Hiker Kills Man with Dogs - Update - NOT HITLER ;) - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hiker Kills Man with Dogs - Update - NOT HITLER ;) (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:18:00 AM EDT

[#1]

5subslr5

Dipshit, what bothers me is we have an unmarked man that shot an unarmed three times.

Don’t let it bother you. In AZ approved CCW classes students are told that they have a right to defend themselves from such an attack. A reasonable person would assume the dead dog walker was on his way to committing a criminal assault that could have led to serious injuries or death. Since pointing a firearm at him and ordering his attacker to stop did not halt his attackers progress Mr. Fish was justified in defending his life with whatever force was necessary to halt his attackers advance.

In AZ a victim does not have to wait for a larger or more skilled attacker to disarm or incapacitate them before they defend their life. The rule of law allows for your defense so long as you are not provoking the attack and that a reasonable person would fear serious injuries or death from the impending assault. Again, it’s any reasonable person; not the person who actually did the shooting.

It’s seems clear to me that Mr. Fish was attempting to defend his life from an immanent threat. It makes no difference in AZ law if his attacker is armed or not. The reason for this is for situations exactly like this. If Mr. Fish had not defended himself from an imminent criminal attack he could have had his own weapon or a hidden weapon used against him or been kill by a larger or better skilled individual.

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:19:56 AM EDT

[#2]

10mm...nice. That man obviously knew his guns. I would also be interested in finding out what gun he had.

I think this shooting is justified. He should be acquitted by a grand jury. Case closed. It's the slain man's family's lust for money that is fueling this controversy.

The slain man was not unarmed. He had three dogs.

From a CQC point of view, three 10mm rounds to the chest is not enough. If the slain man had a knife, Mr. Fish would be dead, too. Practice shooting at the head. At 8 feet, that should not be that hard to do.

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:21:13 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

THank God someone else did, I dont feel retarded now

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:25:29 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

THank God someone else did, I dont feel retarded now

Alright, alright, that's what I too thought it said !!

5sub

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:28:10 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation.

5sub

So, in your expert opinion, the man had no cause to believe that he was being attacked unles the attack was successful? The proper course is to await mauling, and then take whatever defensive action is called for? If attacked by dogs who were scared off by the warning shot before sinking their teeth into him there wouldn't be any bite marks, now would there? Sheesh!

FYI, one or all of the dogs was not with its owner, as the car-dwelling freak in question had "borrowed" them from the pound so he could let them run loose and snarl at strangers in a public place, and then he would be entitled to charge, rant and scream in righteous indignation if anyone responded to the dogs by doing anything other than freezing in place.

Dipshit, what bothers me is we have an unmarked man that shot an unarmed man three times.

5sub

Having declared the limits your intellectual wattage with your opening word, you proceed to declare the limits of your intellectual courage by dodging and dissimulating.

If what bothered you is the fact that Fish shot an unarmed man, why did you claim that "If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation."

Explain (1) why you think, as suggested in your initial post, that bite marks are necessary evidence of a dog attack; (2) why the fact that the dogs were smart enough to flee from the gunshot but a vagabond, stray-dog-borrowing freak was not is so confusing to you.

It is obvious from the account given by the only witness capable of speech (unless your odd near-anthropomorphizing chow-fetish makes you think one of the dogs has a story to tell) that Fish fired a warning shot which put an end to the dogs' threatening behavior, but touched off the screwball's fuse and led to second attack, man-on-man this time, and culminated in the shooting of the fellow whose home address was a license plate number. It's really not complicated.

I don't want you to reach too far. What part of "unmarked" and "unarmed" were you unable to comprehend ?

5sub

Posted: 6/5/2004 10:33:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
1. Hiker sees dogs rapidly closing and fires shot into ground, dogs disperse and/or leave.
2. Unarmed dog guy approaches hiker who has gun in hand.
3. The text says 'dog guy' was 8 feet away when shot first and 6 inches on third shot.

