Defend yourself with a gun- go to prison?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard.

 

I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business.

 

Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him.

 

You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers.

 

Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed.

[kevbone]

Nope. Doesn't cut it. He successfully scared the dogs away. The dog walker 'supposedly' CHARGED (not attacked) him, unarmed. The shooter could have run away himself (his weapon obligates legally him to try that option when threatened by an unarmed assailant; ie, to avoid conflict). He could have fired another warning shot. He could have even shot his alleged assailant in the leg. But no, three rounds - THREE - right in the chest.

 

The shooter's a murderer by any definition. He doesn't have the judgement required to carry a weapon, and should be put away for society's protect.

 

Stated plain and simple…..I agree.

[Stonehead]

This is tragic.

 

I don't believe anyone can try the defendent in the absence of information that the jury and judge were offered. Or vice versa with respect to the dead man's actions. So, what you're talking about is 'pathos', an appeal to the emotions.

 

Again, the Dateline story mentioned that the case was not about the character of either man but about the behavior of the shooter. Was it justified to fire three shots into the chest of the charging man and to do it with a large calibre pistol using hollow point bullets? All I can say is that the shooter definitely knew how to neutralize a threat and by that I mean that perhaps his conscious decision-making was bypassed by automatic response. I know that's the whole point of practicing so that if you get into a dire situation where time is of the essence then you will react automatically.

 

BTW, I don't believe shooting the dogs would have been desirable because the charging man most likely would have attacked the shooter.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2007 by Stonehead

[AlpineK]

It seems to me if you had a gun you could pull it aim it at the dog and scream at the owner, "call your dog off." Obviously you're threatening to shoot the dog.

 

Shooting the owner is totally wrong unless the owner has his own weapon he's threatening you with.

[catbirdseat]

This is tragic.

 

I don't believe anyone can try the defendent in the absence of information that the jury and judge were offered. Or vice versa with respect to the dead man's actions. So, what you're talking about is 'pathos', an appeal to the emotions.

 

Again, the Dateline story mentioned that the case was not about the character of either man but about the behavior of the shooter. Was it justified to fire three shots into the chest of the charging man and to do it with a large calibre pistol using hollow point bullets? All I can say is that the shooter definitely knew how to neutralize a threat and by that I mean that perhaps his conscious decision-making was bypassed by automatic response. I know that's the whole point of practicing so that if you get into a dire situation where time is of the essence then you will react automatically.

 

BTW, I don't believe shooting the dogs would have been desirable because the charging man most likely would have attacked the shooter.

 

Firing the gun to scare the dogs was the mistake that set everything in motion. I normally carry trekking poles, and one of them held out in the direction of the dog is all that would have been required to fend it off.

 

Much ado was made in the trial about the large caliber of the weapon and the fact that it was equipped with hollow point bullets. Had this been in a city park, I could buy that argument, but this was not a city park. It was a wilderness area where there are bears and mountain lions. I don't fear such animals but there are many people who do. If you are going to carry a weapon for that reason it needs to be effective.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

The only one who saw the show is the guy in jail. And the Dead guy. Appears the guy is trigger happy. He should be in jail.

Dateline interviewed several people who had worked with the victim. One of them said that he knew something like this would happen. The man had an extremely volatile temper. He had assaulted others before. The former coworker likened the man to a ticking time bomb. None of this information was presented to the jury.

 

Also it is pretty clear that many of you commenting on this thread did not read very much about this case. First of all the defendant did not shoot any dog. He fired a warning shot which scared the dogs away. Second, they interviewed someone in the dog pound from where the yellow lab came, and he said the dog had been there because he was a biter.

 

I put myself in the defendant's shoes because I had been in a very similar situation myself. A few years ago, I was out for a run on my lunch break. I'd just sprinted up a big hill in Kinnear Park at Lower Queen Anne, when I came upon a man walking an unleashed dog. It was a medium sized poodle mix. The dog charged me. Like the man in the story above, I yelled at the man, "call your dog off! call your dog off".

 

He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard.

 

I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business.

