Arizona Hiker Kills Another Hiker After Dog Confrontation

[americasroof]

This story also has a picture of the lab.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html



Shooting of dog-walker called justified



Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.

Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense

Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM


It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.

Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.

Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.

The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.

The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.

Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.

"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."

Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.

Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.

McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.

Feagan related Fish's account of the shooting:

Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.

Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.

Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.

Fish had no wounds from the dogs.

Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.

Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.

That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.

Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.

Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.

He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.

McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.

"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.

"I just think he overreacted."

William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.

"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.

Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.

A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.

"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.

Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.

It will be several weeks before any results are known.

McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."

Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.

He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.

Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.

"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.

Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.

"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.

[feck]

Post by americasroof
This story also has a picture of the lab.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.

A tragedy.
I was up there a few days ago but hadn't heard of this.

Post by americasroof
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.

[DingusMilktoast]

Damn!

The guy with the gun is a coward, justified or not.

DMT

[Ryan Pfleger]

Post by DingusMilktoast
The guy with the gun is a coward, justified or not.

No doubt. I am all about the right to bear arms, but honestly, the people
who think they need to pack heat when they're out for a walk in the woods
are the exact last people I want to see with a gun in their hands.

Ryan

[Bill Z.]

Post by Ryan Pfleger

Post by DingusMilktoast
The guy with the gun is a coward, justified or not.

No doubt. I am all about the right to bear arms, but honestly, the
people who think they need to pack heat when they're out for a walk
in the woods are the exact last people I want to see with a gun in
their hands.
Ryan

Depends on where you are going. I was on a trip to northern Alaska
once where we discussed taking a firearm, but decided against it on
the grounds that none of us knew how to use one (and none of us had
one anyway)! The risk factor was the grizzly bear population, and we
were pretty much on our own, with no other parties in the area.

We decided that the risk of having to deal with an angry bear was
lower than the risk of us accidentally shooting ourselves! Others
might make a different decision.

Of course, this trip was not exactly a "walk in the woods," which was
the case Ryan was talking about.

Bill

[bkr]

Post by Ryan Pfleger

Post by DingusMilktoast
The guy with the gun is a coward, justified or not.

No doubt. I am all about the right to bear arms, but honestly, the people
who think they need to pack heat when they're out for a walk in the woods
are the exact last people I want to see with a gun in their hands.
Ryan

I'm not condoning the guys actions, but it said he lived in the woods.
ie, he didn't have a "normal" domicile. Living that way, it would make
more sense that he would carry a weapon in the woods. For protection
from other people as much as anything else.

Either way, his reaction seems unjustified by the information presented
in the article. As the gun safety instructor said, "I've shot the dog
first".

bkr

[Andy Gale]

Post by bkr

Post by Ryan Pfleger
No doubt. I am all about the right to bear arms, but honestly, the people
who think they need to pack heat when they're out for a walk in the woods
are the exact last people I want to see with a gun in their hands.
Ryan

I'm not condoning the guys actions, but it said he lived in the woods.
ie, he didn't have a "normal" domicile. Living that way, it would make
more sense that he would carry a weapon in the woods. For protection
from other people as much as anything else.

The guy that got killed was the one who lived in the woods, not the shooter.

Andy

[Mike Romain]

Post by bkr

Post by Ryan Pfleger

Post by DingusMilktoast
The guy with the gun is a coward, justified or not.

No doubt. I am all about the right to bear arms, but honestly, the people
who think they need to pack heat when they're out for a walk in the woods
are the exact last people I want to see with a gun in their hands.
Ryan

I'm not condoning the guys actions, but it said he lived in the woods.
ie, he didn't have a "normal" domicile. Living that way, it would make
more sense that he would carry a weapon in the woods. For protection
from other people as much as anything else.
Either way, his reaction seems unjustified by the information presented
in the article. As the gun safety instructor said, "I've shot the dog
first".
bkr

You are mistaken, the 'dog walker' was the bush man that came running
waving his fists at the hiker after the hiker scared off the fool's dogs
that charged him with a shot.

Just plain dumb on both parties parts in my mind.

Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[Jim]

Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any
research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but
distracting and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't
want to let it feel the heat.....

Thanks for the thought.

Post by Mike Romain
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[Traveler4D]

Post by Jim
Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any

research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but distracting
and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't want to let it feel the
heat.....>

Yeah, great idea, flares. Use those in the tinder dry forests of AZ and CA and
you too may be responsible for the next million acre burn. Flares "drip" fire,
there is no way to protect the woods from flare drops, unless you want to catch
them in your hand. Better would be mace, pepper spray, or a spray bottle of
amonia for errant dogs, or their idiot owners.

[Jim]

I'm aware of the fire danger. I said it was interesting.

AZ and CA? Imagine the tinder try black spruce forest of the far
north. AZ and CA don't know what confligrations are....

Post by Traveler4D

Post by Jim
Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any

research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but distracting
and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't want to let it feel the
heat.....>
Yeah, great idea, flares. Use those in the tinder dry forests of AZ and CA and
you too may be responsible for the next million acre burn. Flares "drip" fire,
there is no way to protect the woods from flare drops, unless you want to catch
them in your hand. Better would be mace, pepper spray, or a spray bottle of
amonia for errant dogs, or their idiot owners.

[Mike Romain]

I was taught by the Canadian Warden Service to carry the road side
flares for bear control in the National Parks when I worked as a back
country fishing guide in the Rockies.

Serious deep bush.

I wear boots or at least shoes when hiking on a trail and have seen
demonstrations of flare use. He, the Warden demonstrating also wore
boots when hiking on the trail.

It does not take much to put out the odd drip of sulfur with your shoe
or boot if you are splashing it and the fact that the splashes 'do' burn
is one of the reasons for using them.

You also can hold the flares in your hand so the 'drips' are few from
what I remember.

I certainly wouldn't leave the area without making sure it was all out
though.

I have been deep bush camping and hiking for over 40 years and have
never needed to use them, though my kit still has 3 flares in it.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Post by Jim
I'm aware of the fire danger. I said it was interesting.
AZ and CA? Imagine the tinder try black spruce forest of the far
north. AZ and CA don't know what confligrations are....

Post by Traveler4D

Post by Jim
Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any

research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but distracting
and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't want to let it feel the
heat.....>
Yeah, great idea, flares. Use those in the tinder dry forests of AZ and CA and
you too may be responsible for the next million acre burn. Flares "drip" fire,
there is no way to protect the woods from flare drops, unless you want to catch
them in your hand. Better would be mace, pepper spray, or a spray bottle of
amonia for errant dogs, or their idiot owners.

[Mike Romain]

I was taught by the Canadian Warden service to carry them for bears.
Have you ever seen how fast hair burns?

Mike

Post by Jim
Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any
research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but
distracting and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't
want to let it feel the heat.....
Thanks for the thought.

Post by Mike Romain
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[Shilajit T Gangulee]

Mike Romain (***@sympatico.ca) wrote:
: I was taught by the Canadian Warden service to carry them for bears.
: Have you ever seen how fast hair burns?

: Mike

: Jim wrote:
: >
: > Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any
: > research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but
: > distracting and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't
: > want to let it feel the heat.....


When i worked for the NPS in Alaska I'd load a couple of flare rounds in
my shotgun for bears. Of course, I had a half dozen .50 cal rounds
backing up the flare rounds in case the bear wasn't fazed. I found
firecracker rounds weren't as effective as flare.

[DingusMilktoast]

Post by Mike Romain
I was taught by the Canadian Warden service to carry them for bears.
Have you ever seen how fast hair burns?

Yup! Almost as fast as dry grass and pine needles.

Yee Hah!

Man burns down forest to scare off derangned basset hound, news at 11.

DMT

[Mike Romain]

Post by DingusMilktoast

Post by Mike Romain
I was taught by the Canadian Warden service to carry them for bears.
Have you ever seen how fast hair burns?

Yup! Almost as fast as dry grass and pine needles.
Yee Hah!
Man burns down forest to scare off derangned basset hound, news at 11.
DMT

Have you ever actually seen how a road flare burns?

They are designed to be on the side shoulder of the road to let oncoming
cars know there is trouble.

The side shoulders of the road are typically full of dry grass. These
flares don't burn out of control, you can hold them in your hand and put
them out even.

These aren't the kind you shoot off in the air to land anywhere or the
marine ones that burn anywhere.

I wear boots hiking or at least some type of shoe. If a fire drip does
come from the flare, I can certainly put it out and have.

But I guess, there are dumb people out there that would just let it drip
fire and go on their merry way....

I am not one of them.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[DingusMilktoast]

Post by Mike Romain
But I guess, there are dumb people out there that would just let it drip
fire and go on their merry way....
I am not one of them.

Right on Bro. Sorry Nate! I was just funning ya. But it does get awful dry
in these parts. About 5 years ago a big old Winnebago sprung a flat and
pulled off onto the shoulder of Hwy 49 just north of Angel's Camp. The hot
muffler of the RV ignited the dead grass and the wind of a passing truck
blew the flames into the ditch.

