Warren
Member
I guess the homeless get to do what they want and if you defend yourself you go to jail.
Outrageous!
Outrageous!
Arizona dog-walker shooter indicted.
- Thread starter Warren
- Start date
- Status
Josey
member
This proves that AZ is becoming a liberal stronghold. Sickening.
Ellery Holt
Member
I hope he gets a skilled attorney. This sure reads like a clear case of the DA being pressured by the public into prosecuting. I can only imagine how many pollyanna people called and wrote his office. Perhaps the reporter was even one of them -- loved the way it wrote, ...the victim was unarmed and the gunman didn't have a scratch on him...
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
Kuenzli was camping with 3 dogs, which constitutes a pack. He was not able to control them and that was extremely irresponsible.
It was certainly reasonable for the hiker Fish to assume that his life was in danger if he was under attack by 2 or more dogs simultaneously. The camper Kuenzli, bears responsibility for allowing the situitation where his dogs threatened the hiker Fish.
But the issue here is the sequence of events after Fish fired the warning shot. Fish admits the dogs dispersed after he fired.
The Grand Jury would have likely focused the likelyhood that an unarmed Kuenzli would charge at someone who is holding a pistol and who had just fired a warning shot. That was probably hard for them to accept.
It was certainly reasonable for the hiker Fish to assume that his life was in danger if he was under attack by 2 or more dogs simultaneously. The camper Kuenzli, bears responsibility for allowing the situitation where his dogs threatened the hiker Fish.
But the issue here is the sequence of events after Fish fired the warning shot. Fish admits the dogs dispersed after he fired.
The Grand Jury would have likely focused the likelyhood that an unarmed Kuenzli would charge at someone who is holding a pistol and who had just fired a warning shot. That was probably hard for them to accept.
El Tejon
Member
I find it hard to believe that anyone would ever be trouble in using deadly force against a fellow human being.
This reeks of that nonsense of Problem #2 which is a fiction created by El Tejon. Everyone knows that since I have a gun I am a Warrior Prince I can do what I want, when I want.
Wait and see what comes out.
This reeks of that nonsense of Problem #2 which is a fiction created by El Tejon. Everyone knows that since I have a gun I am a Warrior Prince I can do what I want, when I want.
Wait and see what comes out.
Nooooo!!!!!! It is so much more fun to work ourselves into a lather and make table-pounding statements like "Sickening!" and "Leftist Blissninny Parasites!" based upon a few scant lines in a newsblurb than it is to actually get the facts. El Tejon, you are banned!
Mike
El Tejon
Member
Can I come back after September 14th?
Hey, Mike, have you ever seen the media get something incomplete or just flat wrong about a criminal case? Heck, I've read newspaper articles about my own cases that I did not recognize.
Hey, Mike, have you ever seen the media get something incomplete or just flat wrong about a criminal case? Heck, I've read newspaper articles about my own cases that I did not recognize.
Josey
member
99% of the first impression I had as a homicide investigator were proven. If the SO investigator pronounced it as a good self defense shoot, I trust his judgement. The problem I see is the prosecutor calling the SO investigators judgement as premature and bending to BS political pressure. Get a spine. Two of three dogs were known to be vicious and one dog had attacked a deputy. THAT is why they were in the shelter. The facts and the politically motivated prosecution DO NOT add up. 2+2 is not 5.
Warren
Member
The deceased was within gun grabbing range. Was aggressive and had charged an older, weaker person.
The shooter had RAID.
The shooter had RAID.
A better question would be: "have you ever known the media to get everything right about a case and include all of the pertinent details?"
And the answer would be...yeah. maybe...once? Twice, at most. And those were pretty much really simple cut and dried affairs.
Heck. There have been times that I've listen to the talking head go on about a crime, and I would not have even known that it was the scene I was at until they panned over and I saw my cruiser.
People, they really get stuff wrong, or leave out so much that speculation is pointless.
Here2Learn, let me ask you a question.
You have a relative. You know he is a peaceful, non-violent person. He can barely mow his own grass, and he has to call you over to swat a fly in his house. One day he goes out for a walk in the woods, unarmed (because guns scare him and knives do too) and he ends up being shot. His assailant claims that your relative attacked him, stating "I will kill you", and that it was all self defense. There are no witnesses, and the physical evidence conforms to the assailant's story, so far as it goes- the shooting was at close range, all wounds to the front of your relative.
What would you say if law enforcement listened to this tale and said "Oh! It was self defense! Sorry. Our bad. You're free to go."
Would you feel, perhaps, frustrated? Angry, perhaps? Maybe even think that justice was not served? Perhaps, you might venture, a Grand Jury might wish to hear of this?
Well, they did, and this is what they said: We think that there is a possibility that a crime has been committed here, and that there needs to be a trial to hear all of the evidence.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Mike
Warren
Member
I am assuming that the DA is making political hay out of this.
Would I be upset if a relative of mine was killed? Yes I would be. Would I try to jam the shooter up if there was no evidence to support a criminal indictment? No, I would not.
