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

[peejay 327]

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.

But you aren't alone out in the woods when these so called "nutty people" are running at you either.

Have you ever been in a knock down drag out fistfight in your life? I have. It isn't a pleasant experience fighting someone off of yourself that is up in your face. Thank goodness I haven't had to do it again in many, many years. I'm getting too old for that crazy sh*t anymore. At 52 years old I won't take an azz whipping from anyone if I can help it.

Apparently Harold Fish wasn't going to take an azz whipping either. I don't blame him.

Edited May 17, 2009 by peejay

[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.

But you aren't alone out in the woods when these so called "nutty people" are running at you either.

Have you ever been in a knock down drag out fistfight in your life? I have. It isn't a pleasant experience fighting someone off of yourself that is up in your face. Thank goodness I haven't had to do it again in many, many years. I'm getting too old for that crazy sh*t anymore. At 52 years old I won't take an azz whipping from anyone if I can help it.

Apparently Harold Fish wasn't going to take an azz whipping either. I don't blame him.

He didn't have to shoot him three times in the chest.

In the legs would have been sufficient.

What I am saying to you is that "looks crazy" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous".

Edited May 17, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Peikko 1,575]

He did though, he was 'trained' to shoot to kill - although how the dogs survived beats me, they would be surely more dangerous if they were actually running at you. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If every gun nut is rounded up and incarcerated for life, I'd consider that a part of national self defense and therefore justified.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I say, it seems simple to me, Fish guy got scared and shot him. He is now trying to justify that shooting to himself and so far he has come to the conclusion that he is squeaky clean and wants everyone around him to believe that too because the alternative is that maybe, just maybe he made a mistake and that couldn't be.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[rebeccajo 14]

If every gun nut is rounded up and incarcerated for life, I'd consider that a part of national self defense and therefore justified.

Oops...........

You don't have anything else to do this afternoon, do you?

[Peikko 1,575]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I've been trained to point out the obvious. Can't help it.

[rebeccajo 14]

I've been trained to point out the obvious. Can't help it.

[justashooter 430]

He didn't have to shoot him three times in the chest.

In the legs would have been sufficient.

What I am saying to you is that "looks crazy" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous".

spoken by someone who knows nothing about the subject, obviously.

military, police, and private citizens are all trained to shoot center of mass until the threat stops.

policemen never "shoot someone in the legs" in real life. they always aim just above the belly button for the sternum, and about 17% of the time actually hit the bad guy, somewhere. private citizens connect about 20% of the time, and criminals score about 12% of the time. with real world results like that, shooting at someone's leg to stop them is a bad risk.

cops qualify twice a year at minimum, shooting from 50-200 rounds, per dept policy. some cops train religiously, and some departments create realistic training scenarios. private cits shoot anywhere from zero to 10,000 rounds a year, at anything from pop bottles to "fun house" type realistic moving "bad guy with a hostage" targets. criminals generally shoot only when they have to.

makes no difference. on a mountain trail, a screwdriver to the cranium is instant death. a screwdriver to the abdomen is slow death. repeated blows to the head are probable death. self defense is self defense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That's the problem - if there are no witnesses all there is to go on is the account of the person involved and the disposition of the body at the scene. Even then its an incomplete picture.

As it stands its a very dubious premise to say with certainty that a crime did, or did not happen. Hence we have these trials to examine the available evidence and make a determination as to what happened. Clearly its not perfect, nor can it be - the problem as I see it is the the possession and carrying of the gun ends up necessitating changes in the law to protect the shooter from prosecution in situations which would technically allow them to get away with murder.

This man's account may well have been true, but we have no other means of scrutinising the events - and the precedent that this creates surely is that a self-defence argument allows someone to commit a pre-medidated murder and then claim they were defending themselves.

What this shows is how difficult it is to integrate the second amendment into a framework of law. Each time the law favours the gun owner (or it is changed so that it does). Why even bother having trials and inquests into deaths like this one - if we're just going to accept the word of anyone who carries a gun and uses it.

Its a pretty dodgy implication to make imo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He didn't have to shoot him three times in the chest.

In the legs would have been sufficient.

What I am saying to you is that "looks crazy" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous".

spoken by someone who knows nothing about the subject, obviously.

military, police, and private citizens are all trained to shoot center of mass until the threat stops.

policemen never "shoot someone in the legs" in real life. they always aim just above the belly button for the sternum, and about 17% of the time actually hit the bad guy, somewhere. private citizens connect about 20% of the time, and criminals score about 12% of the time. with real world results like that, shooting at someone's leg to stop them is a bad risk.

cops qualify twice a year at minimum, shooting from 50-200 rounds, per dept policy. some cops train religiously, and some departments create realistic training scenarios. private cits shoot anywhere from zero to 10,000 rounds a year, at anything from pop bottles to "fun house" type realistic moving "bad guy with a hostage" targets. criminals generally shoot only when they have to.

makes no difference. on a mountain trail, a screwdriver to the cranium is instant death. a screwdriver to the abdomen is slow death. repeated blows to the head are probable death. self defense is self defense.

*Only* if you accept the word of the defendant at face value.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I say, it seems simple to me, Fish guy got scared and shot him. He is now trying to justify that shooting to himself and so far he has come to the conclusion that he is squeaky clean and wants everyone around him to believe that too because the alternative is that maybe, just maybe he made a mistake and that couldn't be.

That's what it looks like.

But with the change in the law if he were being tried now - his argument of self-defence would stand on its own merits and the possibility that he panicked and made a mistake wouldn't enter into the conversation at all.

That IMO is a real problem and an example of how the 2nd amendment creates loopholes in the law.

[Danno 1,228]

And the other consideration is..... if you don't shoot this guy charging you, in like 2 seconds....

HE WILL HAVE THE GUN.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the other consideration is..... if you don't shoot this guy charging you, in like 2 seconds....

HE WILL HAVE THE GUN.

We only have the man's word to accept that he was under threat (he may have been).

Again the problem is that the possession of the gun and the constitutional rights allowing you to own and carry them around are at odds with the law. If the law is changed to favour the gun owner and prevent scrutiny of events like this one - then you could technically get away with murder.

I don't think we should set precedent that its ok to shoot someone and for there to be no burden of proof required as to what happened.