 

By the way, the law in Arizona was subsequently changed to put the onus on the prosecutor to prove that defendant acted in self-defense, rather than on the defendant.

 

You obviously didn't read our posts very carefully. We were speaking hypothetically that it would be acceptable to shoot a threatending dog. NO ONE said that the man did shoot the dog. You should read more closely before admonishing us to do so.

 

It is obvious you have not gotten over your run in with someone who scared you. Here is a wake up call for you--you don't get to shoot people for scaring you. You are alive an unharmed. That makes it pretty obvious that you didn't have the right to shoot that person. And trust me, I know what it's like to be attacked. But killing another human being is the most egregarious error that one could ever make.

You people make wonderfun armchair quarterbacks. You are, like the prosecutor, excellent at judging a person for something had did when he had only an instant to make a decision that might determined whether he lived or died.

 

I would have crushed that guys larynx, and broke his kneecaps.

 

[Stonehead]

Shoulda been an open and shut case, huh? Only one story.

[catbirdseat]

It seems to me if you had a gun you could pull it aim it at the dog and scream at the owner, "call your dog off." Obviously you're threatening to shoot the dog.

 

Shooting the owner is totally wrong unless the owner has his own weapon he's threatening you with.

Suppose you have hiked 10 miles. You are a 60 year old man and you are tired. You are wearing a pack, so you can't run.

 

A man is running at full speed towards you screaming, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU". His fists are raised. You have a gun in your hands. You have already shown the man that you have a gun. He's still coming, not slowing down. He says he's going to kill you. You can't believe he doesn't stop. You can't run. If he reaches you, he might kill you with your own gun. What do you do?

Edited March 19, 2007 by catbirdseat

[Jim]

At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard.

 

I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business.

 

Which is an indication of how confrontations that would normally result in, maybe, a black eye, escalate to more serious harm when a gun is handy.

[billcoe]

peyote has a way of making an innocent hike in the woods w/ a big gun go all wrong

 

 

When you can literally fly there is no need for guns.

[catbirdseat]

At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard.

 

I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business.

 

Which is an indication of how confrontations that would normally result in, maybe, a black eye, escalate to more serious harm when a gun is handy.

I would agree. The gun was the cause of everything. He probably would have gotten by with just a dog bite had he not had the gun.

[Stonehead]

This is tragic.

 

I don't believe anyone can try the defendent in the absence of information that the jury and judge were offered. Or vice versa with respect to the dead man's actions. So, what you're talking about is 'pathos', an appeal to the emotions.

 

Again, the Dateline story mentioned that the case was not about the character of either man but about the behavior of the shooter. Was it justified to fire three shots into the chest of the charging man and to do it with a large calibre pistol using hollow point bullets? All I can say is that the shooter definitely knew how to neutralize a threat and by that I mean that perhaps his conscious decision-making was bypassed by automatic response. I know that's the whole point of practicing so that if you get into a dire situation where time is of the essence then you will react automatically.

 

BTW, I don't believe shooting the dogs would have been desirable because the charging man most likely would have attacked the shooter.

 

Firing the gun to scare the dogs was the mistake that set everything in motion. I normally carry trekking poles, and one of them held out in the direction of the dog is all that would have been required to fend it off.

 

Much ado was made in the trial about the large caliber of the weapon and the fact that it was equipped with hollow point bullets. Had this been in a city park, I could buy that argument, but this was not a city park. It was a wilderness area where there are bears and mountain lions. I don't fear such animals but there are many people who do. If you are going to carry a weapon for that reason it needs to be effective.

 

It's the combination of all of the factors: large calibre pistol, hollowpoint bullets, three shots centered on the chest.

 

Here's how the men compare: "Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed close to 200 pounds."

Fish was 57, Kuenzli was 43.

 

Given that both men compare roughly about the same in body, the main difference is the age and the fact that one appeared to be in an agitated state.

 

WFIW, I've seen dog owners overrespond to potential 'threats' to their dogs from others. But this is weak to nonexistent justification for killing the dog owner.

