Harold Fish shot an unarmed homeless man in Arizona. Now he’s facing trial for second-degree murder, and the NRA is bankrolling his defense.
Funding for the defense of a retired school teacher who shot and killed a man on a remote county trail comes, at least in part, from the National Rifle Association.
The prosecution says the jury should hear that Harold Fish’s defense is being supported by the NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund. The defense says the information is irrelevant and the jury should not hear it.
…Fish, 59, is accused of second-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of homeless man Grant Kuenzli. Fish has pleaded not guilty to the charge, claiming he shot Kuenzli in self-defense.
Fish maintains that two dogs in Kuenzli’s care rushed at him as he exited the trail. To protect himself, Fish said he pulled a handgun and fired a warning shot to keep the dogs away. He also maintains that Kuenzli then rushed at him threatening harm or death.
After several warnings for Kuenzli to stop, Fish shot Kuenzli three times in the chest at close range. Fish was not harmed, and Kuenzli did not have a weapon in his hands at the time he was killed.
County prosecutors filed murder charges against Fish, claiming that Fish went beyond the circumstances of the moment and needlessly killed an unarmed man when other options were available.
Fish’s trial began earlier this month in Flagstaff.
Wow. Now, we have no doubt that Fish was scared, and he felt threatened. Those dogs ran at him, and a homeless guy ran at him “threatening harm or death” (we wonder what was really said). But we don’t exactly see how he’s in a position to pull a gun and commit murder.
Apparently the NRA does, though. Or do they?
According to a motion filed by the prosecution April 10, Fish’s defense is being funded by the NRA, and lead prosecutor Michael Lessler would like to present that information to the jury.
“The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been helping to pay defendant’s litigation costs, and the defendant’s self-defense expert, Phoenix attorney Michael Anthony, represents gun manufacturers who benefit from NRA advocacy and has represented the NRA,” stated the motion. “The state, therefore, should be allowed to present evidence the NRA is helping to fund the defense and that Mr. Anthony is representing gun companies and the NRA to show his financial interest in this litigation, and otherwise his bias.”
Why would the NRA have a financial interest in this litigation? Oh right. License to Murder. The NRA is currently backing a law all over the country, including in Arizona, that would make what Fish did completely legal. No investigation, no trial. The homeless man’s family couldn’t even sue Fish– the NRA’s License to Murder law lets anyone fire away as long as they “feel threatened.” And we have Fish’s word here (the only other witnesses, as far as we know, were the dogs) that he felt threatened. If the NRA’s law had alreay passed in Arizona, they wouldn’t have to fund Fish’s defense. That must be their “financial interest.”
In addition, stated the prosecution’s motion, Anthony appeared before the Arizona Legislature with one of Fish’s attorney’s, A. Melvin McDonald, in an attempt to change the state’s self-defense laws.
With McDonald and Anthony was the NRA’s state legislative liaison, the motion stated.
That law, which makes it easier for defendants to claim self defense by putting the burden to disprove self defense on the prosecution, has been changed and is now in effect. Whether the new law will affect the Fish case is scheduled to be argued in front of Moran next week.
“The NRA has a strong financial interest in the outcome of this trial,” stated the prosecution’s motion. “If the defendant is successful, surely this will be touted by the NRA as its success as well.”
There you have it. The NRA really hopes Fish comes through this OK, because it will lay the groundwork for passing their License to Murder law. And of course the defense doesn’t want that kind of info in the case. Why? Because it hurts even someone charged with murder to be associated with the NRA.
The defense’s response to the prosecution’s motion stated the motion should be denied because it is full of “speculation, innuendo and factual inaccuracies.” And the presentation of that information to a jury will not only confuse the jurors, but it will unfairly prejudice Fish.”
According to the defense response filed April 13, “This case is not about statements made by the National Rifle Association (NRA) on its Web site and is not about the hypothetical financial impact that a defense verdict will have on the NRA or firearms manufacturers.
But here’s the real kicker about this case: What if Fish had used a knife to kill the homeless man instead of a gun? Would the NRA still be involved, or does their “defense” arm only get involved in gun cases? The License to Murder law clearly protects anyone who acts in “self defense,” not just those who use guns. That’s one reason why it’s so dangerous– it’s a clear change in the way we as a society view the idea of “self-defense,” not just the way we view gun policy. License to Murder opens up the door for all kinds of murders, not just gun violence.
And there’s one more question around this case: does the NRA really want Fish to get off? After all, they claim they want License to Murder to pass so people will feel free to “shoot first” and ask questions never, but Fish has done this even before the law was passed. Wouldn’t the conviction of Fish, by the NRA’s twisted thinking, mean that people who only “feel threatened” (remember, the homeless man was unarmed) do need legislation that gives them the right to open fire? Are they funding his defense because they want him to lose?
At any rate, two things are clear: Fish is an alleged murderer, and License to Murder would let him get off scot free. The man “attacking” him wasn’t armed– all Fish had to do was run away, and no one would have gotten hurt. The NRA is bringing their big bucks to the trial for some reason. We’re guessing we’ll hear a lot more about this case, and we’ll let you know when we do.