So let me get this straight. You would stand there with a gun in your hand and let a guy take it from you and make you eat it? Are you going to toss the gun and duke it out? How close should I let the assailant get before I fire? Leave the dogs out of your answer because the dogs scattered after the first shot.

The mistake the shooter made was talking to anybody without a lawyer.

Biggest mistake I see is that He didn't pick up the hulls and just turn and walk away after shooting dogman. Pitch the gun in the river, ditch the shoes in a BFI dumpster, and Fugetaboutit. I know you just can't do that, it isn't right. I can't count the number of dogs I have laid down in the woods. Guess you have to tell the law when you shoot the dogs owner though.

Posted: 6/5/2004 11:13:36 AM EDT

[#7]

FUCK!!!!

The rabid antis and liberal hippies are railroading this guy.

From EVERYTHING I've read - this was totally justified and LEGAL use of deadly force in self-defense.

He had every REASONABLE idea that he was in immediate risk of "serious physical injury" - and THAT is the standard for legal use of deadly force in self-defense according to the Arizona Revised Statutes.

FUCKING LIBERAL ASSHOLES!

Posted: 6/5/2004 3:24:46 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

THank God someone else did, I dont feel retarded now

Alright, alright, that's what I too thought it said !!

5sub

When I first saw it I thought "How can a dude kill someone with dogs? Wouldn't it have been easier to use a gun?"

Posted: 6/5/2004 3:36:12 PM EDT

[#9]

The only reason this is even a case is that some of the local wealty ex-hippies who thought this bumb was "spiritually pure" and kept him as sort of a pet are up in arms and called in their friends in the media.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:02:10 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Still curious why it wasn't given to the Grand Jury.

That's easy:
Because a grand jury is made up of 20 some citizens who may see it another way.

The article says the C.A. is going to either take it to Grand Jury, or go straight to preliminary hearing.

I hope it's grand jury, because preliminary hearings before a judge spell doom for the defendant.

Jay

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:06:25 PM EDT

[#11]

Jay,

Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance filed a second-degree murder charge Friday against a Phoenix man who claimed self-defense in a shooting last month in the woods north of Payson

Sounds like he skipped the Grand Jury. Why wouldn't he just let the Grand Jury indict him so as CA he could save face with everyone?

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:18:35 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Jay,

Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance filed a second-degree murder charge Friday against a Phoenix man who claimed self-defense in a shooting last month in the woods north of Payson

Sounds like he skipped the Grand Jury. Why wouldn't he just let the Grand Jury indict him so as CA he could save face with everyone?

So the dead bums rich hippy friends have bought the County Attorney.
Mr. Fish is getting railroaded.

This is amazing, this hasn't happened in Arizona in YEARS.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:35:50 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

THank God someone else did, I dont feel retarded now

Alright, alright, that's what I too thought it said !!

5sub

Yup, got me to.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:37:32 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I have (and have had) Chows and feel I understand them a bit. Chows will move forward (but not attack) in an agressive manner if they believe their owner is threatened but if their owner begins to give ground the Chows will also give ground while keeping themselves between their owner and the perceived threat.

Fish admits he shot the 43-year-old Payson man three times in the chest along a Coconino National Forest trail after he said Kuenzli and his three dogs attacked him.

Kuenzli's family, friends and supporters say Fish overreacted to the snarling dogs.

If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation.

5sub

if chows will give ground if their owner retreats, what will they do when their owner is charging a "threat"? would seem logical they would attack...

actually, chows have been known to attack their OWNERS... this happend three times with one of my friends... he had the dogs for years... on two of those occasions, he was hospitalized... he was not playing with or harrasing the dogs in any way... one minute hes feeding the dog a french fry, the next hes trying to pry this snarling beast off of him... if a chow would maul its owner, theres no telling what it would do to me...

knowing what i know about chows, if i had been charged by one, there wouldnt have been any warning shot...