The resulting wild fire took out 500,000 acres of prime timber and a bunch
of houses. The guy driving the RV was handed a partial bill for the cost of
the suppression.

So we get sort of eye-twitched down here when someone starts talking about
flares or fireworks and whatnot. Tend to go off about it. Lotta hard lessons
about the dangers of living in fire country. These places where we live are
actually supposed to burn! Hmm, sort of like living on a fault line.

Cheers
DMT

[DingusMilktoast]

Post by DingusMilktoast
Sorry Nate!

Mate! I meant Mate.

Funny...

DMT

[Mike Romain]

Post by DingusMilktoast

Post by Mike Romain
But I guess, there are dumb people out there that would just let it drip
fire and go on their merry way....
I am not one of them.

Right on Bro. Sorry Nate! I was just funning ya. But it does get awful dry
in these parts. About 5 years ago a big old Winnebago sprung a flat and
pulled off onto the shoulder of Hwy 49 just north of Angel's Camp. The hot
muffler of the RV ignited the dead grass and the wind of a passing truck
blew the flames into the ditch.
The resulting wild fire took out 500,000 acres of prime timber and a bunch
of houses. The guy driving the RV was handed a partial bill for the cost of
the suppression.
So we get sort of eye-twitched down here when someone starts talking about
flares or fireworks and whatnot. Tend to go off about it. Lotta hard lessons
about the dangers of living in fire country. These places where we live are
actually supposed to burn! Hmm, sort of like living on a fault line.
Cheers
DMT

I hear you. The National Parks up here are trying 'controlled' burns
like mother nature planned for the woods to try and avoid wild fires.

We are getting way off topic....

Mike

[Ryan Pfleger]

Something similar happened up here on Highway 55. Something was dragging
behind this guys RV shooting sparks everywhere. People were honking at him
coming up beside him and trying to run him off the road. Finally I believe
a trucker got him to pull over, after he had ignited something like 10 miles
of highway. Not sure how many acres burned, but it was a lot. They billed
him for it. The best part was when asked why he didn't pull over when
everybody was honking, flashing lights, everything but ramming into him, his
response was something like, " I thought people in Idaho were just rude".

Ryan

Post by DingusMilktoast

Post by Mike Romain
But I guess, there are dumb people out there that would just let it drip
fire and go on their merry way....
I am not one of them.

Right on Bro. Sorry Nate! I was just funning ya. But it does get awful dry
in these parts. About 5 years ago a big old Winnebago sprung a flat and
pulled off onto the shoulder of Hwy 49 just north of Angel's Camp. The hot
muffler of the RV ignited the dead grass and the wind of a passing truck
blew the flames into the ditch.
The resulting wild fire took out 500,000 acres of prime timber and a bunch
of houses. The guy driving the RV was handed a partial bill for the cost of
the suppression.
So we get sort of eye-twitched down here when someone starts talking about
flares or fireworks and whatnot. Tend to go off about it. Lotta hard lessons
about the dangers of living in fire country. These places where we live are
actually supposed to burn! Hmm, sort of like living on a fault line.
Cheers
DMT

[Eugene Miya]

Post by Mike Romain
I was taught by the Canadian Warden service to carry them for bears.
Have you ever seen how fast hair burns?

Ever try to outrun running manzanita?

Video exists of attempts.

Post by Mike Romain

Post by Jim
Very interesting. Never thought about flares. Wonder if there is any
research on using them for bear. Not only stinky and bright, but
distracting and confusing. But, with a girz, I certainly wouldn't
want to let it feel the heat.....

There is a disposal round in a plastic starter pistol like form called a
whistler. It is available in Alaska and some parts of Canada.
However it comes with a serious warning about starting bush fires.
I have fired one off. It spins, makes noise but it's not meant for
targetting (it spins) in wide arcs.

A few people swear by them.

I am not clear that I would use one (whistler).

An adult bear can run about 35 MPH. Assuming that their charge isn't a
bluff charge like mother really defending a cub it's going to knock you
down in a serious way that a hand held flare could get knocked out of
your hand. And he or she won't necessarily feel a hot flare, not
because of temperature but because of time depending on attack character.

Post by Mike Romain

Post by Jim

Post by Mike Romain
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.

I have encountered many urbanites who have never ignited a road flare.
Animals don't sense smells like humans. They can just as well be curious.
And they sometimes have motivations like the defense of their young
which a human won't detect.

The world is changing enough that areas are now on the cusp of using
firearms for defense or not. The question is judging which.

--

[Mark South]

Post by Eugene Miya
The world is changing enough that areas are now on the cusp of using
firearms for defense or not. The question is judging which.

In the US, the place to consider using firearms is clearly the inner cities.

Compared to them, very few people get blown away in the backcountry.

[Eugene Miya]

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
The world is changing enough that areas are now on the cusp of using
firearms for defense or not. The question is judging which.

In the US, the place to consider using firearms is clearly the inner cities.

Can I have a SAW in my car like Gabriel in Swordfish?
It's having the authority to use it.

Post by Mark South
Compared to them, very few people get blown away in the backcountry.

That's a matter of perspective. Very US.

Pelton rates the USA 1 star in dangerous places. He has 2 inner city
examples in NYC and LA (Having a Riot). Robert and I correspond a
moderate amount (a few letters per year, my youngest sister chances to
live in the same LA suburb).

So the issue is what constitutes bc again. Bagdad's rate isn't much
above LAs' except in explosive power (IEDs and RPGs). But the 4 and 5
star locations in Robert's like classic deepest darkest Africa,
the border between India and Pakistan (to say nothing with Afghanistan)
areas of some what nice country independent of the people, I would say
that quite a few people get blown away in back country. Just somewhat
less so in the USA.

The Central African Republic (or whatever its current name is) and quite
a few other locations (one person who used to post did come across dead
bodies on African trails) are far more lawless.

Post by Mark South
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen, Arms Wearer

Substitute World with US, Mark?

--

[Mark South]

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
The world is changing enough that areas are now on the cusp of using
firearms for defense or not. The question is judging which.

In the US, the place to consider using firearms is clearly the inner cities.

Can I have a SAW in my car like Gabriel in Swordfish?

I wouldn't stop you :-)

Post by Eugene Miya
It's having the authority to use it.

Lots of people use them without authority, they just leave the scene rapidly
afterwards.

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South
Compared to them, very few people get blown away in the backcountry.

That's a matter of perspective. Very US.

Well, OK, let's limit the statement by saying it's true pretty much throughout
the first world.

Post by Eugene Miya
Pelton rates the USA 1 star in dangerous places. He has 2 inner city
examples in NYC and LA (Having a Riot). Robert and I correspond a
moderate amount (a few letters per year, my youngest sister chances to
live in the same LA suburb).

You remind me of P.J. O'Rourke's suggestion before the '91 Iraq war. He
suggested dropping videos of US inner cities on Iraq, with a note reading "This
is what we do to our own cities in peacetime. Think what we're going to do to
yours in a war."

Post by Eugene Miya
So the issue is what constitutes bc again. Bagdad's rate isn't much
above LAs' except in explosive power (IEDs and RPGs). But the 4 and 5
star locations in Robert's like classic deepest darkest Africa,
the border between India and Pakistan (to say nothing with Afghanistan)
areas of some what nice country independent of the people, I would say
that quite a few people get blown away in back country. Just somewhat
less so in the USA.

The concept of backcountry doesn't exist in those places though, because there
is little urban development to contrast it with.

Post by Eugene Miya
The Central African Republic (or whatever its current name is) and quite
a few other locations (one person who used to post did come across dead
bodies on African trails) are far more lawless.

When I lived in South Africa, the motto was that you can't get in trouble for
what you don't report.

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen, Arms Wearer

Substitute World with US, Mark?

I'm not a US citizen, if that's what you mean. If you are offering me a green
card I'll take it in case I ever get the yen to find out what Germany was like
in theb 1930's :-)

Really, it was a joke on the "proud to bear arms" stuff. I just wear my arms
hanging down from my shoulders. I don't need weaponry where I live or walk.
Well I do in a small way. You need to threaten the wine bottles with a
corkscrew before they'll give you a drink. Notice that it's not the same as a
mugging. Only coffee comes in mugs.

[Eugene Miya]

r.c. removed

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South
In the US, the place to consider using firearms is clearly the inner cities.

Can I have a SAW in my car like Gabriel in Swordfish?

I wouldn't stop you :-)

They are very hungry little toys. They eat lots of money.

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
It's having the authority to use it.

Lots of people use them without authority, they just leave the scene rapidly
afterwards.

Those are more AKs and SKSs.

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South
Compared to them, very few people get blown away in the backcountry.

That's a matter of perspective. Very US.

Well, OK, let's limit the statement by saying it's true pretty much throughout
the first world.

Hmm, OK.

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
Pelton rates the USA 1 star in dangerous places. He has 2 inner city
examples in NYC and LA (Having a Riot).

