Front Sight, Press

By Jeff Knox
(Manassas, VA, August 1) Harold Fish, a retired Arizona high school teacher, was convicted on June 14 this year of Second Degree Murder in a convoluted case of self-defense and now faces a prison sentences of 10 to 20 years.
Fish was just completing a hike in the rugged and remote Mogollon Rim country of Eastern Arizona when several large and apparently vicious dogs approached him in an aggressive manner. Fish’s response was to deploy his 10mm Kimber and fire a shot into the dirt between himself and the animals - a seemingly reasonable response to the threat posed.

Unfortunately, the dogs’ owner, who was making his way toward the commotion, apparently thought Fish had actually shot one of the dogs and in a rage charged down the trail toward Fish screaming threats and obscenities.
Something that was not brought up in the trial was the question of training and how that training would require this particular situation to be handled. As an Arizona CCW holder, Fish had received specific training about the safe, legal carry and use of a firearm. It is evident from other information available that Mr. Fish was a conscientious gun owner who had received more than the minimum training required by law and had attained a superior level of skill.

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

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

What would standard police training require under the same scenario? One of these same dogs had previously threatened an officer to the point that the officer had drawn his gun; what would police training dictate if in the next moment Grant Kuenzli had violently charged at that officer? It would dictate that the officer do exactly what Harold Fish did; fire at the center-of-mass of the attacker to stop the attack. Perhaps Grant Kuenzli initially reacted angrily, thinking one of his dogs had been shot, and then lost his balance on the steep trail and was actually careening out of control toward Harold Fish, not attacking him? No one will ever know for sure and Fish could not have known at the time. Any reasonable person should be able to anticipate the result of screaming death threats and violently charging someone who is holding a gun. If Harold Fish is able to get a new trial, let’s hope that his defense team (assisted by the NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund) will call a number of expert witnesses and ask the simple question, “What would a police officer be expected to do in a situation like this?” and that the jury will respond accordingly.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. To Receive the Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to The Firearms Coalition, PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108 or visit FirearmsCoalition.org and ShotgunNews.com ©Copyright 2006 Neal Knox Associates

Mel McDonald said…

I was the trial attorney who represented Harold Fish. Contrary to the suggestion that the jury was not educated on self defense training, a nationally recognized expert, Michael Anthony, of Phoenix testified. The jury knew that FIsh had received extensive self defense training. Fish followed his training. The travesty of this case came as result of shocking rulings from the court. We were not allowed to tell the jury about prior dog attacks. We were not allowed to provide specific information about prior deadly attacks by the decedent. We were not allowed to talk about the psychiatric condiction of the decedent, who had several suicide attempts, and who had been hospitalized for his psychiatric conditions. The decedent, a homeless man, lived in the woods. He suffered from PTSD, Agrophoebia, and a number of severe debilitating problems. Judges, retired police officers, lawyers and other citizens were denied any ability to discuss terrifying events that they had encountered with decedent Kuenzli. One was choked and thought he would die.

A woman and her son were held hostage and threatened with death. None of this information of violence was provided to the jury. The conviction and sentencing were a complete travesty of justice. An appellate court will some day reverse this conviction. In the meantime, the defendant, a father of 7, will be taken from his home. It should be noted that the NRA defense fund did provide some financial assistance.

Additional Resources:

The MSNBC Interview with Harold Fish

10 years for Harold Fish
Fish calls sentence ‘terrible miscarriage of justice’

Arizona lawmakers vote to make self-defense change retroactive

Governor vetoes hope for Harold Fish

Harold Fish Defense
The purpose of this web site is (1) Raise money for Harold Fish to pay his almost half million dollars in legal fees. (2) To make all available facts surrounding this incident known, a privilege that the jury did not enjoy. (3) To bring to the public attention just one instance of why we need to pay attention to whom we elect into the office, in this case, those of Superior Court Judge, and County Prosecutor.  

The Trailhead Shooting - My thoughts on this