Below is the link to a story I have been mistelling ever since I was told it. I have heard this story multiple times and it usually is the same. However, the real story is not as cut and dry as the story told to me and that I have told to others.
The story I always told was that a man was hiking and was attacked by three dogs. He pulled his gun and killed the dogs. Then a crazy homeless man came charging down the path from the same area as the dogs, screaming he was going to kill him. The man then fired a warning shot which did not stop the attacker so the man then shot the attacker. This story is always told as an example for not firing a warning shot, because I was tld that this was why he was charged and eventually convicted.
Well the story I have told so often and just the other day is not exactly the truth, but it is relatively close. Short and sweet, there were two dogs, they did charge at him, the man fired a warning shot which scared the dogs off, then the man came running at him, finally leading to the victim killing the charging man. This article, by MSNBC, which is impartial in my opinion, yeah I know unbelievable, tells a good story about what happened and the trial.
Now if you have read the story, you know that this is obviously a one sided story since the other person is dead and can not tell his side. From the facts stated in this story, I find it hard to find this man guilty. Repeatedly it is said by the jury and the judge that this was a tragic accident. Well lets just go with that side of it instead of calling it a classic self defense tail.
If this was a tragic accident, does this man deserve to be put in jail for 10 years? This man was hiking. This accident would never have happened if the man had controlled his dogs and his temper. If this is an accident, wasn't it caused by the crazy man? If this is an accident, isn't Mr. Fish a victim as well?
I would also like to address the prosicussion arguement that Mr. Fish carries to large of a gun and loads hollow points. This man is a hiker, he carries the gun in case he is attacked by wild animals. Wouldn't you want a large gun with stopping power?
The procicusion also pointed out that he shot him in the chest, which obviously showed he intended to kill. IF YOU FIRE YOUR GUN, IT SHOULD ONLY BE WITH THE INTENTION TO KILL. You want the PC version, then you should shoot to stop. But that is the same as shooting to kill, cuz if you shoot properly and hit them in the chest, they are most likely going to die.
I am glad the reporter asked him why he didn't fight the guy or hit him with the gun. Well, what if Mr. Fish is not a fighter and the attacker is. Mr. Fish loses the fight and the gun and his life. This man had already fired the gun to scare the dogs off, what possible reason could the attacker have for charging if he did not intend harm and/or wasnt crazy. I do not run at a person who has just fired a weapon and is now pointing it at me. I run away from that person.
Taking the character portion into account and the fact that we only have one side. I have to say that just listening to the two peoples histories would automatically cause me to side with Fish. Clean history = one get out of jail free card for an "accident". History of being crazy and angry = dead for being crazy and angry.