You remind me of P.J. O'Rourke's suggestion before the '91 Iraq war. He
suggested dropping videos of US inner cities on Iraq, with a note reading "This
is what we do to our own cities in peacetime. Think what we're going to do to
yours in a war."

He is amusing.
Yeah, I would have suggested dropping the Dillion Precision tape Machine
Gun Magic and saying, these are average Americans out for a weekend.
This is something for exploration.

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
So the issue is what constitutes bc again. Bagdad's rate isn't much
above LAs' except in explosive power (IEDs and RPGs). But the 4 and 5
star locations in Robert's like classic deepest darkest Africa,
the border between India and Pakistan (to say nothing with Afghanistan)
areas of some what nice country independent of the people, I would say
that quite a few people get blown away in back country. Just somewhat
less so in the USA.

The concept of backcountry doesn't exist in those places though, because there
is little urban development to contrast it with.

There cities in the 3rd world. You know that. You mean the concept of
borders or boundaries are a little fuzzy.
But you can confine things to the 1st world.

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya
The Central African Republic (or whatever its current name is) and quite
a few other locations (one person who used to post did come across dead
bodies on African trails) are far more lawless.

When I lived in South Africa, the motto was that you can't get in trouble for
what you don't report.

"It is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission...."

Post by Mark South

Post by Eugene Miya

Post by Mark South
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen, Arms Wearer

Substitute World with US, Mark?

I'm not a US citizen, if that's what you mean. If you are offering me a green

No, but I was surprised at what you wrote.

Post by Mark South
card I'll take it in case I ever get the yen to find out what Germany was like
in theb 1930's :-)

Yeah talking to germans of that period can be amusing.

Post by Mark South
Really, it was a joke on the "proud to bear arms" stuff. I just wear my arms

Naw that's fine.

Post by Mark South
hanging down from my shoulders. I don't need weaponry where I live or walk.
Well I do in a small way. You need to threaten the wine bottles with a
corkscrew before they'll give you a drink. Notice that it's not the same as a
mugging. Only coffee comes in mugs.

I'm off to where they dump whale bones in a week or so.
They probably want people to keep their hands inside a vehicle for Ed's
non-net kin.

--

[Ed Huesers]

Post by Eugene Miya
I'm off to where they dump whale bones in a week or so.

Here abouts then:
http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/whales/index.html

Post by Eugene Miya
They probably want people to keep their hands inside a vehicle for Ed's
non-net kin.

If it was truly for my kin, they would have you extend your arm
fully.

Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com

[Chips]

Lighting a flare would be one of the dumbest things around southern
California most of the time. You'd burn the place to the ground.

GC

Post by Mike Romain
Just plain dumb on both parties parts in my mind.
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[claudel]

Post by Chips
Lighting a flare would be one of the dumbest things around southern
California most of the time. You'd burn the place to the ground.
GC

Post by Mike Romain
Just plain dumb on both parties parts in my mind.
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.

Somebody in one of these bad animal threads mentioned carrying
one of those battery powered stunners. Seems as if the spark
would scare off most any 4 legged animal, and some 2 legged ones.
If it was inclined to get close enough I guess one could actually
zap it.

Claude

[Mike Romain]

I specified 'road side' flares, not the shooting kind!

Mike

Post by Chips
Lighting a flare would be one of the dumbest things around southern
California most of the time. You'd burn the place to the ground.
GC

Post by Mike Romain
Just plain dumb on both parties parts in my mind.
Carrying a gun is dumb in my mind too. I carry roadside flares for bad
animal occasions. No animal likes that stinky bright sulfur flare and
it can be tossed in dribbles of flame while staying lit.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[Sue]

Post by Chips
Lighting a flare would be one of the dumbest things around southern
California most of the time. You'd burn the place to the ground.

Funny, I think someone just did that 6 months ago.

[Mike Romain]

Post by Sue

Post by Chips
Lighting a flare would be one of the dumbest things around southern
California most of the time. You'd burn the place to the ground.

Funny, I think someone just did that 6 months ago.

Was that a road flare or a shooting flare that arsonist used?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

[bizbee]

On 30 May 2004 07:24:26 -0700 in

Post by americasroof
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.

This is the kind of idiot that gun control freaks thrive on.

[Auntie Em]

Post by bizbee

Post by americasroof
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.

This is the kind of idiot that gun control freaks thrive on.

Yeah, of all the nerve - defending himself.

Sheesh.

Em

[bizbee]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:52:55 -0500 in

Post by Auntie Em

Post by bizbee

Post by americasroof
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near

the

Post by bizbee

Post by americasroof
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.

This is the kind of idiot that gun control freaks thrive on.

Yeah, of all the nerve - defending himself.
Sheesh.
Em

Exactly how did he defend himself, jackass? He's being attacked, or
perceives he's being attacked by a dog, so he murders a human being?
Your brains are defiinitely in your ass, bubba.

I must've missed the part where the guy who died was doing any more
than running toward him... where the dogs were.

It's idiots like <you> that gun control freaks thrive on too, you
brainless fuck.

[Noway Nohow]

Given some of the outrageous threats I've seen in rec.backcountry about
shooting any dog they encounter in the backcountry, I don't entirely

Post by bizbee
I must've missed the part where the guy who died was doing any more
than running toward him... where the dogs were.

Right here:

"Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times."

Very few people I know are not going to take what Kuenzli allegedly did
as a threat in general, let alone when you're talking about a young,
strong-looking guy vs. a 57 year old retiree. Whether I have a gun or not,
if someone comes running at me, yelling, with fists clenched, and I tell
him to stop, and he doesn't, I have to assume he intends me grevious harm.
After he puts me in the hospital, or six feet under, is too late to do
something about it. I am going to do whatever is necessary to defend
myself.

Any sympathy I feel toward Kuenzli is tempered by the fact that if Fish
is telling the truth, Kuenzli was an idiot for running at a guy with a gun.

[Diogenes]

Post by Noway Nohow
Given some of the outrageous threats I've seen in rec.backcountry about
shooting any dog they encounter in the backcountry, I don't entirely

Post by bizbee
I must've missed the part where the guy who died was doing any more
than running toward him... where the dogs were.

"Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times."
Very few people I know are not going to take what Kuenzli allegedly did
as a threat in general, let alone when you're talking about a young,
strong-looking guy vs. a 57 year old retiree. Whether I have a gun or not,
if someone comes running at me, yelling, with fists clenched, and I tell
him to stop, and he doesn't, I have to assume he intends me grevious harm.
After he puts me in the hospital, or six feet under, is too late to do
something about it. I am going to do whatever is necessary to defend
myself.
Any sympathy I feel toward Kuenzli is tempered by the fact that if Fish
is telling the truth, Kuenzli was an idiot for running at a guy with a gun.

I don't know all the facts in this tragic episode, but I do know a
fair amount about dogs. It is critical to understand (and Mr. Kuenzli
should certainly have known) that a dog (singular) is a DOG, whereas
dogs (plural) very quickly become a *PACK*. According to the news
account Kuenzli saw fit to turn three large unleashed dogs loose on a
public hiking trail. Two of the dogs weren't even his and could not be
expected to obey him in any way, especially when running loose. One of
them (the chow) supposedly had agression problems to begin with.

So Mr. Fish is walking down the trail when he is suddenly surrounded
by a pack of large threatening dogs. He fires a shot into the ground
in hopes of frightening them off and is then menaced by the "pack
owner" who charges at him yelling (presumably threats). At this point
Fish might well have reasonable cause to believe that not only are the
dogs about to attack him, but that their owner is actively encouraging
them to do so.

The actions of Mr. Fish are certainly debatable as to whether or not
he had other options. However Mr. Kuenzli's decision to turn those
dogs loose in a public area is not open to debate; it was
irresponsible to the point of criminal stupidity. Unfortunately Mr.
Kuenzli paid for his stupidity with his life.




----
Diogenes (***@hotmail.com)

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[c***@tiny.net.invalid]

Post by Noway Nohow
Given some of the outrageous threats I've seen in rec.backcountry about
shooting any dog they encounter in the backcountry, I don't entirely
believe Fish's story.

And do you recall the dog lover's remarks that go like, "You hurt my
dog and you'll be the one in the hospital!" when that thread starts
getting on?

Maybe the old guy had read some of that or heard some of the guys at
the local bar yammering that way? Who knows?

I am often more afraid of the owners of loose dogs I meet in the
outdoors than I am of the dogs. First they're not caring for their
dogs properly, don't care much about how other people feel about their
dogs, and think that 'freedom' is a concept that house pets not only
understand, but need.

I've not run into a dog on hikes or paths or anywhere who's frightened
me. I've run into some with atrocious manners. I happen to not mind
being jumped on with muddy paws, or having the dog try for a friendly
(and it is, to them) sniff, but dogs running loose are dangerous. To
themselves and to wildlife. Try to convince a dog owner who's into
'freedom', though. Try to explain to them that their lovely animal
isn't universally loveable. Try to explain that some people hate
dogs, some fear them (some extremely) and some just don't want to be
loved by them right now.

