Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Grand Canyon Glockers' started by ysr_racer, Mar 17, 2007.
Dateline is doing a story on the "Fish" shooting right now.
I still can't believe Fish was convicted. I hope he wins his appeal.
The things that struck me about the Dateline story:
1. The focus on hollowpoint bullets. I think gun enthusiasts need to realize that non-gunnies go off of what they see on TV. When the latest has a crime drama has an actor saying something like "Hollowpoints are only used to kill, that's why criminals carry them" they think anyone who carries them real life is up to something bad. Any of our arguments about protecting bystanders from an overpenetrating bullet will be lost on them. Talking about increased lethality of hollowpoints will only make you look worse in a non-gunny's eyes.
2. As a reverse of #1, nothing was said about him carrying a 10MM. I would have thought that the prosecutor would have brought that up. I missed the first 5 or 10 minutes of the show, maybe it was in there.
3. The issue the jury made of a 45 minutes difference in times he gave in an interview. That seems relatively minor to me. The same jurors then said that they would have thought Fish was lying if he told the exact same story every time.
4. Lack of remorse on Fish's part. He didn't come across as the most empathetic guy. I wouldn't have used that in any argument to convict thought. This is part of Fish's character, yet the interviewed jurors kept talking about how the issue was actions, not character. I guess the lesson learned is to cry and act deranged after a shooting.
5. What was it, 10 character witnesses against the deceased? Wow.
6. The "he should have shot to wound" nonsense. Same as #1.
This case has made me seriously evaluate my mindset on concealed carry and self defense. If a guy like Fish could be convicted of murder 2 under those circumstances anyone could. I'm now going to only defend myself and my family. Any other self defense scenarios like someone else being kidnapped, or threatened aren't worth the risk. I know the law has been changed, but it's just not worth it.
I watched that last night...
Pretty sickening. In my opinion it was clear case of self defense, and had I been on the jury we would still be sitting there because I would not back down.
Yes it was, "Why was he carrying a gun that's more powerful than the police carry? Did he want to kill someone?"
I cringed at the end when the woman juror said, "Why did he have to shoot him three times?"
And, "Why didn't he give him more aid?"
Don't ever shoot someone unless you really have too.
His biggest mistake was talking to the police."
Repeat after me:
1. This man attacked me
2. I want to press charges
3. (Point out any evidence so the police don't miss it)
4. I want to cooperate
5. I will make a full written statement within 24 hours AFTER I speak to an attorney
THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO SAY
I took a class one time and the instructor had a good point. He said to call the local police or sheriff, and ask what type of gun/ammo they carry. Then go out and buy the same thing for your CCW.
It made sense to me.
Something that bothered me about the whole issue of his choice of weapons is they were making a big deal out of his gun being so big and powerful.
Looks like that would only help his justification. If the gun was for shooting at wild animals, (I do know know what lurks in Arizona wilderness, be it mountain lions, bears, bigfoot, or whatever), looks like he would want something more powerful than a typical self-defense round.
That being said, the comment about him "using a gun designed to kill..." c'mon, last time I checked being on the receiving end of a shooting is NOT supposed to be a good thing.
Yup I was once showing a non "gunny" buddy of mine my ccw gun and he saw the magazine was loaded with speer gold dot hollowpoints. He asked me, "you carry cop killers aren't those illegal?" SERIOUSLY NO KIDDING. And this guy has a bachelors in justice studies.