Hiker who shot man says he'd do it again: NRA contributed to his self defense

[fozzie 41]

What is reasonable when the other person is unarmed?

If everybody that used threatening behaviour was shot in 'self defense' we would not have a population problem.

SO WHEN SOMEONE IS CHARGING YOU, THREATENING TO KILL YOU, YOU ASK THEM IF THEY ARE ARMED???

you should call the local aclu and make sure it's ok to shoot

I say again that if everyone that used threatening behaviour was shot the world population would be considerably smaller. Even you would maybe have been shot. Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo, so why not the same for the ordinary public?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo

Untrue. NYPD can shoot if they have reason to believe you're reaching for a gun, even if you're just reaching for a pack of cigs. They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

Yes, the incidents are investigated but as long as they acted in good faith they are good to go.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

What is reasonable when the other person is unarmed?

If everybody that used threatening behaviour was shot in 'self defense' we would not have a population problem.

SO WHEN SOMEONE IS CHARGING YOU, THREATENING TO KILL YOU, YOU ASK THEM IF THEY ARE ARMED???

you should call the local aclu and make sure it's ok to shoot

I say again that if everyone that used threatening behaviour was shot the world population would be considerably smaller. Even you would maybe have been shot. Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo, so why not the same for the ordinary public?

the ordinary public does have to justify shootings. but as we often say - it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

[john & jean 37]

Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo

Untrue. NYPD can shoot if they have reason to believe you're reaching for a gun, even if you're just reaching for a pack of cigs. They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

Yes, the incidents are investigated but as long as they acted in good faith they are good to go.

HEY LOOK OUT THAT GUY HAS A LOADED DIDLO

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

don't laugh, gheys are scared of the police because of that.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

don't laugh, gheys are scared of the police because of that.

Do the police shout, " Shove it in your a$$ or I'll shoot" ?

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

don't laugh, gheys are scared of the police because of that.

Do the police shout, " Shove it in your a$$ or I'll shoot" ?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's all in the eyes. The shooter could tell just by looking into the eyes of the guy that he was intent on murder - how close do you have to be to be able to do an eye analasys when you are about to shoot someone?

I love the NRA, so long as you are a member, you will be defended as a repsonsible gun owner regardless of how much of a loon you might be. Apart from anything else, who the #### carries a gun around with them while hiking? Yes, I know there are wild animals in them there woods but I belong to a hiking club which has more than 2,000 members and it's simply not one of the 10 hiking essentials.

I don't know one person who would pop one in their back pack.

I say good for the original jury, they did the right thing. He should have been sent to the chair

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's all in the eyes. The shooter could tell just by looking into the eyes of the guy that he was intent on murder - how close do you have to be to be able to do an eye analasys when you are about to shoot someone?

I love the NRA, so long as you are a member, you will be defended as a repsonsible gun owner regardless of how much of a loon you might be. Apart from anything else, who the #### carries a gun around with them while hiking? Yes, I know there are wild animals in them there woods but I belong to a hiking club which has more than 2,000 members and it's simply not one of the 10 hiking essentials.

I don't know one person who would pop one in their back pack.

I say good for the original jury, they did the right thing. He should have been sent to the chair

I don't think it's a clear cut case either way, but certainly the defense relies on this man's account that the other man he fatally shot was charging him. The circumstance being that there weren't any other witnesses.

For me, I'm troubled with the notion that some here think they have the right to use deadly force on anyone who is perceived to be threatening them, so the reality of the threat only needs to exist inside their head. I find that deeply troubling.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's all in the eyes. The shooter could tell just by looking into the eyes of the guy that he was intent on murder - how close do you have to be to be able to do an eye analasys when you are about to shoot someone?

I love the NRA, so long as you are a member, you will be defended as a repsonsible gun owner regardless of how much of a loon you might be. Apart from anything else, who the #### carries a gun around with them while hiking? Yes, I know there are wild animals in them there woods but I belong to a hiking club which has more than 2,000 members and it's simply not one of the 10 hiking essentials.

I don't know one person who would pop one in their back pack.

I say good for the original jury, they did the right thing. He should have been sent to the chair

I don't think it's a clear cut case either way, but certainly the defense relies on this man's account that the other man he fatally shot was charging him. The circumstance being that there weren't any other witnesses.

For me, I'm troubled with the notion that some here think they have the right to use deadly force on anyone who is perceived to be threatening them, so the reality of the threat only needs to exist inside their head. I find that deeply troubling.

Correct, and if you are a legal gun owner, you can't possibly be paranoid or any such thing. After all, if you legally own a gun, you are totally responsible and nothing should stop you from doing whatever you wish to do.

I was very struck by the shooters continued reliance on the fact that he could tell just by looking at the guy that he was a physical threat, the guy was 'as nutty as anyone he's ever seen'. That's just not a good line of reasoning, in my opinion.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am also suspicious of anyone who claims to know that 'god' is ok with their decision and worse, that he could not pray for the victim.

To me, it all sounds like a person who is unable or unwilling to face the terrible consequences of his actions that were likely born of fear.

[rebeccajo 14]

I was very struck by the shooters continued reliance on the fact that he could tell just by looking at the guy that he was a physical threat, the guy was 'as nutty as anyone he's ever seen'. That's just not a good line of reasoning, in my opinion.

You couldn't be more correct, PH.

Everyday at my job I see the truly mentally ill. "Nutty as anyone". MOST of them are harmless - but they sure don't look or act like it at times. One particular character comes to mind. He's stocky of build with a swarthy complexion and dark eyes - sort of that dangerous derelict look. One day (after being off his meds for a while) he ran wild-eyed into our lobby, waving his arms about and screaming epithets at the top of his lungs. It took one look and a pointed finger from ONE worker to calm him down.

I am uncomfortable around many of our clients. Their illnesses are strange and complicated to me and to be quite honest, it isn't a part of my life that I enjoy. But they are people, most of them ill not by their own choice. It makes me deeply sad to think someone possessed of a firearm would think they have the right to lethally 'defend' themselves against an unarmed "nutty" person.

Edited May 17, 2009 by rebeccajo

[peejay 327]

It must be a coincidence, but NBC Dateline just ran a report on this case. I saw it yesterday on one of the satellite TV channels. Hearing people interviewed on Dateline that had prior scary confrontations with Grant Kuenzli convinced me that Harold Fish was justified in shooting this guy. This testimony should have been allowed at the trial (and apparently it wasn't). Harold Fish should not be in jail for defending himself.

[Peikko 1,575]

You didn't read the OP did you peejay?

The Fish guy is acting as though he has no culpability. He killed a guy because he was scared of him. There is culpability, even when there is justifiable self defense. If you can't see that, you are not responsible either.