I don't suppose anyone's ever heard of a homeless person having dogs
sic'd on him? Used to be a recurring theme in my childhood, though
I've not heard it much of recent years. If it's still done, there
might be some good background for fear of loose dogs and shouting
humans. And I do fear the idea of feral dogs. Particularly along
about the time the people who've gone 'up north for the summer' go
back home. Sometimes the pet is left behind. Usually still harmless,
but...

[Auntie Em]

Please explain to me what kind of moron would take three dogs that he
doesn't "know", one of which has a history of aggression on a walk without a
leash? First of all, the animal shelter where I live requires dog walkers
to use a leash at all times, because it is difficult to control a pound dog.
Second of all, I believe (I may be wrong, but I don't think so), that the
Pine Canyon Trail is probably part of the Coconino National Forest and ALL
national forests require that your pets be under your control at all times.
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.

Betcha the good samaritan "dog walkers" from the local pound use leases now,
eh?

em

[tallrock]

"Auntie Em" <> Betcha the good samaritan "dog walkers" from the local pound
use leases now,

eh?

What kind of an irresponsible creep would let a Labrador Retreiver be in a
position to smell a stranger's crotch? I hope they strung him up to rot
after they shot him.

[LewBob]

Post by Auntie Em
Please explain to me what kind of moron would take three dogs that he
doesn't "know", one of which has a history of aggression on a walk without a
leash? First of all, the animal shelter where I live requires dog walkers
to use a leash at all times, because it is difficult to control a pound dog.
Second of all, I believe (I may be wrong, but I don't think so), that the
Pine Canyon Trail is probably part of the Coconino National Forest and ALL
national forests require that your pets be under your control at all times.
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.

Stupidity and dog off leash: And that justifies shooting someone in the
chest three times at close range? The punishment seems a little severe to
me.

I'm betting the grand jury will indict the shooter with manslaughter.

LewBob

[bizbee]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:20:07 GMT in

Post by LewBob
I'm betting the grand jury will indict the shooter with manslaughter.

you may have a hard time finding someone to bet with you on that
one...

[r5]

Post by Auntie Em
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.

Wow, I never knew there was a moral equivalence between breaking
a leash law and manslaughter!

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by r5

Post by Auntie Em
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.

Wow, I never knew there was a moral equivalence between breaking
a leash law and manslaughter!

Nobody said there was. Also, nobody has said there was manslaughter.
Socks

[r5]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by r5

Post by Auntie Em
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.

Wow, I never knew there was a moral equivalence between breaking
a leash law and manslaughter!

Nobody said there was. Also, nobody has said there was manslaughter.

Read the quoted material again. Auntie Em certainly suggest this.
In addition, this most certainly is a manslaughter case. Its type
though (voluntary, involuntary, justified, etc.) is TBD.

[bizbee]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:50:42 -0500 in

Post by Auntie Em
Please explain to me what kind of moron would take three dogs that he
doesn't "know", one of which has a history of aggression on a walk without a
leash? First of all, the animal shelter where I live requires dog walkers
to use a leash at all times, because it is difficult to control a pound dog.
Second of all, I believe (I may be wrong, but I don't think so), that the
Pine Canyon Trail is probably part of the Coconino National Forest and ALL
national forests require that your pets be under your control at all times.
Therefore, not only was Mr. Kuenzli suffering from terminal stupidity, but
he was breaking a FEDERAL LAW.
Betcha the good samaritan "dog walkers" from the local pound use leases now,
eh?
em

Did I miss the part where they passed a death penalty for off-leash
dogs, you brainless asshole?
By the way, is it legal to discharge a firearm in a National Forest
with no permit?

[c***@tiny.net.invalid]

Post by bizbee
By the way, is it legal to discharge a firearm in a National Forest
with no permit?

In the National Forests near me it is. One can carry (except during
hunting season) and shoot as one pleases, except at harmless stock or
wild game, or, without good reason, people.

Was the question of permit raised in the article? I don't recall it,
but I skimmed fairly quickly through it.

[Darrell Criswell]

Why didn't he shoot the dogs?

Post by americasroof
This story also has a picture of the lab.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.

[Traveler4D]

Why didn't he shoot the dogs?>

The dogs were circled around him, the larger threat became the man, screaming
at him, fists clenched, and running toward him after being told to stop. I
would opt for the larger and more immediate threat myself, given those
circumstances, if in fact they are true.

[Fickster]

This has to be a troll. Perhaps a well-orchestrated one, but a troll
nonetheless.

If ANY of you REALLY think this was justified, please have your heads
examined.

Self-defense USUSALLY involves the shooting of the perp, which in this case
was/were the dog(s).

Please note that the shooter had no injuries from the dogs.

Verdict - Fish goes to jail.

Post by americasroof
This story also has a picture of the lab.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.

[Ryan Pfleger]

Post by Fickster
Verdict - Fish goes to jail.

From what I have read about it so far, I hope you're right!

[Bill Z.]

Post by Ryan Pfleger

Post by Fickster
Verdict - Fish goes to jail.

From what I have read about it so far, I hope you're right!

Please don't post such things out of context. At first, I thought
you meant the climber whe was nicknamed "Fish!" I hadn't
followed the first half of the thread. :-)

Bill

[Ryan Pfleger]

At first, I thought you meant the climber whe was nicknamed "Fish!"

Is that Russ?

[Jim Dorsett]

You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the mannerisms of
the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.

Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law
enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered if
not crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and prudent
person would feel threatened in a similar situation.

Just playing the devils advocate here so please don't shoot the messenger!

Post by Fickster
This has to be a troll. Perhaps a well-orchestrated one, but a troll
nonetheless.
If ANY of you REALLY think this was justified, please have your heads
examined.
Self-defense USUSALLY involves the shooting of the perp, which in this case
was/were the dog(s).
Please note that the shooter had no injuries from the dogs.
Verdict - Fish goes to jail.

[LewBob]

Post by Jim Dorsett
You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the mannerisms of
the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.
Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law
enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered if
not crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and prudent
person would feel threatened in a similar situation.
Just playing the devils advocate here so please don't shoot the messenger!

Since we're playing the Devil's Advocate here, what would happen in a
similar scenario if the shooter had NOT been packing heat on the trail?

LewBob

[Scott Grimes]

"Poor Defenseless Hiker Mauled by Crazed Chow - Volunteer Dog Walker Was
Just Trying to be a Good Citizen."

[Jim Dorsett]

Headline" Vicious dog attack of homeless man. Victim sues local human
society, and now lives like a king."

Post by LewBob

Post by Jim Dorsett
You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the

mannerisms

Post by LewBob

Post by Jim Dorsett
of the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.
Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law
enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered
if not crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and
prudent person would feel threatened in a similar situation.
Just playing the devils advocate here so please don't shoot the messenger!

Since we're playing the Devil's Advocate here, what would happen in a
similar scenario if the shooter had NOT been packing heat on the trail?
LewBob

[nafod40]

Post by LewBob
Since we're playing the Devil's Advocate here, what would happen in a
similar scenario if the shooter had NOT been packing heat on the trail?
LewBob

Maybe this...

http://www.dogexpert.com/Photos%20(Bite)/IndexBitePhotos.html

In training for EMT stuff, we got to see pictures of scalpings and
defacings (new word?) due to dog bites. I'll kill the dog that
approaches my kids unleashed.

[Scott Grimes]

Post by nafod40
I'll kill the dog that
approaches my kids unleashed.

wit ur fooking barehands no less

[Auntie Em]

Post by nafod40
In training for EMT stuff, we got to see pictures of scalpings and
defacings (new word?) due to dog bites. I'll kill the dog that
approaches my kids unleashed.

Gosh, I hope you mean the aggressive ones - not like Schnausers or Cockers
that are all licky and wiggly and happy to see ya.

Em

------
GOT PDF?
Convert any document into PDF for $1 per 100 pages.
For more info email ***@gobrainstorm.net.

[Michael Hunt]

Post by Jim Dorsett

Post by Jim Dorsett
You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the mannerisms

of

Post by Jim Dorsett
the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.
Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law
enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered

if

Post by Jim Dorsett
not crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and

prudent

Post by Jim Dorsett
person would feel threatened in a similar situation.
Just playing the devils advocate here so please don't shoot the messenger!

Since we're playing the Devil's Advocate here, what would happen in a
similar scenario if the shooter had NOT been packing heat on the trail?
LewBob

Hey,

I'm packing every time I go into the woods or out on the bike. Been
that way for 12 years now. I've only come close to killing a couple of
real dangerous dogs once but was able to get away. Most dogs are just
a loud pain in the ass. Few would actually choose to hunt a full grown
adult male. Happens though.

I'm still kinda foggy on why he gunned down the owner though... Seems
kinda odd... Since you're really running on instinct and fear in the
split second it takes to decide to draw and kill something, usually
the closest dangers get tunnel-visioned. It'd really be almost
impossible in a truly terrifying situation like that to focus on
something else moving much farther away. Much less actually score
multiple hits under duress. Unless the guy had tons of combat training
or .... real life shootings....