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:41:54 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation.

5sub

So, in your expert opinion, the man had no cause to believe that he was being attacked unles the attack was successful? The proper course is to await mauling, and then take whatever defensive action is called for? If attacked by dogs who were scared off by the warning shot before sinking their teeth into him there wouldn't be any bite marks, now would there? Sheesh!

FYI, one or all of the dogs was not with its owner, as the car-dwelling freak in question had "borrowed" them from the pound so he could let them run loose and snarl at strangers in a public place, and then he would be entitled to charge, rant and scream in righteous indignation if anyone responded to the dogs by doing anything other than freezing in place.

Dipshit, what bothers me is we have an unmarked man that shot an unarmed man three times.

5sub

ok, lets say you have a gun in your hand, pointing at an "unarmed" man (you dont know whether he is armed or not)... youve already fired one shot to disperse the dogs... it should be assumed that the "unarmed" man knows that you mean business... the "unarmed" man is charging you, shaking his fists, and screaming at the top of his lungs...

what would YOU do? im curious to know what your answer is...

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:42:07 PM EDT

[#16]

Kuenzli's unstable past is of no consequence unless Fish knew him prior to the shooting.

Not true. It would be of consequence if Fish claimed that the man seemed unstable to him on the trail, as he apparently did. It would lend credence to Mr. Fish's claim.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:43:15 PM EDT

[#17]

Dupe post

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:43:38 PM EDT

[#18]

It's safe to say us Arizona folk are getting overrun by liberal anti-gun POS. I hope this guy doesn't get screwed over because the liberals know how to cry, which is what it sounds like. This dufus was living in a car in the middle of no where. He probably had mental problems. Why else would he be on disability and living in a car? His sister really gave a shit when he was alive to let him live alone like that? Why wouldn't he want a "caring" family to help him out if he was such a good guy with medical trouble? He also sounds like he cared a lot more about dogs than people. My guess is he was screaming "I'll kill you!" and going nuts because Fish was aiming at the dogs. Fish was obviously concerned for his safety when some scurvy looking hippie was charging him screaming bloody hell.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:45:31 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Jay,

Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance filed a second-degree murder charge Friday against a Phoenix man who claimed self-defense in a shooting last month in the woods north of Payson

Sounds like he skipped the Grand Jury. Why wouldn't he just let the Grand Jury indict him so as CA he could save face with everyone?

He has the option to charge the guy, and take it to prelim before a judge, and let the judge decide if there is PC to send it to trial.

He doesn't want it to go to grand jury, because the grand jury, who has been hearing nothing but crap in the media from the earth muffins, will hand him his ass.

We don't do grand juries here in Yavapai anymore, and I feel strongly it is not in the best interest of justice that everything now goes to prelim.

I'd rather have a grand jury decide if I have enough of a case to go to trial, than a judge.

Judges sign the complaints after we build our case and believe we have PC for an arrest.
Judges should not then be deciding if there is enough PC to go to trial.

I personally have no objections to to having a grand jury shoot down one of my cases.

Jay

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:49:02 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
actually, chows have been known to attack their OWNERS... this happend three times with one of my friends... he had the dogs for years... on two of those occasions, he was hospitalized... he was not playing with or harrasing the dogs in any way... one minute hes feeding the dog a french fry, the next hes trying to pry this snarling beast off of him... if a chow would maul its owner, theres no telling what it would do to me...

knowing what i know about chows, if i had been charged by one, there wouldnt have been any warning shot...

Amen.
Chows are the most brutal and stupid animals I can think of. My x-girlfriend had one. She and her nephew where rough housing one time. I was standing off to the side about 12 ft away minding my own business when the dog started barking at them. Next thing it did was rush me with teeth a poppin'. Luckily I was able to fend it off until she got it back under control. I was this close to boot-punting it's head off it's shoulders.

