Or search Harold Fish...the defendant locked up for 3 years for shooting a perp with a 10mm
Harold Fish was wrongly convicted. The caliber of the weapon was made an issue because the prosecution knew it would scare the jury, just like it scared you.
If Mr. Fish was carrying a 380, would Grant Kuenzli stated in the article you posted, "living out of the forest," be just as dead? Yes.
The cities are notorious for being looney progressive. Fish was in a kangaroo court and his wrongful conviction proves that, under no circumstances should you ever talk to the police without an attorney present after a self-defense action. Not ever. The police took a person's natural reaction to such an event and spun it into something it wasn't because they wanted a conviction. "Oh can't seem to recall?" - Lying, or incomplete truth. Misremembering? - making stuff up.
Let's look at the basic facts:
Grant Kuenzli was 43.
The testimonies about Grant "being a great person," and "dindu nuffin," are complete bull pucky.
Harold Fish was 57.
Both were out in the middle of nowhere.
Ex-retard had two dogs in his custody which were unleashed.
The dogs charged Fish.
Fish discharged a round to scare the dogs from attacking.
Ex-retard then got up, and CHARGED THE FISH WHO JUST DISPLAYED THAT HE HAD A WEAPON.
I will say that again, HE CHARGED THE FISH WHO JUST DISPLAYED THAT HE HAD A WEAPON.
(Play stupid games, win stupid prizes)
Couldn't get a hold of EMS for an hour, which was painted as "he waited unnecessarily causing ex-retard's death." There was no cell service.
Mr Fish was wrongly convicted of a crime.
The state basically tried him and put him on the stand to prove he acted in self-defense. This is no longer the metric. One cannot prove to anyone the exact amount of fear you feel at the moment in a self-defense situation. The claims of "he was unarmed," should have been ignored.
Fish appealed, won his appeal, and the state has refused to retry the case.
This is another example where the state over-reached and wanted to convict someone of a good defensive action to scare people into NOT using their firearms in a self-defense situation. Arizona is not a "duty to retreat" state, which the very notion is retarded. But the jury, which will always have a couple of delusional armchair quarterbacks, will surmise that since the attacker who was 15 years younger than the victim, and wasn't armed with a firearm, didn't present enough of a threat.
Complete rubbish.