Sounds fishy.... But hey, no witnesses....

-Michael H.

[Scott Grimes]

"Jim Dorsett" wrote in message

Post by Jim Dorsett
You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the mannerisms of
the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.

Allegedly felt threatened. In any event another sad story that will never
know the truth about.

[Brian in SLC]

The shooter must have felt threatened by the dog's owner. In reading
some of the later statements and news stories, it sounds like the dogs
scattered after the warning shot.

That would leave just the two of them.

I think, however sad, the most plausable situation is one where the
shooter was scared enough to draw and fire his weapon, and the owner
aggressively charged in after he fired the first shot. Shooter had a
weapon drawn and had already demostrated he was willing to discharge
it. I'm afraid a "reasonable" man might see that particular situation
go for the shooter.

Not much makin' lemonade out of this...

Scary parallel...anyone recall how the Ruby Ridge standoff started?

Yikes...

Brian in SLC

Post by Jim Dorsett
You're not considering that the shooter felt threatened by the mannerisms of
the deceased after having deterred the actions of the dogs.
Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law
enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered if
not crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and prudent
person would feel threatened in a similar situation.
Just playing the devils advocate here so please don't shoot the messenger!

Post by Fickster
This has to be a troll. Perhaps a well-orchestrated one, but a troll
nonetheless.
If ANY of you REALLY think this was justified, please have your heads
examined.
Self-defense USUSALLY involves the shooting of the perp, which in this

case

Post by Fickster
was/were the dog(s).
Please note that the shooter had no injuries from the dogs.
Verdict - Fish goes to jail.

[Traveler4D]

Post by Jim Dorsett
Citizens are not held to the same 'ladder of aggression' as the law

enforcement community, so being charged by what appears to be an angered if not
crazed individual constitutes probable cause if a reasonable and prudent person
would feel threatened in a similar situation.>

Agreed, then there is the consideration of what the victim looked like.
Apparently this guy lived "in the woods", and could have presented a rather
scary picture to someone. If he was unkempt, bearded, long hair, old or
disheveled clothing, etc.. It does not take much to imagine a sight like that,
charging at you, hollering and wide eyed in a threatening manner to see where
someone might think they were in harms way.

[Heynony]

I'm just glad none of the dogs were hurt. It's not their fault at all.

I just returned from a Grand Canyon hike. While all the rangers were
off rangering somewhere, a guy was in the process of trying to kill his
dog by dragging it down the Bright Angel at high noon. The dog had its
tounge dragging on the ground in the muleshit. Mercifully he turned
around and headed back to the top, but the dog couldn't keep going and
last I saw the dog was resting in some shade. I hope he made it (the
dog, not the owner).

The problem with dogs on the trail, threatening hikers and themselves
being injured and abused, has never been the dogs, it's the people who
take them where they don't belong and/or under conditions dangerous to
the dogs themselves and to hikers. I'm afraid I have higher priorities
for my grief than for one of these sociopaths being effectively thinned
out of our breed.

[tallrock]

Well said... I am just glad the police termed it justifiable homicide so
that the shooter can sue the perp's estate for the cost of the bullet and
counselling for any psychological trauma he may have suffered.


"Heynony" <

it's the people who

Post by Heynony
take them where they don't belong and/or under conditions dangerous to
the dogs themselves and to hikers. I'm afraid I have higher priorities
for my grief than for one of these sociopaths being effectively thinned
out of our breed.

[Volker Hetzer]

Post by Heynony
I'm just glad none of the dogs were hurt. It's not their fault at all.

Personally I don't think that story is all there is.
Were there witnesses? Did those two people know each other?
What about this story:
A guy who is pretty pissed off at life, rich people and everybody else
in general, goes for a walk in the woods without meaning any harm,
gets molested by some dogs, complains to the owner, owner says
fuck off homeless lazy moron/whatever, discussion deteriorates from
there, guy shoots owner and then thinks up a story.
I mean, if he was attacked by dogs, why'd he shoot someon else
nearby? I don't have much experience with dogs (having been chased by
one just once) but if I wanted a dog to stop attacking me and all I had was
a gun, I'd shoot at the dog, not somewhere else.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

[Alpha Male]

It's a little disgusting to see peoples complete lack of respect for human
life. In any situation, how can you justify the taking of someones life?
This gun toting, paranoid shoots a guy that's trying to defend his dogs?
That's sick. Shoot the dogs, fine, but what kind of logic led him to shoot
the owner? If he was trying to get the owner to call off his hounds by
pointing a gun at him, shooting him made sure that the dogs wouldn't be
called off. This guy is another reason why crazy rednecks shouldn't have
guns.

Most gun-advocates are also religious fanatics, which is strange. I always
thought God said NOT to kill. Perhaps you Americans passes an ammendment in
the bible that I wasn't aware of... or was that the catholics, they tend to
tailor the bible to their needs too.

My hope is that darwin proves right and the gun-toters kill themselves
eventually. Sad thing is, their stupidity usually has them killing people
without guns. Fair right?

Alpha Male

PS - Yes, I know, I'm about to endure a barrage of insults from gun lovers.
People who cannot form arguments usually turn to foul language.

Post by Heynony
I'm just glad none of the dogs were hurt. It's not their fault at all.
I just returned from a Grand Canyon hike. While all the rangers were
off rangering somewhere, a guy was in the process of trying to kill his
dog by dragging it down the Bright Angel at high noon. The dog had its
tounge dragging on the ground in the muleshit. Mercifully he turned
around and headed back to the top, but the dog couldn't keep going and
last I saw the dog was resting in some shade. I hope he made it (the
dog, not the owner).
The problem with dogs on the trail, threatening hikers and themselves
being injured and abused, has never been the dogs, it's the people who
take them where they don't belong and/or under conditions dangerous to
the dogs themselves and to hikers. I'm afraid I have higher priorities
for my grief than for one of these sociopaths being effectively thinned
out of our breed.

[Scott Grimes]

Dude, having problems with the neurotransmitters getting lost in their
synaptic spaces, cause you're all over the place.

[DingusMilktoast]

I just think 3 bullets to the chest is a tad excessive, don't you?

My dog used to jump the fence. What's the punishment for that, a 44 magnum
in the back of the skull?

Dog shits in the neighbor's yard? Shotgun blast to the face!

Hmmm. Dog sniffs your rope at the crag? Uzi-spray the entire crowd.

OK, I think I'm catching on.

DMT

[Heynony]

Post by DingusMilktoast
I just think 3 bullets to the chest is a tad excessive, don't you?

I guess it depends on how confident you are that the first bullet
stopped the threat. I don't do guns myself, but my instinct would be to
keep firing until I was sure I was out of danger. If I were a trained
marksman and the caliber, velocity and structure of the bullet were
sufficiently deadly, sure, one shot would do it, and three might well
be called excessive. You may be right.

[Brent Ware]

Post by Heynony

Post by DingusMilktoast
I just think 3 bullets to the chest is a tad excessive, don't you?

I guess it depends on how confident you are that the first bullet
stopped the threat. I don't do guns myself, but my instinct would be to
keep firing until I was sure I was out of danger. If I were a trained
marksman and the caliber, velocity and structure of the bullet were
sufficiently deadly, sure, one shot would do it, and three might well
be called excessive. You may be right.

I guess I think that if I'm being threatened by dogs, I don't put
three rounds into the owner's chest. Seems like three rounds into
the dogs would be the thing to do. A lot less likely to result in
homicide charges too.

Sounds pretty fishy to me too. You're getting attacked by dogs (who
more than likely just want to sniff your crotch anyway), and you shoot
the owner - not the dogs - then stand around with the dogs while the
police come? Sounds like the dogs weren't much of a threat.

-bw
dog lover and RKBA advocate

[Traveler4D]

I just think 3 bullets to the chest is a tad excessive, don't you?>>

I guess it depends on how confident you are that the first bullet stopped the

threat. I don't do guns myself, but my instinct would be to keep firing until I
was sure I was out of danger. If I were a trained
marksman and the caliber, velocity and structure of the bullet were
sufficiently deadly, sure, one shot would do it, and three might well be called
excessive. You may be right.>

Three bullets in the chest suggest three things; 1. The victim ignored
demands to stop his threatening charge and was apparently beyond reason, and
thus an immediate and significant physical danger. 2. The victim continued
his charge into close range without stopping, further indication of his intent
to commit bodily harm to the shooter, even on demand to stop when faced with a
firearm which the shooter demonstrated his intent to discharge from his warning
shots to the dogs. 3. At this close range (within a dozen feet or so) the gun
was fired and the attacker did not stop, via momentum or desire is hard to say,
however, the three hits to the chest suggest the attacker was very close, few
can use a pistol with that kind of accuracy in a moment of duress unless the
target is very close. These all add up to a circumstance in which the attacker
had every intention to commit violence on the shooter.

A tragic occurance, but completely avoidable with the simple use of a leash.
Apologists of running dog owners will likely not make that connection.