Posted: 6/5/2004 4:52:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have (and have had) Chows and feel I understand them a bit. Chows will move forward (but not attack) in an agressive manner if they believe their owner is threatened but if their owner begins to give ground the Chows will also give ground while keeping themselves between their owner and the perceived threat.

Fish admits he shot the 43-year-old Payson man three times in the chest along a Coconino National Forest trail after he said Kuenzli and his three dogs attacked him.

Kuenzli's family, friends and supporters say Fish overreacted to the snarling dogs.

If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation.

5sub

if chows will give ground if their owner retreats, what will they do when their owner is charging a "threat"? would seem logical they would attack...

actually, chows have been known to attack their OWNERS... this happend three times with one of my friends... he had the dogs for years... on two of those occasions, he was hospitalized... he was not playing with or harrasing the dogs in any way... one minute hes feeding the dog a french fry, the next hes trying to pry this snarling beast off of him... if a chow would maul its owner, theres no telling what it would do to me...

knowing what i know about chows, if i had been charged by one, there wouldnt have been any warning shot...

knowing what i know about chows..........

Obviously you know little to nothing about Chows.

There are some few bad Chows as there are some few bad dogs of all breeds. There are far more bad owners.

5sub

Posted: 6/5/2004 5:01:36 PM EDT

[#22]

I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs as well

Posted: 6/5/2004 5:02:56 PM EDT

[#23]

Some how this thread seems to have slipped toward little stories about BAD Chows. In no way do I advocate that most people own a Chow. For those few with the time, and a willingness to invest that time to understand the Chow, they are a truly wonderful breed of dog. I've had five over my lifetime. My present two- Leo and Sister - will be five years old next month and are an integral part of my household. My previous pair lived to be over 14 yrs old and I still miss them.

The first paragraph of the first book I ever read about Chows contained this most accurate sentence: "The Chow is a dog that, if necessary, will die for you but will not heel."

Again, most people should never own a Chow.

5sub

Posted: 6/5/2004 5:43:50 PM EDT

[#24]

I think its time Mr. Neal Knox gets associated with Mr. Fish.

Anyone else?

Posted: 6/5/2004 5:52:59 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The first paragraph of the first book I ever read about Chows contained this most accurate sentence: "The Chow is a dog that, if necessary, will die for you but will not heel."

Again, most people should never own a Chow.

5sub

Well, gee, no wonder you're shocked, surprised, and dismayed that letting a chow run loose in a public place ended up with the semi-custodian of a stray chow shot dead.

Posted: 6/5/2004 6:42:07 PM EDT

[#26]

If the sister cared so much for him why wasnt he living in HER home instead of in the woods in a car with three dogs.

Posted: 6/5/2004 7:05:31 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have (and have had) Chows and feel I understand them a bit. Chows will move forward (but not attack) in an agressive manner if they believe their owner is threatened but if their owner begins to give ground the Chows will also give ground while keeping themselves between their owner and the perceived threat.

Fish admits he shot the 43-year-old Payson man three times in the chest along a Coconino National Forest trail after he said Kuenzli and his three dogs attacked him.

Kuenzli's family, friends and supporters say Fish overreacted to the snarling dogs.

If attacked by the dogs as the Fish claims, there (obviously) should be bite marks. I'm betting no bite marks and that the Fish overreacted to the situation.

5sub

if chows will give ground if their owner retreats, what will they do when their owner is charging a "threat"? would seem logical they would attack...

actually, chows have been known to attack their OWNERS... this happend three times with one of my friends... he had the dogs for years... on two of those occasions, he was hospitalized... he was not playing with or harrasing the dogs in any way... one minute hes feeding the dog a french fry, the next hes trying to pry this snarling beast off of him... if a chow would maul its owner, theres no telling what it would do to me...

knowing what i know about chows, if i had been charged by one, there wouldnt have been any warning shot...

Time to stir the pot some more....

Chow had history of attacking

Shooter: He had this look in his eyes

A justified shooting?

