Pine Canyon Tragedy

[montezumawell]

We suspect that many readers are familiar with what we're calling "The Pine Canyon Tragedy."

In short: In May 2004, a hiker is allegedly beset by two dogs. He allegedly shoots toward them. The dogs' owner allegedly charges the hiker, allegedly yelling one or more death threats. The hiker allegedly shoots the individual. The individual dies. A Coconino County Grand Jury indicts the hiker. Various legal proceedings transpire since then.

Today's Arizona Republic (March 25) carries the latest news in this case. Sicne it is likely that this case will continue in the "public eye," so to speak, we figured we'd bring the topic back up to front and center here on HAZ.

Here is the link to the latest story:

(dead link removed)

You can also get some more of the background by Googling various permutations of "Pine Canyon trail shooting" etc.

It is, indeed, interesting that the Judge noted the discrepancy on the speed of the deceased. One report we read supposedly indicated he was doing 8 miles per hours. Hum...that's about the median speed of most people who regularly run in 10K races. That's pretty danged fast. We've also read that the deceased supposedly had the "uphill" advantage on the shooter--in other words, he was allegedly running downhill, supposedly yelling his alleged threats or whatever.

If you've hiked that trail, you know the steep part is somewhat "Grand Canyonesque" in its switchbacks through the sandstone. Even though news reports are vague as to the exact location of the shooting, we deduce it had to be the switchbacks because they are in Coconino County. Anything South of there would be in Gila County as the county line pretty much sits on the edge of the Rim.

Well, we'd anticipate that several of you HAZ "regulars" will have some opinions to express. Therefore a note of "decorum" and legalities is in order. We suggest you use the words "supposedly" and/or "allegedly" or some other conditional synonym when refering to any supposedly guilt or action in this case. It is MUCH to wide open of a case to risk getting you or Joe sued over some statement that might wind up in discussion here.

Yes, it is a most compelling case to follow--just be careful "HOW" you say what you say about it and your opinions. Okie, dokie?

J&S

[mttgilbert]

Opinions aside, the case was dismissed.

I don't know what all the circumstances were, probably no one ever will. But I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt if the case was thrown out of court that even if he wasn't right in shooting the other man, at the very least he wasn't in the wrong. Sometimes terrible things happen, we can only hope that when they do our trained police and legal staff handle it as best as possible.

[big_load]

In response to montezumawell's reply:

It sounds like a tragic series of bad decisions by everyone involved. Lacking a reliable independent account of the situation, I couldn't say whether there was criminal wrongdoing.

It does provoke a few thoughts on issues that have been discussed here before, but since Montezumawell opened the can of worms, here's my two cents. Few things (not even bears) scare me more than loose dogs on the trail, especially when they're out of visual contact with their human. Some of them are uninterested in strangers, some are friendly, some engage in harmless threatening displays, but some are actively aggressive. Not all hikers can accurately assess the threat posed by all loose dogs. Furthermore, I've observed that nearly all owners think their dogs are harmless. Most of them are right. But some don't realize that their dogs behave differently when alone with strangers, and others are in denial. I've never been badly bitten, but I have been nipped quite a few times- twice by a little ankle-biter illegally allowed to run loose in town whose owner (who burst out of her house when she heard me yelling) accused me of harrassing her precious dog!

So that brings me to guns. The hiker makes a possibly flawed assessment of his risk, and the dog owner makes a possibly flawed judgment of the hiker's response to the dogs. There is some possibility of a bad outcome, but the likelihood and severity increase when guns are involved, even more so once shots have been fired. What did the hiker do before the first shot? Hopefully using a gun was not his initial defensive action. Why would the other guy do anything that could possibly be interpreted as threatening toward someone who had already drawn and fired a gun? They would both have been better off if this confrontation involved older technology. I know there are some decent folks on this forum who carry guns on the trail, and responsible gun owners are unlikely to get into such situations, but the less responsible people are out there. Unarmed, I'm more likely to back down from a threat, more likely to survive, and more likely to avoid legal costs. Of course, a sufficiently bad person could kill me, but the odds of that seem pretty low.