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

Post by DingusMilktoast
I just think 3 bullets to the chest is a tad excessive, don't you?

I think that depends: you'd have to persuade me that the "aim and
fire" reaction is significantly different from the "aim and fire
repeatedly" reaction, particularly when training often emphasizes
placing multiple quick shots close together (and for good reason;
given the decision to use deadly force, it had better be effective,
and it's not like time spent judging whether the first shot stopped,
or even hit, the target is time well spent!)

There is something strange about this story, but the more I consider
it the more sympathetic I end up to the guy who did the shooting. Three
dogs (one with, at least according to the law enforcement investigators,
a history of aggression) charge him; he fires a shot into the ground to
scare them; we don't know what they do then (except that they don't bite
him) but we _do_ know that a large _man_ then charges him, screaming and
hollering. To the shooter, he appears to be egging on the dogs -- maybe,
worried and furious about the danger to his dogs (who, mind you, he was
illegally and foolishly leading about off-leash), he really _does_ yell
something like "get him", or maybe he just yells something that to the
paniced guy who's just been attacked by three dogs, sees a big guy
running at him hot on the dogs' heels, and may have actually used his
gun in self-defense for the first time ever (the warning shot) is
_mistaken_ for encouraging the dogs. If we believe his story -- and we
don't really have any reason not to -- he yells at the man to stop where
he is. The guy doesn't. Now what's he supposed to conclude -- under
tremendous pressure, with the big dude coming on hard and the dogs still
racing around somewhere?

Maybe he makes the wrong decision. But put one of his critics in his
shoes and I'm not so sure that person would make a _different_ decision;
and that is the crux of the matter.

I've seen pictures of dog maulings, too, including some by very "small",
"friendly" dogs. I've also been chased through the woods by a pack of
what I thought were medium-size dogs but later learned were actually
coyotes (in the 1980s, in rural NY State, we didn't know). It's incredibly
scary; and if I'd seen someone running behind those "dogs" and seeming to
be siccing them on me, you'd better believe I would have considered that
person to be trying to kill me.

[Scott Grimes]

Yep three bullets is way too much considering all 3 hit their mark...center
mass. Either the shooter was a great shot and had the mental wherewithal to
keep it together or the target was close....real close.

Most average gun toting people can't carry this off but then again maybe the
shooter doesn't fit into the category of most people. The report said that
the shooter was carry a semiautomatic pistol I'm guessing a 9mm or 45 Cal,
based on gun purchasing averages. Out of the box and w/o some serious
trigger time these guns are not that accurate or should I say its hard for a
shooter to be accurate with them for numerous reasons but anywho.......

If my neighbor's dog takes a big boochie in my yard I return the favor
although beit in the middle of the night with my favorite colon blast a
NASCAR sponsored 30 pack of Bud, a bag of Frito's filled with a cup chili &
100 jumping jacks to help stir the gastrointestinal pot.

I carry a 30 year old mange ridden raccoon that likes to have sex with crag
dogs so I don't have too many problems with dogs approaching me or my pack,
except in the winter when the coon is hibernating then I have to fend for
myself. But ice axes impaled between the eyes works well.

Please never catch on!

[nafod40]

Post by Scott Grimes
Yep three bullets is way too much considering all 3 hit their mark...center
mass. Either the shooter was a great shot and had the mental wherewithal to
keep it together or the target was close....real close.

Perhaps close, still, it's tough to keep that pipper on the ticker with
a gnawing Chow hanging off your forearm.

"Hold steady there, boy...yours is coming."

Post by Scott Grimes
If my neighbor's dog takes a big boochie in my yard I return the favor
although beit in the middle of the night with my favorite colon blast a
NASCAR sponsored 30 pack of Bud, a bag of Frito's filled with a cup chili &
100 jumping jacks to help stir the gastrointestinal pot.

Might piss off the owners, but they'd have a picture of your ass in
"Playdog" magazine. It'd be a shrine. Dogs would come to reminisce about
the great crap of 2004 and sniff its hallowed ground.

Post by Scott Grimes
I carry a 30 year old mange ridden raccoon that likes to have sex with crag
dogs so I don't have too many problems with dogs approaching me or my pack,
except in the winter when the coon is hibernating then I have to fend for
myself.

I'll remember to duct tape my dog's ass before hiking near ice climbing
crags this winter.

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Post by Scott Grimes
Most average gun toting people can't carry this off but then again maybe the
shooter doesn't fit into the category of most people. The report said that
the shooter was carry a semiautomatic pistol I'm guessing a 9mm or 45 Cal,
based on gun purchasing averages.

No need to guess. The article says "Fish, who was carrying a 10mm
semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt threatened..."

Post by Scott Grimes
Out of the box and w/o some serious trigger time these guns are not
that accurate or should I say its hard for a shooter to be accurate
with them for numerous reasons but anywho.......

Interesting claim. I have only gone pistol shooting once in my life,
and I never once missed the target shooting a .45 at 50' -- it was
hard to get the shots in the centre, but missing the letter sized
paper was never a problem. The target I was shooting at was about the
size of a man's chest. I assume that someone who actually practices
with a gun would be better than me, even under pressure situations.

Chris

[Traveler4D]

Interesting claim. I have only gone pistol shooting once in my life, and I

never once missed the target shooting a .45 at 50' -- it was hard to get the
shots in the centre, but missing the letter sized paper was never a problem.
The target I was shooting at was about the size of a man's chest. I assume
that someone who actually practices with a gun would be better than me, even
under pressure situations.>

Practicing with targets and plinking cans is a poor substitute for shooting a
man running at you and screaming. Most people will blanch at the thought of
shooting an individual, never mind actually do it. Accuracy is a huge issue,
with most shots of any range at all, during a life threatening circumstnace,
going wide of target. The cluster of hits to the chest suggests the attacker
was very close to the shooter before the shooter decided he was not going to
stop and decided to end the confrontation.

[Lg]

Post by Traveler4D

Interesting claim. I have only gone pistol shooting once in my life, and I

never once missed the target shooting a .45 at 50' -- it was hard to get the
shots in the centre, but missing the letter sized paper was never a problem.
The target I was shooting at was about the size of a man's chest. I assume
that someone who actually practices with a gun would be better than me, even
under pressure situations.>
Practicing with targets and plinking cans is a poor substitute for shooting a
man running at you and screaming. Most people will blanch at the thought of
shooting an individual, never mind actually do it. Accuracy is a huge issue,
with most shots of any range at all, during a life threatening circumstnace,
going wide of target. The cluster of hits to the chest suggests the attacker
was very close to the shooter before the shooter decided he was not going to
stop and decided to end the confrontation.

Again you speculate that the shooter is just some Joe Schmo without
any handgun experience, and that the shooting 'must' have been at
point blank since all three shots were in the chest. Practicing with
targets and other simulations are not poor subsitutes for shooting a
gun, it's what gets you to react to fire that firearm properly. With
practice, well, it just wouldn't be that hard to do the same thing w/
someone coming at you, whether it be 50 yds or 10. Just because a
target is moving 'towards' you and hardly deviating (now I am
speculating since we don't know if the guy was shuckin' and jivin'- I
know I would have been ;) doesn't necessarily mean that your shots
will be radically flying off target. Again my point is nobody knows
what the distance was when the guy was shot. Period. When you find
out, please let us know.

Lg

[Volker Hetzer]

Post by Lg
Again my point is nobody knows
what the distance was when the guy was shot. Period. When you find
out, please let us know.

The police should have found out this. Does this get published somewhere?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

[Traveler4D]

The police should have found out this. Does this get published somewhere?>

Depends on the juristiction and if the issue even gets to trial. If the
Prosecutor of the venue decides it was a justifiable shooting, there probably
will not be any story on that beyond perhaps a local paragraph on it. If it
goes to trial, there may be a larger story on it, however, whether that finds
its way here or not is questionable.

[Traveler4D]

Again you speculate that the shooter is just some Joe Schmo without any

handgun experience, and that the shooting 'must' have been at point blank since
all three shots were in the chest. Practicing with targets and other
simulations are not poor subsitutes for shooting a gun, it's what gets you to
react to fire that firearm properly. With practice, well, it just wouldn't be
that hard to do the same thing w/someone coming at you, whether it be 50 yds or
10. Just because a target is moving 'towards' you and hardly deviating (now I
am speculating since we don't know if the guy was shuckin' and jivin'- I know I
would have been ;) doesn't necessarily mean that your shots will be radically
flying off target. Again my point is nobody knows what the distance was when
the guy was shot. Period. When you find out, please let us know. >

Which is why I said, it "SUGGESTS" which is a speculation. Perhaps the guy was
a high end target shooter with several years on a Seal team, I don't know.
However, I do know for the average guy, in a situation such as this, absent
reative training for it, the farther away the target is, the less chance of
hitting the target. While target shooting does help with aim and weapon
reaction stuff, it does not help one in preparing to kill another human being
which requires the decision to execute. Once that decision is made, it reverts
back to the skills of target shooting, its the decision that is tough. Again,
I stated the story/evidence suggested a close range shooting for these reasons,
which is, in other words, speculation based on observation.

