defendant was found guilty of Murder 2.



Two things bothered me:



(1) he used a 10mm and prosecution used this against the defendant and



(2) he used hollow points and this also was used against the defendant.



I did not hear any countering of these two items from the defendant’s attorney.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15174955/

 

[YukonGlocker]

He was not convicted because of those 2 points.

He was convicted because he killed an unarmed man. You have to meet force with equal force. A gun is not equal force to a man swinging his fists. (usually)

This is what the jury concluded anyway.

 

[Aceq2jot]

He was not convicted because of those 2 points.

He was convicted because he killed an unarmed man. You have to meet force with equal force. A gun is not equal force to a man swinging his fists. (usually)

This is what the jury concluded anyway.

Unnecessary use of force i believe is what they call it. Only the justifiable use of force to control the problem is allowed. So you cant mace them and then beat them

 

[machgt]

That's the problem with most people, is they don't understand firearms.



to them, hollowpoints are "cop killers"

 

[itr674]

He was not convicted because of those 2 points.

He was convicted because he killed an unarmed man. You have to meet force with equal force. A gun is not equal force to a man swinging his fists. (usually)

This is what the jury concluded anyway.

Datelines interview with two of the jurers showed at least one of them appeared to buy into the prosectutors arguement on the 10mm and hollowpoints.



So, even though excessive force appeared to be the main reason for the conviction, the prosecutors other arguments probably helped the states cause...



I agree that he would have probably been convicted even if he had used FMJs.



Of course what do you do in this situation if you are scared and present the firearm in hopes of making the person backoff and they just get more angry and decide to take the firearm from you. This is where some will argue not to present the firearm until you absolutly know you will have to fire, of course then it might be to late, especially if hand to hand combat has been entered and you loose the firearm, or can't get to, or the bad guy feels it on you and takes it from you...

 

[YukonGlocker]

Although the point about hollowpoints was brought up, that is not what got him convicted.

If he had killed the man with FMJ rounds, he would have still been convicted.

 

[Gunner68]

After reading (scanning) though that, All I can say is "good grief". Evil hollow points and 10mm was brought into the picture. Just look at the way the web story put it.









Fire arm

According to the firearms investigator, Fish’s gun, a 10mm, is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection









Ammo

The ammunition Harold Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times -- called a hollow-point bullet-- is made to expand when it enters the body. When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.





Of course he knew.....That's why we choose to carry protection....an he's still here :roll:



I apologize in advance, but I get pissed when I here the way that the LIBERAL media spins a story.

Who says "what's normally used for protection"? And what are the police carrying?



Once again...Sorry, that was my rant for the evening.

 

[synergy]

I saw the story too.



What bothered me about it, is the guy was hiking in bear country....he had a damn good reason to be carrying a 10mm!!!



Also, when they go after someone for using JHP's....why don't they bring in a firearms expert to talk about ballistics?



Evidently it's going to take a couple of high profile shootings, where innocent people are injuried due to overpenetrating FMJ's going through a perp and killing someone on the other side. Then the DA's will be arguing that he should have been using expanding ammunition that wouldn't have overpenetrated.



You can find plenty of documentable evidence that shows handgun wounds to be ineffective at stopping an immediate threat. The FBI study detailed that w/o a CNS hit, you have to cause a rapid drop in BP to stop a determined threat. How else are you going to do that except with bullets that create maximum tissue dammage?



People have this idea in their heads that you can shoot a perp in the leg while they're running at you with a knife, and "wound" the suspect. People have no idea how shootings under stress happen. I'd really like to see the NRA fund a study on this. Have 100 cops, from all over the country, fire simmunitions at a threat running towards them, intending to "wound the threat", and see what they could hit.



People that have never even held a gun before will be the ones who judge us on how we use it. And they'll judge us by what they've seen and heard on TV for years, without having 1 lick of real world experience with it.



Lastly....so what if the bullets are designed to infilict maximum damage? If you draw and fire your gun, you've decided to use lethal force. Why limit the effectiveness of that lethal force?



I'm sorry, but any attorney I hire is going to be a shooter.



The fact that a juror walked away with a bad taste in their mouth because the defendant used 10mm HydraShok's shows how poor a job that lawyer did at defending his client.

 

[choochboost]

Of course what do you do in this situation if you are scared and present the firearm in hopes of making the person backoff and they just get more angry and decide to take the firearm from you. This is where some will argue not to present the firearm until you absolutly know you will have to fire, of course then it might be to late, especially if hand to hand combat has been entered and you loose the firearm, or can't get to, or the bad guy feels it on you and takes it from you...