 

[Seahawks]

I'd shot both dogs then if the guy charged me saying he was going to kill me I'd shot him in the leg after a warning shot in his direction. Three times in the chest was stupid and dumb. The other guy was a dumb ass for charging a man who just shot at his dogs. Having been attacked by a pit bull myself fuck the dogs any type that attacks.

A stupid terrible tradegy in my books for both.

[catbirdseat]

Okay, let me know what you all think about this. Suppose the gun was a .25 caliber with standard rounds and suppose you had fired a single round that, through chance, found its mark in the guy's heart. Same result, the man dies. How does this change anything?

[Stonehead]

poop

 

EZzX2MslDMw

[kevbone]

It seems to me if you had a gun you could pull it aim it at the dog and scream at the owner, "call your dog off." Obviously you're threatening to shoot the dog.

 

Shooting the owner is totally wrong unless the owner has his own weapon he's threatening you with.

Suppose you have hiked 10 miles. You are a 60 year old man and you are tired. You are wearing a pack, so you can't run.

 

A man is running at full speed towards you screaming, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU". His fists are raised. You have a gun in your hands. You have already shown the man that you have a gun. He's still coming, not slowing down. He says he's going to kill you. You can't believe he doesn't stop. You can't run. If he reaches you, he might kill you with your own gun. What do you do?

 

Love that speculation!

 

He had a chance to shoot the dog. He choose to shoot the dog owner instead. Get a rope and hang em.

[Stonehead]

According to the 1st article, one of the detective believed it was justifiable homocide. I suppose it's the sentencing that might be the point of contention.

 

Homocide--Wikipedia

Justifiable homocide = noncriminal homocide

 

[quote}Judge: Mr. Fish, I do sentence you to the mitigated term of imprisonment of 10 years in the Department of Corrections for the death of Grant Kuenzli.

 

Ten years in prison: no possibility of parole.{/quote]

MSNBC story

 

 

Edited March 19, 2007 by Stonehead

[archenemy]

This is tragic.

 

I don't believe anyone can try the defendent in the absence of information that the jury and judge were offered. Or vice versa with respect to the dead man's actions. So, what you're talking about is 'pathos', an appeal to the emotions.

 

Again, the Dateline story mentioned that the case was not about the character of either man but about the behavior of the shooter. Was it justified to fire three shots into the chest of the charging man and to do it with a large calibre pistol using hollow point bullets? All I can say is that the shooter definitely knew how to neutralize a threat and by that I mean that perhaps his conscious decision-making was bypassed by automatic response. I know that's the whole point of practicing so that if you get into a dire situation where time is of the essence then you will react automatically.

 

BTW, I don't believe shooting the dogs would have been desirable because the charging man most likely would have attacked the shooter.

 

I also practice regularly. I also kill things regularly. I also know when to shoot and when to hold. Part of my automatic response to anything that might involve me and a gun is to assess the situation before blindly reacting.

[SmallShoes]

Here is a wake up call for you--you don't get to shoot people for scaring you. You are alive an unharmed. That makes it pretty obvious that you didn't have the right to shoot that person.

 

I'm on the fence about where I stand on this case but I will say that I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Do you really think you have to actually be hurt to defend yourself? What would it take? Do you have to be struck/stabbed/shot before you can shoot?

I think that there are certainly cases where threat is enough to defend yourself.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Here is a wake up call for you--you don't get to shoot people for scaring you. You are alive an unharmed. That makes it pretty obvious that you didn't have the right to shoot that person.

 

I'm on the fence about where I stand on this case but I will say that I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Do you really think you have to actually be hurt to defend yourself? What would it take? Do you have to be struck/stabbed/shot before you can shoot?

I think that there are certainly cases where threat is enough to defend yourself.

 

Shoot the guy in the legs or stomach, why go for the chest?

[archenemy]

Of course. But someone running at you does not qualify. "Don't shoot until you see the white of their eyes" is not just a quip.

[Seahawks]

McDonald: You had an individual, a troubled man, who for the preceding five years had severe problems with self-control to the point that he would literally terrify responsible citizens.

 

Larson: He was a loose cannon?

McDonald: A loose cannon out of control.