[Traveler4D]

Post by Alpha Male
This gun toting, paranoid shoots a guy that's trying to defend his dogs?

That's sick. Shoot the dogs, fine, but what kind of logic led him to shoot the
owner? If he was trying to get the owner to call off his hounds by pointing a
gun at him, shooting him made sure that the dogs wouldn't be called off. This
guy is another reason why crazy rednecks shouldn't have guns.>

First, only one of the dogs was his, the other two were not and all were off
leash. Second, the victim apparently charged the shooter after the dogs were
scared off by the shot. Third, the victim was apparently "living off the land"
(nice way to term homeless) and most likely had an appearance that could be
easily mistaken for wild when seen running at you, screaming, waving his fists,
and not stopping after you have pointed a gun at him. The fact that he was hit
three times in the chest indicates the short range he was shot at, which in my
view is ample time to stop and reconsider your actions of charging a man
leveling a gun at you.

Any evidence the shooter was a "redneck" or is your bigotry not allowing you to
accept some people who have guns are not "rednecks"?

Post by Alpha Male

Post by Alpha Male
Most gun-advocates are also religious fanatics, which is strange. I always

thought God said NOT to kill. Perhaps you Americans passes an ammendment in
the bible that I wasn't aware of... or was that the catholics, they tend to
tailor the bible to their needs too.>>

Any stastics to support your conjecture about gun advocates being religous
fanatics? Or is your bigotry again compelling you to make these wild and
unsupporable conclusions?

Post by Alpha Male

Post by Alpha Male
My hope is that darwin proves right and the gun-toters kill themselves

eventually. Sad thing is, their stupidity usually has them killing people
without guns. Fair right?>:>

If the story is accurate (no telling, but its all we have to go on), it would
appear that the shooter was threatened by dogs, then apparently charged by a
man who refused to stop when ordered to at gun point. Given the place of the
occurance, the circumstances of the dogs quickly followed by the man who would
not stop and menaced the shooter with his weapon, the more fair question would
be, had he not shot the man threatening him, would he have survived the
encounter? Hard to say, but if you are inclined to charge people in the woods
who may or may not be armed, at least have the sense to either stop or be armed
yourself for the logical consequence of your actions.

I will gladly await your source of statistics that support your conjecture. No
need for foul language here, though I am sure you will never respond lol.

[Lg]

***@aol.com (Traveler4D) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m12.aol.com>...
snip

Third, the victim was apparently "living off the land"

Post by Traveler4D
(nice way to term homeless) and most likely had an appearance that could be
easily mistaken for wild when seen running at you, screaming, waving his fists,
and not stopping after you have pointed a gun at him.

"living off the land" and living in the woods, I'd say are a bit
different. And you seem to speculate and prejudge someone that is
homeless as being "mistaken for wild" without ever seeing the person.
In the article it is said by those who knew him, that he shaved
everyday and was well-adjusted.

The fact that he was hit

Post by Traveler4D
three times in the chest indicates the short range he was shot at, which in my
view is ample time to stop and reconsider your actions of charging a man
leveling a gun at you.

What do you consider "short range"? Short range to me is less than
40yds, the distance at which I can accurately let an arrow fly into
the vitals of a deer. But if the distance was less than 20', do you
really think that's ample time to evaluate a life threatening, high
intensity, fast-acting situation? Probably not. But we don't know
these distances, do we?

Lg

[Mike Romain]

You should read the article again. The photo shows some scruffy dude
with a big beard.

Mike

Post by Traveler4D
snip
Third, the victim was apparently "living off the land"

Post by Traveler4D
(nice way to term homeless) and most likely had an appearance that could be
easily mistaken for wild when seen running at you, screaming, waving his fists,
and not stopping after you have pointed a gun at him.

"living off the land" and living in the woods, I'd say are a bit
different. And you seem to speculate and prejudge someone that is
homeless as being "mistaken for wild" without ever seeing the person.
In the article it is said by those who knew him, that he shaved
everyday and was well-adjusted.
The fact that he was hit

Post by Traveler4D
three times in the chest indicates the short range he was shot at, which in my
view is ample time to stop and reconsider your actions of charging a man
leveling a gun at you.

What do you consider "short range"? Short range to me is less than
40yds, the distance at which I can accurately let an arrow fly into
the vitals of a deer. But if the distance was less than 20', do you
really think that's ample time to evaluate a life threatening, high
intensity, fast-acting situation? Probably not. But we don't know
these distances, do we?
Lg

[Lg]

Post by Mike Romain
You should read the article again. The photo shows some scruffy dude
with a big beard.
Mike

Whoa! Scruffy dude w/ a big beard! Then he definitely deserved to be taken out!

Lg

[Ed Huesers]

Post by Lg

The photo shows some scruffy dude with a big beard.

Whoa! Scruffy dude w/ a big beard! Then he definitely deserved to be taken out!

Man... I hear you there:
Loading Image...

Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com

[Traveler4D]

Post by Lg
Whoa! Scruffy dude w/ a big beard! Then he definitely deserved to be taken

out!>

Scruffy dude running toward you a full run, screaming and shaking his fists,
failing to stop once you have leveled a gun at him.... perhaps not deserved to
be taken out, but a reasonable man would be expected to assume the assailant
meant him physical harm, given that set of circumstances.

[c***@tiny.net.invalid]

Post by Traveler4D

Post by Lg
Whoa! Scruffy dude w/ a big beard! Then he definitely deserved to be taken

out!>
Scruffy dude running toward you a full run, screaming and shaking his fists,
failing to stop once you have leveled a gun at him.... perhaps not deserved to
be taken out, but a reasonable man would be expected to assume the assailant
meant him physical harm, given that set of circumstances.

Especially a man who's on an adrenaline rush from just keeping 3 dogs
from possibly attacking him. Adrenaline does strange things and
here's a guy with his gun in his hand and the above scenario. Maybe
if he'd not been scared by the dogs and not had the gun out, he'd not
have gone for it or let off the rounds.

[Traveler4D]

"living off the land" and living in the woods, I'd say are a bit different.

And you seem to speculate and prejudge someone that is homeless as being
"mistaken for wild" without ever seeing the person. In the article it is said
by those who knew him, that he shaved everyday and was well-adjusted.>

As I said, it "the guy could have been" in an unkempt state, long hair,
disheveled clothing, etc.. I did not say this was fact, only a possibility.

What do you consider "short range"? Short range to me is less than 40yds, the

distance at which I can accurately let an arrow fly into the vitals of a deer.
But if the distance was less than 20', do you really think that's ample time to
evaluate a life threatening, high intensity, fast-acting situation? Probably
not. But we don't know these distances, do we?>

Short range to me in this instance would be inside 20 yards, if not closer.
However, you are right, we do not know distances involved and how close the
assailant got to the shooter. The clustered shots into the chest in a fast
moving target would suggest close range to me.

[Andy Gale]

Post by Heynony
The problem with dogs on the trail, threatening hikers and themselves
being injured and abused, has never been the dogs, it's the people who
take them where they don't belong and/or under conditions dangerous to
the dogs themselves and to hikers. I'm afraid I have higher priorities
for my grief than for one of these sociopaths being effectively thinned
out of our breed.

Apparently you value dogs more than humans. That's sociopathic in my
book.

The problem with the reported story is that the only living witness that
can talk is the shooter himself. He's the only one that knows what
really happened.

Andy

[Mike Garrison]

Post by Andy Gale
The problem with the reported story is that the only living witness that
can talk is the shooter himself. He's the only one that knows what
really happened.

Assuming he actually knows....

[Jim]

So, the shooter kills the walker, leaving the dogs all to himself. If
the dogs were vicious and the shooter was all alone with the dogs, why
didn't they attack him? Why didn't he receive bites or kill the dogs,
too?

Fishy, fishy. The shoot should be in jail, period.

[nafod40]

Post by Jim
So, the shooter kills the walker, leaving the dogs all to himself. If
the dogs were vicious and the shooter was all alone with the dogs, why
didn't they attack him? Why didn't he receive bites or kill the dogs,
too?

For sure. I have this vision of the shooting victim, with his last
gasping breath, looking at his theoretically protective dogs and saying,
"You're fired..."

[WG]

Sounds to me like yet another good reason NOT to pack heat. Just sayin.

Post by americasroof
This story also has a picture of the lab.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.

[J. Jorgensen]

I have a number of random observations, but I cant really come to any
conclusion about the shooting in question. First, we only have one
statement, that of the shooter ( and we dont even have that, the
police do). Second, we are going off one printed report from the news
media. Its a constant source of chagrin and sometimes outrage when
reading news reports of incidents that I've responded to (fires,
assaults, motor vehicle accidents homicides etc) that the news reports
rarely resemble the facts. the media gets stories wrong or woefully
incomplete more than they get them right, I know thats a broad
statement but it amazes me how drastically screwed up some of these
stories get, either due to incomplete info gained by the reporter or
outright political bias on the part of the media outlet. Until (if)
the grand jury returns an indictment and this gets brought to trial I
wont waste time on speculation as to what happened. About the only
facts we have are that one man shot another, and like most tragedies
it could have been avoided.