Bad move to use a gun as a deterrent.

The fact that a juror walked away with a bad taste in their mouth because the defendant used 10mm HydraShok's shows how poor a job that lawyer did at defending his client.

Considering Hydra-shoks are not exactly a great JHP choice, they should have give him a break. :wink:



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[YukonGlocker]

Synergy, I agree. This guy needed a better attorney. But we still have the situation of excessive force.



I find it interesting that Itr674 went back and edited both of his posts after I replied to them; and all the editing was to make his argument better. If you want to argue the points, then let's argue the points. Don't go back and edit your posts to make them sound better after I have replied to your post. Not cool man...





Of course the prosecution is going to use every detail they can to convict this guy. You have to have an attorney that knows how to represent a self-defense case. And you have to be within the law with your self-defense.

 

[choochboost]

I have the contact info of two good firearms law attorneys in my area . Hopefully I'll never have to use it.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[YukonGlocker]

I have visited with, and carry the info for my attorney also.

You have to be prepared for the worst.

 

[mad212]

Would rubber "non lethal" rounds still be considered excessive force?

 

[Jester]

This is why alot of instructors suggest carrying mace or pepper spray.



Always exhaust all resources other than a firearm. Many are way to triggerhappy. This guy was probably in fear for his life, but it was excessive force.

 

[Aceq2jot]

Would rubber "non lethal" rounds still be considered excessive force?

Could you bring the person down with a punch?? The law basically states the MINIMUM amount of force nessercary to control the situation. So you have to factor in the attackers size compared to yours etc. Basically if a 80 year old Granny came up swinging her purse and you maced her you would get slapped with excessive use of force as macing an elderly person is a bbit much. Her imn Minnesota It is illegal to spray a minor, handicapped or person over 65, i believe unless they changed it. But it doesnt matter if the invalid is drunk and trying to wack you with his false leg you still cant do it

 

[Mike]

The first mistake he made is talking to the police without an attorney present. That was the focus point in the classroom portion of the CCW class I attended. If you are involved in a shooting you will for sure take a ride to the police station one way or the other so why say squat to anyone. Even in this case the detective in charge said it was an act of self defense he did not have anything in writing from the prosecutor’s office and without that anything goes especially what he says to anyone, anywhere & at anytime.



In Michigan they passed on October 2006 “the self defense act” which may have helped this man if his state had similar laws. In short the law says you do not need to retreat if you feel that imminent death or great bodily harm is to come to you.



If this guy did not shoot Grant Kuenzli coming down the hill and tried to take him on with his fists he may have been overcome as we do know Harold Fish was retired and 57 years old and Kuenzli was 43. I have not found anything mentioned on the weight & size of Kuenzli. Does anyone know how big he was in relation with Fish.

 

[m4arc]

I just read the story above and WOW!



- First, I'm confused as to why Kuenzli's mental health records were ruled inadmissible? I would think they have everything to do with the case.



- It's nice that Arizona law changed to put the burden of proof on the prosecution.

 

[mity2]

what i do not understand (and its been puzzling me sine i saw it first time several month ago) is that Mr Fish was willing to shoot and kill a unarmed man, yet he did not shoot the dog which by the sound of it is more danger to him then Mr Kuenzli.



I'd shot the dog instead. I may still end up defending myself in court, but penalty would be far less then killing a unarmed man...



Unarmed man, however dangerous or unstable mentaly he might been(I donno about ya'll, but i'd think x2 before charging a man with gun when I'm unarmed...), is just that - UNARMED. Unless I KNOW FOR SURE that i can produce solid evidence stating Mr. Kuenzli was willing to hurt me, I'd shot the dog and ran

 

[itr674]

I find it interesting that Itr674 went back and edited both of his posts after I replied to them; and all the editing was to make his argument better. If you want to argue the points, then let's argue the points. Don't go back and edit your posts to make them sound better after I have replied to your post. Not cool man...

YukonGlocker--wasn't trying to best you, just trying to consolidate thoughts. But, point taken for future posts...

 

[YukonGlocker]

I don't at all think you were trying to best me. You brought up some very valid points; and I'm glad you started this thread. I was just not sure what you were trying to do by changing your posts.

No hard feelings here.

Thanks. :wink: