Harold Fish shot and killed Grant Kuenzli a little over a month before I was arrested, and Fish is only now going to trial. So much for the right to a speedy trial in the USA! Regarding that case, I can only say that if I weren't an atheist I might be inclined to say, "There but for the grace of God go I." I have on several occasions had to draw on loose and aggressive dogs, mostly in that area, the Mogollon Rim of the central Arizona highlands. Naturally, had I actually shot at such dogs and the owner taken offense, I might have had to shoot the owner as well, as Fish apparently did. On the matter of tactics, the prosecution is being disingenuous stating that Fisher should have shot Kuenzli in the leg, rather than in the chest. I have read many self-defense books and taken several armed self-defense classes, including those requried to obtain and maintain an Arizona concealed weapons permit (which has, of course, been revoked), and it is the unanimous opinion of the authors and instructors of all that shooting an attacker in the leg is unwise and unlikely to terminate the attack. This is for two reasons: The leg presents a smaller profile than the chest, and a miss is far more likely, and a shot to the leg may not immobilize it unless it breaks the bones or shatters the kneecap, which certainly requires precision shooting. A shot in the chest will of course be much more likely to stop the attack, as it was in this case. The commonly-held idea that it is never justified for an armed person to shoot an unarmed person is also unrealistic, if for no other reason than that an unarmed person can seize an armed person's weapon in hand-to-hand combat and later use it with deadly affect if he gets control of the weapon. The idea that Fish should have fired a warning shot is also absurd, as he had already fired shots at Kuenzli's dogs, which must certainly have shown Kuenzli that Fish was capable of using deadly force. Fish is not disputing that he killed Grant Kuenzli. He is pleading not guilty with a defense of justification, self-defense. This is what Arizona law calls an affirmative defense. This means he has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that he was defending himself. Until a few years ago, Arizona only required proof sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the burden-of-proof shift, but apparently the legislators want to discourage people from defending themselves. So much for innocent until proven guilty! There is, of course, a double standard in this law. Police who use deadly force still only have to provide evidence to provide reasonable doubt, the old standard that used to apply to everyone. The following article, attributed to Mark Shaffer of the Arizona Republic's Flagstaff Bureau, was published on pages B1 and B6 of the Friday, April 21, 2006 edition of the Arizona Republic. --Kevin Walsh NO WITNESSES, EVIDENCE OFFER CHALLENGE IN MURDER CASE Flagstaff--Most murder cases come down to how many holes the defense can poke in the prosecution's case. There is nothing typical about Arizona vs. Harold Fish. The state's case against the 59-year-old hiker, who shot and killed a camper north of Payson on May 11, 2004, boils down to picking apart Fish's claim of self-defense. The prosecution has no eyewitnesses. It has not forensic evidence. It has nothing but Fish's story. And he says he was protecting himself when he shot 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli of Payson three times in the chest. When he testifies in his second-degree murder trial, which is under way in Coconino County Superior Court, Fish will say he was attacked by Kuenzli and his two dogs near the end of a strenuous day of hiking up the Mogollon Rim on Pine Canyon Trail. "This is going to be a real challenge for prosecutors," said Jack Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona and a Tucson legal analyst. "They've had several opportunities to reconsider and walk away, and the indictment was even thrown out once. They must think this is a righteous case, and circumstances suggest there is something more than meets the eye here." Making the state's case even more difficult is Fish himself: He was a longtime Tolleson teacher, devoted family man and churchgoer with no prior record. The prosecution's strategy is to attack Fish's story. In opening statements Thursday before Superior Court Judge Mark Moran, prosecutors said there were discrepancies in the accounts of the shooting Fish gave to sheriff's deputies and to the grand jury. For example, he gave differing accounts of the time of day and light conditions, said Michael lessler, a deputy Coconino County Attorney. Lessler also said the small timeframe in which the encounter and shooting occurred made it "impossible" for Fish to have a conversation with Kuenzli. Fish has said he told the victim to stop, stop or be shot and that Kuenzli yelled obscenely and threatened to kill him. "And why shoot Grant Kuenzli not in the leg but the chest? He (Fish) said he didn't want to cause legal problems because if he just injured a person they might sue," Lessler said. "It was anger and frustration in as much as any fear that caused him to kill another human being." Melvin McDonald, Fish's Phoenix attorney, said that the numerous firearm training courses Fish ahd taken had taught him to shoot at "center mass" if his life were in immediate danger. He said his client had been minding his own business, even waving at Kuenzli, befoer Kuenzli's dogs--a male Chow and female German Shepherd --charged at him with teeth bared. McDonald said Kuenzli was close behind and that Fish was terrified. Scott Feagan, a detective for Coconino County Sheriff's Office who was the original investigator on the case, said he believed Fish acted in self-defense. But that led to a major row between the sheriff's office and the county attorney's office, which contended that the case hadn't been adequately investigated. Feagan was later removed from the investigation. Former Williams Police Chief Fank Manson, was later hired by the county to conduct an independent investigation of the case. "In my opinion, I thought that it was unusual that he would give warning shots to dogs but not a human being," Manson said. "It's also my opinion that the language he used during his interviews didn't support the immediacy of having to shoot him." During the trial, which could last a month, the seven-woman, four- man jury will visit the scene of the shooting. They also will hear of the victim's reputation for aggressive behavior, but the judge ruled they could not be told specific details. At the time of the shooting, Kuenzli had a screwdriver in his back pocket. It was not brandished,a nd Fish told investigators he did not know about it. While Fish has to prove that he was justified in using deadly force, others who act in self-defense may not have to. The Senate gave final approval to a bill Wednesday that shifts the burden to the state to prove that using physical force in self-defense isn't justified. Governor Janet Napolitano can sign or veto the measure. It is unclear Thuarday what she would do. McDonald, Fish's attorney, said he advised those who worked for passage of the bill. Charles Heller, secretary of the gun rights advocates Arizona Civil Defense League and host of a Tucson radio talk show about weapons, said the Fish case has been the talk of his show. "The consensus is that Hal Fish has been victimized twice, once in a vicious attack and later by an even more vicious attack by the prosecutor," Heller said. Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and longtime Valley legal analyst, said he questions why charges were filed. "This seems to me to be an unfortunate accident that seems out of place with the rest of his life," Bendar said. "If you think you are attacked and your life is in danger you are going to shoot. May be a civil action and trying to get money for damages would have been the best way to go here."