Just out of curiosity since im not from there,
Is this an area that has had a lot of mountain lion sightings?

[Hank Sniadoch]

Why didn't he just shoot the dogs ?? They were the first ones attacking
him. It doesn't make sense. He should be arrested and tried for murder.
Or maybe the dogs ran away after he shot his first warning shot but the
dog's owner kept attacking. Would you keep attacking if someone shot a
warning to you? This guy is a murderer.

Post by J. Jorgensen
I have a number of random observations, but I cant really come to any
conclusion about the shooting in question. First, we only have one
statement, that of the shooter ( and we dont even have that, the
police do). Second, we are going off one printed report from the news
media. Its a constant source of chagrin and sometimes outrage when
reading news reports of incidents that I've responded to (fires,
assaults, motor vehicle accidents homicides etc) that the news reports
rarely resemble the facts. the media gets stories wrong or woefully
incomplete more than they get them right, I know thats a broad
statement but it amazes me how drastically screwed up some of these
stories get, either due to incomplete info gained by the reporter or
outright political bias on the part of the media outlet. Until (if)
the grand jury returns an indictment and this gets brought to trial I
wont waste time on speculation as to what happened. About the only
facts we have are that one man shot another, and like most tragedies
it could have been avoided.
Just out of curiosity since im not from there,
Is this an area that has had a lot of mountain lion sightings?

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

Post by Hank Sniadoch
Why didn't he just shoot the dogs ?? They were the first ones attacking
him. It doesn't make sense. He should be arrested and tried for murder.

Says you -- but you don't seem to be particularly familiar with the law,
just with your sense of what the law "should be".

Post by Hank Sniadoch
Or maybe the dogs ran away after he shot his first warning shot but the
dog's owner kept attacking. Would you keep attacking if someone shot a
warning to you?

If I did, and the shooter had been in reasonable fear for his life at
any point during the attack, that'd meet the standard for the affirmative
defense of self-defense just about everywhere, AFAIK (IANAL, but the
philosophy and history of law is one of my research areas; so I do "K"
a fair bit about this); certainly throughout the American West; without
even getting into the complexities of "justifiable homicide" in places
where there's a difference.

Post by Hank Sniadoch
This guy is a murderer.

Sez you. But you're neither the legislator nor the arbiter of what
conduct is "murder" (and thus who "is a murderer") and, frankly, your
idea of those criteria seems to be extremely fuzzy at best.

He may be indicted for something; he may be convicted of something;
but it seems extremely unlikely that either "something", if it exists
at all, would be what you think it would be, or for the reasons you seem
to think it would be for.

Basically, your sense of righteous outrage based on a fragmentary knowledge
of the relevant fact and law isn't definitive in this area. So, no
matter how worked up you care to get about it, I wouldn't expect to get
much satisfaction, were I you...

[Hank Sniadoch]

Sure. I don't know the law. I know an unarmed person got shot before his
dogs did. Murderer. You can side with a murderer if you want, then you're
just as screwed up as he is. Bye.

Post by Thor Lancelot Simon

Post by Hank Sniadoch
Why didn't he just shoot the dogs ?? They were the first ones attacking
him. It doesn't make sense. He should be arrested and tried for murder.

Says you -- but you don't seem to be particularly familiar with the law,
just with your sense of what the law "should be".

Post by Hank Sniadoch
Or maybe the dogs ran away after he shot his first warning shot but the
dog's owner kept attacking. Would you keep attacking if someone shot a
warning to you?

If I did, and the shooter had been in reasonable fear for his life at
any point during the attack, that'd meet the standard for the affirmative
defense of self-defense just about everywhere, AFAIK (IANAL, but the
philosophy and history of law is one of my research areas; so I do "K"
a fair bit about this); certainly throughout the American West; without
even getting into the complexities of "justifiable homicide" in places
where there's a difference.

Post by Hank Sniadoch
This guy is a murderer.

Sez you. But you're neither the legislator nor the arbiter of what
conduct is "murder" (and thus who "is a murderer") and, frankly, your
idea of those criteria seems to be extremely fuzzy at best.
He may be indicted for something; he may be convicted of something;
but it seems extremely unlikely that either "something", if it exists
at all, would be what you think it would be, or for the reasons you seem
to think it would be for.
Basically, your sense of righteous outrage based on a fragmentary knowledge
of the relevant fact and law isn't definitive in this area. So, no
matter how worked up you care to get about it, I wouldn't expect to get
much satisfaction, were I you...
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel!

You

Post by Thor Lancelot Simon
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud

[Scott Grimes]

Bye.

Ah....come on man don't give up so early, Thor is just getting warmed up,
give hime a chance.

[Chill]

EGGGSACTLY the wrong conclusion. If the murdered victim had had his weapon
as I do mine, I would have considered your first "warning shot" as a threat
and given you an extra hole in your head. But of course it would have all
been legal under the premise of me being threatened by A POOR MARKSMAN.
This is a classic illustration of lazy ass law enforcement. Hell you wanna
feel threatened, get on the interstate highway.
Chris

Post by WG
Sounds to me like yet another good reason NOT to pack heat. Just sayin.

Post by americasroof
This story also has a picture of the lab.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html
Shooting of dog-walker called justified
Grant Kuenzli (shown with his Labrador retriever, Maggie) was killed May
11 on a forest trail north of Payson.
Payson-area trail death deemed self-defense
Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
May. 22, 2004 12:00 AM
It was a common Arizona hiking confrontation: big, unleashed dogs on a
trail, turning a peaceful walk in the woods into a frightening ordeal of
snarling teeth and vicious barking.
Usually it is settled with words, sometimes angry. This time it turned
deadly.
Coconino County sheriff's detectives say the shooting of 43-year-old Grant
Kuenzli was a justifiable homicide. But the victim's friends say he was a
peaceful man who had volunteered to take a couple of dogs from an animal
shelter out for exercise and didn't deserve to die.
The encounter occurred 11 days ago near Payson, when Kuenzli was hiking
through the woods on the Pine Canyon Trail with his dog, a yellow Labrador
retriever named Maggie, and two other dogs, a chow and a German shepherd
mix.
The dogs, which were not on leashes, ran ahead and apparently startled
Harold Fish, a 57-year-old retiree from Phoenix, according to sheriff's
Detective Scott Feagan.
Fish, who was carrying a 10mm semiautomatic pistol in a holster, felt
threatened, Feagan said, and fired a warning shot into the ground near the
dogs and then three shots at Kuenzli, all of which hit him in the chest.
"Our investigation leads us to believe this is a situation of
self-defense," Feagan said. "(Fish) was under attack."
Fish could not be reached for comment. There were no other witnesses.
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker.
Kuenzli's barking dogs charged at Fish, who yelled at Kuenzli to call them
off. Fish fired a warning shot when the lead dog, the chow, was within 6
feet of him.
Fish looked up and saw Kuenzli running down the hill, fists clenched, and
yelling at him. He warned him to stop. Kuenzli charged forward. Fish shot
him three times.
Fish then hiked out and flagged down a passer-by to alert the Sheriff's
Department. Kuenzli was dead when the paramedics arrive.
Fish had no wounds from the dogs.
Both Kuenzli and Fish were each about 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed
close to 200 pounds.
Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a documented history of
aggression.
That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president.
Kuenzli, who volunteered at the Payson shelter, had taken the chow and
shepherd out for a hike with Maggie, a therapy dog that he took to senior
centers.
Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious.
He said the Sheriff's Department had not contacted him.
McCauley said he believes that Kuenzli probably yelled at Fish not to kill
his dogs.
"I don't think the guy who shot him was doing anything malicious,"
McCauley said.
"I just think he overreacted."
William Boa, a Mesa police volunteer for 14 years and a gun instructor,
said a dog could be considered a lethal weapon.
"The question is: Are you in fear of your life and did you take a
reasonable action?" said Boa, who teaches a concealed-weapons permit
course.
Fish had a permit but was carrying his pistol openly, which is legal in
Arizona.
A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.
"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.
Although detectives say the shooting appears to have been justified, they
do intend to present the case to a Coconino County grand jury.
It will be several weeks before any results are known.
McCauley said he is concerned that Kuenzli will be portrayed to a grand
jury as homeless and a "loose cannon."
Kuenzli was living in the woods near Payson, but he showered and shaved
every day and was well-adjusted, McCauley said.
He worked as a fire inspector for the Gilbert Fire Department from July
1998 to April 1999.
Kuenzli also had a Web site listing himself as a pet photographer and
appeared on an Internet listing of Arizonans for Howard Dean.
"He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he
was killed," McCauley said.
Stubbs, of the Payson Humane Society, said people in Payson are wondering
how the shooting could have happened.
"He was such mild-mannered guy, they can't understand it," Stubbs said.