Special to The Republic

• Shooting of dog-walker called justified by sheriff's investigator

Phoenix hiker tells of Payson trail death

Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 25, 2004 12:00 AM

Harold Fish said he had only seconds to react to an attack by three dogs and an unarmed man he fatally shot in the woods north of Payson.

The 57-year-old retired teacher said during a telephone interview Monday that he had no choice but to shoot 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli after the Payson man's dogs charged at him.

Fish, speaking publicly for the first time about the May 11 shooting, would not say why he shot Kuenzli instead of the dogs or whether Kuenzli verbally threatened him.

"He was on top of me. I couldn't get away," Fish said, adding that Kuenzli rushed to within a few yards of him. "He had this look in his eyes. . . . He was punching at me."

The dogs scattered after the shooting. A chow mix named Hank; a German shepherd mix, Sheba; and Maggie, a yellow Labrador retriever, were recovered and are in a Flagstaff animal shelter being held as evidence.

Coconino County sheriff's Detective Scott Feagan said last week that the evidence shows Fish acted in self-defense in shooting the unarmed man along Pine Canyon Trail, about 25 miles north of Payson.

County Attorney Terry Hance said Monday that his office will review the evidence for any charges against Fish and that a decision could come later this week.

"The comments made by the sheriff's investigator are his own and do not necessarily represent anyone else's opinion," Hance said.

The detective's statements about the shooting stunned those who knew Kuenzli, a pet photographer, as a kind man who loved dogs and the outdoors.

Josh Harris, 22, a former neighbor of Kuenzli at a Mesa apartment complex, described him as "one of the most non-violent people I've ever come in contact with."

But that is not the man that Fish said he encountered at the end of a 10-mile hike at about 6:45 p.m., a half-hour before sunset, on a warm day in the Coconino National Forest. Kuenzli was car-camping off the trail.

Fish recalled that the "dogs left the campsite at Mach 1 speed with the chow-mix in the lead."

The dogs were not leashed, which is illegal.

Fish, a Phoenix resident, said he fired a warning shot at the chow. He then fired three shots from a 10mm semiautomatic pistol that he said struck Kuenzli as he charged down the hill.

"I tried to take care of him (after the shooting)," Fish said. "I put my pack under his head and a space (emergency) blanket over him."

It took about 45 minutes to summon help for Kuenzli. By that time, he was dead.

Fish questioned why Kuenzli did not have the dogs restrained. He also criticized the Payson Humane Society, which lent the chow-mix and shepherd-mix dogs to Kuenzli, a volunteer at their shelter.

The Payson shelter knew the chow-mix was dangerous, Fish said.

Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president, disputes that, saying the shelter euthanizes any dog that exhibits vicious behavior.

However, Detective George Ratliff of the Gila County Sheriff's Office in Payson, said he and his partner, Brian Havey, encountered the same chow at a home in Pine.

Ratliff said that the dog bit him on the back of the leg and that he pulled his weapon to shoot the dog before the owner finally restrained it.

Fish said he was leery of vicious dogs after his 12-year-old daughter was bitten on the leg by a neighbor's dog about two weeks before the shooting.

Fish, who retired a year ago after teaching Spanish at Tolleson High School, is the father of seven children.

County attorney Hance said his office expects to get the shooting report from Detective Feagan this week. A decision on charges will follow within three or four days, unless more investigation is needed, he said.

Reach the reporter at [email protected] or (602) 444-6862.

Relevant comments highlighted in bold blue text.

Posted: 6/5/2004 7:30:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The first paragraph of the first book I ever read about Chows contained this most accurate sentence: "The Chow is a dog that, if necessary, will die for you but will not heel."

Again, most people should never own a Chow.

5sub

Well, gee, no wonder you're shocked, surprised, and dismayed that letting a chow run loose in a public place ended up with the semi-custodian of a stray chow shot dead.

Dip, I didn't know that I was "shocked, surprised and dismayed".