Would I be upset if a relative of mine was killed? Yes I would be. Would I try to jam the shooter up if there was no evidence to support a criminal indictment? No, I would not.
Where in the article cited did it say that?
Allegedly.
I'm all for the justified use of lethal force to save one's life or the lives of innocents, but it seems to me that some of the members here are just as quick to unreasonably back a shoot as liberals are to unreasonably condemn one. 180 degrees to a liberal's idealogy does not always reason make, sometimes it's closer to 90 degrees.
Agreed. This is why it is good that our system puts such decisions in the hands of a Grand Jury...who in this case has decided that there is enough evidence to merit a trial. Judging by the facts presented in the news report (ah! remember my former warnings! I have not forgotten them), I think it is perfectly reasonable that an armed man who shoots an unarmed man in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses and no evidence of a struggle would have to stand trial for his actions.
Does this mean I think he's guilty? Heck no. Just means that I think there is PC for a charge.
Mike
Warren
Member
The last shot was from a foot away....
Warren
Member
So this going to up to the kind of people that can't get out of jury duty?
Sergeant Bob
Member
Ah yes, that old cliche', which is way overused. Derived from "Twelve people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty". Came from a Gene Hackman movie IIRC.
Just because it gets used alot does not mean it actually means it is true.
Believe it or not, their are actually people who consider it their duty to perform this vital function and do not shirk responsibility by trying to weasel out of it.
I still don't see that in the article cited. Assuming it is fact, at what range were the other two shots fired? What did an examination of the tracks of the deceased on his alleged murderous charge show?
The shooter just finished a 10 mile hike, clearly he was not weak or frail. Did he really fear an unarmed man was going to kill him?
All we have is the shooter's word that an unarmed man was crazy enough to charge a man he knew to be armed with a handgun and who he knew had no problem using it.
I'm not saying it wan't justified, but I'm sure not going to say it was. There is nowhere near enough proof or facts to absolve the shooter in the article I read.
See? here is the thing that makes me wonder how collectively sane we are.
According to this logic (or lack thereof), there is no possible way for any sort of justice system to work. Why? Easy...because when a questionable shoot happens (and if ever there as a questionable one, this one is it), it is either going to be up to a Prosecutor to file charges, or a case will go to Grand Jury. If the Prosecutor files charges, he is a political hack (at best) making political hay, or an unelected official enforcing his whims on the masses. If it goes to a grand jury, well, we all know that they will indict a ham sandwich, and cannot be trusted. If the case then goes to trial, it will be heard before a judge (bench trial), who is either an unassailable figure who is not elected and is legislating from the bench according to his left wing blissninny agenda or his right-wing control freak agenda (depending on who he is and who you are), or he is a political hack making hay so that he can be re-elected. Or, it will be a jury trial, held before 12 brain dead cattle who cannot avoid jury duty.
Wow. There really is no way to achieve justice in some people's minds. Nevermind that this case is proceeding in the exact manner of common law (Grand Jury Indictment), which is the system upon which our Constitution and laws are based, and is the One True Way that used to rule over the land of Milk & Honey before Eve bit the apple and Satan released the Liberals to go play in the Garden.
The only possible conclusion that I can draw from this is that if you are a gunowner, you must be automatically given a free pass by any form of authority in the US. If you shoot someone you are merely required to say "Hey. I'm a gunowner. He was coming right at me" and you should immediately be free to go. If that doesn't happen, well, gosh. People will get angry on the internet.
Mike
Warren
Member
True, I have little to no faith in the justice system. Instead of a criminal trial, how about a civil trial?
I don't remember the exact numbers, but an article about this from a few weeks ago did have the distances, and they were very quickly getting closer. I think the first distance was around 8', second somewhere around 2-3'. The deceased did not have good will in mind when he was approaching the shooter, and now this guy, even if he does get eventually found not guilty, is going to pretty much have his life destroyed.
From everything I've read on it, it was a completely justified shoot.
There is no way we can know what he had on his mind. Maybe he just wanted to put himself between the gun and the dogs. Wanting to punch the shooter in the nose for shooting at his dogs does not warrant being killed. Maybe he did mean to kill the shooter, but that seems like a longshot considering he was unarmed, don't you think?
I'd like to read the article you are citing, is it posted anywhere?
I'll try and take a look for it, I can't make any promises that I'll find it though.
Do you honestly believe that an "unarmed" man in good health doesn't post a threat to life or limb? If you were out on a walk and some crazy guy was charging at you after you did something to piss him off, that you'd just let him wail on you?
edit: Sorry, PBIR, couldn't find the article.
Do you honestly believe that an "unarmed" man in good health doesn't post a threat to life or limb? If you were out on a walk and some crazy guy was charging at you after you did something to piss him off, that you'd just let him wail on you?
edit: Sorry, PBIR, couldn't find the article.
Not at all. I would fight back. I have faith in my ability to go toe to toe. Would I gun him down even if he kicked my butt? No - not unless he wasn't satisfied at that. I've lost a fistfight before. Never felt like I should have shot the guy.
Are you saying you would kill someone to avoid getting a bloody nose or a fat lip?
:banghead:
- Status
