The Trailhead Shooting
June 16th, 2006 by Syd
The case of Harold Fish, the retired Arizona teacher who shot Grant Kuenzli and claimed self defense but was ultimately convicted of second degree murder, is one that troubles me. I walk two big dogs in public parks and I have seen how some people get really scared of large dogs, even when the dogs are doing nothing hostile or threatening. I can’t help but wonder if both men overreacted in the situation. It is reported that Fish fired “warning shots” near the dogs to scare them away. This enraged Kuenzli who then approached Fish aggressively, provoking Fish to shoot Kuenzli.
It’s really impossible for me to form a settled opinion on this one because we have only one side of the story and no witnesses. We have to speculate and that is hazardous.
One thing I do know is that “warning shots” are almost always a bad idea. If the situation isn’t bad enough to shoot the target, shots should not be fired. In most cases, firing warning shots is still considered assault with a deadly weapon or even attempted murder even if the gun is not aimed at a person.
It’s pretty clear that Kuenzli was not at all rational, and there was a legitimate basis for Fish’s fear. Rational people don’t generally run into the muzzle of a gun that is already being fired. Kuenzli was also extremely negligent in walking two large dogs off leash that he didn’t know. These were animal shelter dogs, and he could have no way of predicting their behavior.
I guess I’m left where I begin, with a feeling that the situation could have been handled better by both parties. I want to side with Fish, but I think he made mistakes too, possibly in overreacting to the dogs and in firing warning shots. Kuenzli was obviously not in possession of his faculties and negligent in his handling of the dogs. I do think that a charge of second degree murder is excessive and inappropriate in this case.
More on this incident:
http://tinyurl.com/r26p5
http://tinyurl.com/ozxym
http://tinyurl.com/p8nct
See also: Injustice in Arizona
You are wrong about the “warning shots” as you put it. There was 1 shot fired, and it was for the attacking dogs benefit, not Grant K. They stopped immediately. What Mr. Fish couldn’t have known was that the decedent was overly reactive to his dog (one of the 3 belonged to him) and had even lost a job because of disagreements about this subject. He couldn’t have known that this guy was a psycopath and had many mental issues. What Mr. Fish did learn, in the brief seconds he had before the attack was that this guy was crazy and would definitely do him harm if given the chance. He did exactly the right thing at exactly the right time. The trial, well the trial was the problem and as the defense attorney states - he will be freed by an appellate court some day due to this terrible injustice. I’ll be glad to have my brother back!
I have been observing these kinds of incidents for a lot of years, and it is my observation that warning shots or shots meant to scare almost always make a situation much worse, and usually for the shooter. There have been a few exceptions, but from what I know about this case, this is not one of them. The fact of the matter is that Fish is in prison right now. Something went wrong whether it was his handling of the situation or the legal system. I wonder if he would do things the same way if he was given the chance.