[fairweather8588]

Well the dogs should have been on a leash, and if they are the type to attack fellow hikers on a trail then they shouldn't have been there in the first place. The man didn't deserve to die however, the shooter should face at least some sort of penalty.

[mttgilbert]

The initial chain of "bad events" was set off by the man who should have a) leashed his dogs, and b) not have tried to run down a man who was not only weilding a gun but also firing warning shots. I don't necessarily agree with what the shooter did. Either way I do have to admit that if he hadn't had that gun there's the distinct possiblilty that the situation could have come out with one man being seriously mauled or both could have walked away. One way or the other I don't think the shooter should be punished (and apparently the courts agreed) on the basis of the other man's initial poor decision.

[big_load]

In response to matt gilbert's reply:

I pretty much agree. What worries me is that I might have done the same thing, and whether its punishable or not, I'd rather not have it on my conscience.

[montezumawell]

A "win-win situation" is one of Modern Civilization's great cliches. It's so overused as to be virtually worthless.

However, NO one talks about a "lose-lose situation." Well, folks, they DO exist and this scenario is a textbook classic of such a "lose-lose situation."

One man pays the ultimate price. He's dead. Another man is "financially wiped out" according to today's news article. Not to mention his conscience. What's the cost of those memories? How long will those "mental mortgage payments" last? And what about the shooter's family and friends? What did they "win" in thhis case?

And what about the so-called "legions" of friends of the deceased? We stopped briefly in Payson today and read a verion of this story in the Payson Roundup newspaper.

Our memory says the Coconino County Attorney said this case had generated more emails, phone calls and contacts than any other. Hum? What are those people feeling? Did they "win" anything?

So, one guy is dead. Another guy who retired thinking he was going to have a blissful retirement is now "wiped out." And THAT'S IF he doesn't get re-indicted and have to bear the cost of a actual jury trail.

Careful observers of "The Arizona Scene" know that the shooter's attorney is one of the most, if not THE MOST, pricey defense attorney in the Southwest United States.

So, who wins? Who loses?

You know, this is a classic textbook case of LOSE-LOSE. Sometimes people don't "win-win," they LOSE-LOSE. That's life. That's fact.

j

[joebartels]

I get the distinct feeling the alleged shooter would be more likely to be punished if he shot the guy in the foot or knees and the victim lived...

On the Pine Mountain Trail, (not this Pine Canyon Trail) I feared eight roaming dogs out with some guys on horses. From my hike summary

A couple horsemen passed and wouldn't ya know it! Approximately eight fine looking dogs followed. Guess I spooked one named Cheryl as she wasn't happy to see me. I took a WIDE route around ol' Cheryl!

One of the guys on a horse said Cheryl was probably spooked by my sticks (that'd be my trekking poles). ol' cherly was a growlin' and a hissin' showin' me her purty fangs.

I know for a fact from still feeling the cold sweat that if TWO cheryls were headed towards me I wouldn't screw around flipping coins or taking polls... I'd definitely do whatever it takes to save my life from them dogs.

Although I haven't and pray I'm never in the situation I think it's different with a human coming at you. I hold human life more important than a dogs life and I wouldn't be aiming for the chest... well unless you are so close and you know it's your only shot. Aiming for running feet may be the right thing to do but if we're talking it's coming at you and it's only ten feet away and perhaps it's telling you it's going to kill you... then I'd shoot to kill.

Heck, even if it didn't happen that way, it sure would be a fail-safe story.
Get real. Shuffle, deal & go FISH!