5sub

Posted: 6/5/2004 7:45:38 PM EDT

[#29]

'

Quoted:
Dip, I didn't know that I was "shocked, surprised and dismayed".

5sub

Wow! All the way down from "Dipshit" to Dip" in just what - 2 or 3 pages? How long before you're smart enough to start a reply with no name-calling at all?

Posted: 6/5/2004 9:01:47 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
'
Quoted:
Dip, I didn't know that I was "shocked, surprised and dismayed".

5sub

Wow! All the way down from "Dipshit" to Dip" in just what - 2 or 3 pages? How long before you're smart enough to start a reply with no name-calling at all?

btw, 5sub, i know plenty about chows, and dogs in particular... ive worked around them for years, never been bitten, and never needed to use a weapon to protect myself against one... there are breeds that you have to be particularly cautious of... chows are one of them... thats just a simple fact... deal with it, and save that its not the dog, its the owner or "my little poopy would NEVER hurt anyone" crap for someone who cares... if its not your dog, prudence dictates a path of caution... period...

Posted: 6/6/2004 9:06:41 PM EDT

[#31]

glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254054&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Posted: 6/6/2004 9:25:11 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

Hah that's funny, I thought the same thing.

Posted: 6/6/2004 9:36:23 PM EDT

[#33]

From his website....

Pic of the crazy guy.......

"Family pics".....

Priceless......

Posted: 6/7/2004 1:57:23 AM EDT

[#34]

CavVet, How about a link to the dog walkers site?

Posted: 6/7/2004 6:41:04 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Here's his website:

gkuenzli.tripod.com/

Posted: 6/7/2004 9:56:34 AM EDT

[#36]

I think a fair question has been asked and deserves an answer.

5subslr5, what would you have done?

We'll assume the dogs backed off or ran off, but you have drawn a gun and a wild looking man is charging right at you in a violent manner.

What do you do?

Posted: 6/7/2004 10:00:19 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I think a fair question has been asked and deserves an answer.

5subslr5, what would you have done?

We'll assume the dogs backed off or ran off, but you have drawn a gun and a wild looking man is charging right at you in a violent manner.

What do you do?

[5subslr5]Call the wildman "dipshit," and point out that most people should never own chows. If he keeps coming, call him "dip." If he keeps coming after that, leave.[/5subslr5]

Posted: 6/7/2004 10:23:42 AM EDT

[#38]

A prime example of why people should carry pepper spray when packing.

Posted: 6/7/2004 10:56:00 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When I first looked at this thread title, I thought it said Hitler kills man with dogs

Hah that's funny, I thought the same thing.

I was thinking the same thing every time I saw the thread title.

Posted: 6/7/2004 11:34:38 AM EDT

[#40]

You guys keep forgetting that the only version of what happened was given by Fish, the now defendant.

Posted: 6/7/2004 11:37:02 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
You guys keep forgetting that the only version of what happened was given by Fish, the now defendant.

Yes, dead <crazy> men tell no lies.

Posted: 6/7/2004 11:37:02 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
You guys keep forgetting that the only version of what happened was given by Fish, the now defendant.

What is that supposed to mean? Seriously.

Posted: 6/7/2004 11:44:08 AM EDT

[#43]

I really want to believe the shooter but after reading the various news stories posted here I have some doubts as to his story.

"He pulled a 10mm semiautomatic pistol out of his backpack and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dog."

Another acticle says he had only seconds to react as the chow was charging him at Mach 1 speed, yet he had time to retreive his gun inside his backpack, fire a warning shot and then engage Kuenzli.

I've done quite a bit of backpacking and the only gun I can get in the outside pockets (and retreivable with the backpack still on) is one of my snubbie revolvers. I would like to know where the 10mm semi-auto was being stored in the backpack. Even if he had a smaller, lighter daypack, it would still require him to remove the backpack, unzip a pocket and get the firearm out - all the while "visicious dogs" and a crazed man were bearing down on him at Mach 1.