 

[AlpineK]

It seems to me if you had a gun you could pull it aim it at the dog and scream at the owner, "call your dog off." Obviously you're threatening to shoot the dog.

 

Shooting the owner is totally wrong unless the owner has his own weapon he's threatening you with.

Suppose you have hiked 10 miles. You are a 60 year old man and you are tired. You are wearing a pack, so you can't run.

 

A man is running at full speed towards you screaming, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU". His fists are raised. You have a gun in your hands. You have already shown the man that you have a gun. He's still coming, not slowing down. He says he's going to kill you. You can't believe he doesn't stop. You can't run. If he reaches you, he might kill you with your own gun. What do you do?

 

I have a hard time believing that an unarmed man would charge somebody with a gun. I suppose if he still did charge the only conclusion you could draw is that he was armed.

 

As far as I go I have no gun, and I never intend to buy one. I might go to a shooting range and rent one though. If I was attacked I'd try and defend myself with my hands; not that would do any good vs somebody with a gun. So far I've never been in any situation where I questioned my safety.

[Stonehead]

Well, it's one of those hypothetical situations. "I'd shoot the dogs." "I'd wait and assess the threat." I'd fire three shots into the ground in front of the man." "I'd climb onto a rock." Etc.

 

I think the judge saw it that way too. Automatic response.

 

Judge: This case does give new meaning to the word tragedy. I do believe he reacted out of fear and instinct when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. He made a split second decision with tragic consequences.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2007 by Stonehead

[Seahawks]

But not long after the shooting, a darker side of Grant Kuenzli emerged. While some saw him as a gentle, dog-loving volunteer, there were reports of an unstable, violent past.

 

Ernie Encinas, fire marshal for Gilbert, Arizona: He would go from zero to hot in a very short amount of time.

 

Ernie Encinas is the fire marshal for the Gilbert, Arizona fire department. He hired Kuenzli as a fire inspector in 1997. At first, he seemed like a good employee. But he says things changed quickly.

 

Encinas: He would get mad, he would clench his fist, he would hit the table, he would pace back and forth, his voice would elevate.

 

Encinas says when he read Harold Fish’s account of what happened on that hiking trail when he encountered Kuenzli, it was almost like a flashback for him.

 

Encinas: I could actually see in my mind’s eye Grant’s fist. I could see his face. I could see how he acted with me. So it wasn’t hard for me to imagine what Mr. Fish might have seen.

 

Steve Corich is the director of public safety at Mesa Community College. One morning in 2003, a security officer found Kuenzli walking his dog on campus without a leash. When the officer confronted him, Kuenzli became agitated.

 

Steve Corich, director of public safety at Mesa Community College: He was loud. His fists were clenched. All of his body language essentially conveyed that he was extremely angry. And it took quite a while to calm him down.

 

In his 26-year career, Corich says Grant Kuenzli stands out.

 

Corich: He had one of the hottest and quickest boiling points of any of the people I’ve ever dealt with.

 

Clayton Hamblen, justice of the peace: His look was one of “I would like to rip your throat out.”

 

Clayton Hamblen has been a justice of the peace in West Mesa for 15 years. One day, Grant Kuenzli showed up for a court hearing with his dog, when Hamblen suggested he leave the dog outside. He says the dog owner became aggressive.

 

Hamblen: He began to clench his fists. His eyes got a look that was just almost downright scary.

 

Hamblen says Kuenzli seemed more concerned for the well being of his dog than people.

 

Hamblen: I said “The man is either going to kill somebody or somebody is going to kill him.” And that was my feeling… that was just a gut reaction.

 

Then there are police reports from an ex-girlfriend, who says when she tried to break up with Kuenzli, he stalked her and broke into her house. She wrote in a court affidavit that Kuenzli once attacked a male friend of hers and she even told police Kuenzli sexually assaulted her. She obtained two orders from the court to keep him away.

 

And there is evidence that Kuenzli was mentally unstable in the past. A police report from 2002 says he threatened to commit suicide with a knife. And mental health records indicate that Kuenzli received treatment for a panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and a mood disorder.

 

The defense attorneys believed Kuenzli’s history was relevant and should be heard by the jury.