[sundog]

I have to say that in my opinion the alleged shooter is guilty. Having recently completed a concealed carry firearm training course, we were endlessly reminded that there are no "warning shots." If you draw your weapon, it is to fire on your assailant. If you do not intend to immediately defend yourself, you do not draw your weapon. Additionally, you cannot fire at another person unless that person exhibits an immediate threat of deadly force, which the owner of the dogs did not. Though he allegedly threatened the hiker, he as far as I can tell displayed no ability of deadly force. The dogs were not immediately under his control and do no constitute deadly force on the part of the owner, though I think the hiker would have been justified in shooting a dog. I am not saying whether or not I think the alleged shooter was wrong, just my opinion of what I know about the laws in AZ.Carrying a weapon is a tremendous responsibility. 9 times out of 10, any confrontation involving a firearm is a lose lose situation.

[montezumawell]

The end of the last chapter saw a Judge throw a Grand Jury indictment.
Now, today's Arizona Republic brings us the first few paragraphs of the next chapter in this tragic fiasco.

It is buried back on Page B7 of the April Fool's issue and, no, it's not a joke. I doubt that a story buried this far in the paper would have its own web linnk so I haven't looked. Someone with a high speed connection might want to look for a link. (We're strictly 28.8 geezers here!)

Anyway, I will transcribe/condense/paraphrase some of Reporter Mark Shaffer's story.

Flagstaff--A second-degree murder complaint has been refiled against retired Tolleson teacher Harold Fish in the shootinng....the Coconino County Attorney's Office announced Thursday.

This time, prosecutors are changing their tactics, a chief deputy said.

The case will e made to Superior Court Judge Dan Slayton in a seldon-used preliminary hearing which is expected to be held May 11. Fish's initial appearance is scheduled for 8 a.m. April 11.

"We filed the same count and feel confident that the case will move forward," the deputy attorney said.

Melvin McDonald figures the hearing will last 3-4 days, noting We will do our best to get this case tossed out."

The remainder of the two-column story recaps a synopsis of the case history.

So...the legal spend-o-meter continues to spin for the defendant and we will doubtless continue to see additional sections of this chapter appear in subsequent editions of the AzRep.

j

[mcontreras]

(dead link removed)

This was the only link I could find.

[EC_hiker]

I have to say that in my opinion the alleged shooter is guilty. Having recently completed a concealed carry firearm training course, we were endlessly reminded that there are no "warning shots." If you draw your weapon, it is to fire on your assailant. If you do not intend to immediately defend yourself, you do not draw your weapon. Additionally, you cannot fire at another person unless that person exhibits an immediate threat of deadly force, which the owner of the dogs did not. Though he allegedly threatened the hiker, he as far as I can tell displayed no ability of deadly force. The dogs were not immediately under his control and do no constitute deadly force on the part of the owner, though I think the hiker would have been justified in shooting a dog. I am not saying whether or not I think the alleged shooter was wrong, just my opinion of what I know about the laws in AZ.Carrying a weapon is a tremendous responsibility. 9 times out of 10, any confrontation involving a firearm is a lose lose situation.

I disagree with you on that one, sundog.

I too hold an Arizona CCW permit. A person is well within their legal right to use deadly force when a serious disparity of force is present, such as a wheelchair-bound person versus a physically capable person with intent, a single person versus a group of people with intent, OR a single person versus an enraged man and three vicious dogs.



I have a somewhat unique viewpoint on all of this, though. I knew the deceased, Grant Kuenzli. I worked with him for a year and half. I don't know much about Harold Fish, but I can tell you about Grant Kuenzli. Grant Kuenzli was a strong guy; he was in top physical condition for someone in his age group. He had a great deal of strength. Grant was a former firefighter; a profession that is not generally known for slackers. In addition he was an avid outdoorsman which only furthered his physical fitness. If I was Harold Fish I wouldn't have faced an engraged Grant in single combat either (which is a misnomer, since there were still some very pissed off dogs to worry about).

I'm not sure where all these 'friends' of Grant are coming from. If you ask me they're not really his friends, but rather they are his 'marks'. When I worked with Grant he was something of a loner. No one at work wanted to associate with him due to his abrasive personality and unusual behavior. He made many of his coworkers downright uneasy, and many refused to work alone with him. Grant's work history was unstable due to his interactions and attitudes towards others.