However it went down, there should have been at least one dead dog (the Chow) before Kuenzli was dealt with. Tactical priorities.

The Coconino County attorney is a total assclown when he makes statements undermining his county's sheriff department - "The comments made by the sheriff's investigator are his own and do not necessarily represent anyone else's opinion," Hance said. Weren't his comments made as part of the official investigation?

Posted: 6/7/2004 11:46:25 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I really want to believe the shooter but after reading the various news stories posted here I have some doubts as to his story.

"He pulled a 10mm semiautomatic pistol out of his backpack and fired a warning shot into the ground near the dog."

We are dealing with the press here. Who's to say that it wasn't actually a tripod mounted semiautomatic machine gun with an enormous thrust per squeeze ratio, and no backpack was involved at all?

Posted: 6/7/2004 4:03:09 PM EDT

[#45]

Is there a defense fund for Mr Fish? If so, where can we send him money? I'm sick of people getting bullied- this reversal of his case, pretty much on political grounds, smacks of just plain cowardice and corruption.

Posted: 6/7/2004 4:17:27 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Is there a defense fund for Mr Fish? If so, where can we send him money? I'm sick of people getting bullied- this reversal of his case, pretty much on political grounds, smacks of just plain cowardice and corruption.

... years ago, I remember a website advocating justified shooting defense funding. Have not heard of it in some time. OTOH. if this goes to court and guy plays out his story correctly, the dead man is his best defense.

Posted: 6/7/2004 4:17:36 PM EDT

[#47]

If this goes to trial I would be willing to donate to a defense fund and I’m dead broke.

I hope this doesn’t go past the preliminary hearing stage but it might simply because this case has become so political.

Posted: 6/7/2004 4:35:10 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
I think a fair question has been asked and deserves an answer.

5subslr5, what would you have done?

We'll assume the dogs backed off or ran off, but you have drawn a gun and a wild looking man is charging right at you in a violent manner.

What do you do?

You are right - the question is fair.

With the dogs backed off and the man still charging..............I'm also going to have to assume that I couldn't have physically handled the man..................I would very much like to say that I would have found a way not to shoot the guy but..................once he reached about five yards, I probably would have shot him. My (big) carry gun is a Glock with a day visible laser. I would have light him up first all the while begging him to stop but once he crossed that five yard line still coming, I would have shot him. Actually, I would have shot him twice.

5sub

Posted: 6/7/2004 4:53:36 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think a fair question has been asked and deserves an answer.

5subslr5, what would you have done?

We'll assume the dogs backed off or ran off, but you have drawn a gun and a wild looking man is charging right at you in a violent manner.

What do you do?

You are right - the question is fair.

With the dogs backed off and the man still charging..............I'm also going to have to assume that I couldn't have physically handled the man..................I would very much like to say that I would have found a way not to shoot the guy but..................once he reached about five yards, I probably would have shot him. My (big) carry gun is a Glock with a day visible laser. I would have light him up first all the while begging him to stop but once he crossed that five yard line still coming, I would have shot him. Actually, I would have shot him twice.

5sub

I'll tread lightly since I recently stuck up for a guy here on this board that was involved in a local shoot that was bad after it all came out (he was a 60 yr old crackhead or something)... but 5sub's answer would probably be reasonable. Not many people (crazy park dwellers or not) will stop an angry approach once its started. Its like a steamroller. What else could the old fella do? I guess he could have hoped to survive the park dwellers rampage (real or perceived). Doesn't seem like a good option does it? Maybe he disarms you and shoots you. Maybe he doesn't.

[spelling]

Posted: 6/7/2004 6:41:23 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys keep forgetting that the only version of what happened was given by Fish, the now defendant.

What is that supposed to mean? Seriously.

Well, there's two sides to every story and the truth is often somewhere in between. Seriously.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hiker Kills Man with Dogs - Update - NOT HITLER ;) (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us