I have absolutely no problems believing that Grant assaulted another person in such a manner that the other person feared for their life. The idea that the Friends of Grant Kuenzli Club, the local media, prosecutor, and others here and there are trying to make Grant out to be some kind of misunderstood hermit with a heart of gold is outright laughable to me.

When I first read about the incident, my first thought when I found out that Grant was killed was "that's not surprising." I guess Harold Fish found out that 10mm does the job. Too bad he's ruined financially for it though.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I sure as hell wouldn't charge down a hill towards a man wielding a semi-automatic pistol and the sand to use it.

[montezumawell]

We've been gone for six plus months. We'd really lilke to know what the final outcome in this case was. Anyone know? Any links?

Some interesting opinions posted in the interim. Food for thought.

Hopefully, some astute person on HAZ can provide the answer we want: guilty or not guilty?

Cheers, J&S

[big_load]

In response to montezumawell's reply:

I don't know, but I've been wondering why you were so quiet. Welcome back!

[hikeaz]

In response to big_load's reply:

2006 Jury Trial in Arizona Shooting Case May 14 2005, 10:56 PM

"The Arizona Daily Sun reports Harold Fish has been charged again for the second-degree murder of unarmed Grant Kuenzli following a dog confrontration on a trail near Payson, Arizona

Fish waived his right to a preliminary hearing and a jury trial is to take place in 2006. (I believe that it is actually scheduled to start on 2/28/2006)

A public outcry arose after the initial prosecutor in the case said he was not going to file charges. Fish was indicted by a Grand Jury. However a court though(sic) out the indictment saying not enough evidence was presented. The cited additional evidence concerned the history of the aggressiveness of the two dogs (a lab and a chow) that met Fish on the trail; and that testimony concerning the speed of Kuenzli when he approached Fish."

Kuenzli was shot three times.

More info and links:
(dead link removed)

[Dschur]

They have had some coverage in the Payson paper see
(dead link removed)

[Nighthiker]

My take, an overzealous prosecutor. All the reason to carry a throw down.
Montezuma Well, Welcome Back !

[montezumawell]

Gee, thanks for the kind words of welcome--they are MOST appreciated. Thank YOU! Thanks also for posting additional info and a link to learn "the latest." The poor hiker guy has to be "beyond bankrupt" by now. All of that high dollar attorney stuff ain't cheap. And it just goes on and on and on....ad infinatum. Somehow, our naive brain thought it would have been settled by now. Nope. This 'tis truly an amazing saga.

Well, thanks again! We wish you all many Happy Trails--

always and ALL WAYS!

J&S

[Davis2001r6]

The poor hiker guy has to be "beyond bankrupt" by now. J&S

I wouldn't consider that guy a "poor hiker guy", he shot and killed a guy, in what is still arguably sell defense.

[montezumawell]

Thanks for making this point. A little while after posting the note, we thought....hum...someone's going to take issue with the phrase "poor hiker guy." At first we thought of going back into the message to correct its context. But then, we thought, "let's see if someone actually DOES take issue." SO, thanks for taking up the challenge.

Anyway, it is a point very well taken. We apologize for expressing ourselves poorly, so to speak.

We were using the word "poor" in the literal sense as in "lacking money, assets, etc." and otherwise embodying the true sense of being "poor."

So, a "poor" hiker guy would be practically penniless, short of cash, etc.

Not "poor," as in "oh, woe is me" or the "alas, poor Yorick" kind of line.
People can be rather rich but still be poor in that context. We were intending it to mean--yea, verily, this hiker guy is POOR! He's spent all of his money to enrichen attorneys, etc.

With that said, we'd repeat our contention--that this particular poor hiker guy is almost certainly "beyond bankrupt."

Truly a lose-lose situation. Hope this helps. If it doesn't, PM us.

J&S