View Full Version : San Francisco judge gives a ruling that we might use to our advantage!

02-15-2009, 12:54 AM
I searched, and so far no one posted this yet. If so, nuke it.

Unfortunately, it is bad news, but we can make the best of it.

A San Francisco judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the state for a near-fatal stabbing by a parolee who was mistakenly released from San Quentin State Prison without supervision, a ruling that left the victim's mother frustrated and bewildered...

More here:
Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/14/BAPU15UF6V.DTL&tsp=1)

Basically, San Quentin released one Scott Thomas , who they knew to be dangerous, by accident. Remember his name. He should be our new poster child for promoting CCW. Does anyone else here think this could be the case for our PR battle?

We need CCW because the State of California will knowingly release child stabbing monsters like Scott Thomas, and then disclaim ALL responsibility for it. Check out the comments at the end of the article. I have never seen a pro 2A comment get so much positive feedback. Get on there and give feedback or post!



02-15-2009, 1:04 AM
Wow, just sickens my stomach. But of course this isn't an acceptable reason for us to have a CCW. If you're life is in danger....well just call 911 what a load of s@*t.

Dr Rockso
02-15-2009, 1:08 AM
Unfortunately I don't think the poster child concept works well for CCW unless it's the victim that gets the ball rolling (such as Suzanna Hupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp)).

02-15-2009, 1:13 AM
Unfortunately I don't think the poster child concept works well for CCW unless it's the victim that gets the ball rolling (such as Suzanna Hupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp)).

I dunno... Maybe the Willie Horton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton) treatment will work?

Aside from that, I wonder if the victim would like a gun? Maybe, maybe not, but it would be interesting to know.



02-15-2009, 1:49 AM
I think the Warren vs District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)'s decision is a much stronger case for CCW.

02-15-2009, 4:43 AM
I often use Warren when trying to convince people of the importance of the RKBA...most of the time they are too shocked and incredulous to understand what it means. Good poster boy, but strength in numbers.

02-15-2009, 4:49 AM
How stupid can they be to make a mistake like that? Really, that's Barney Fife losing the prisoner

Kid Stanislaus
02-15-2009, 10:31 AM
The state does not have to protect us and we are denied the means to protect ourselves. Quite a system we have here.

02-15-2009, 11:05 AM

02-15-2009, 11:14 AM
The state does not have to protect us and we are denied the means to protect ourselves. Quite a system we have here.

It could be worst. At least we can still defend our homes and UOC in public.

02-15-2009, 11:18 AM


02-15-2009, 11:58 AM
Unfortunately I don't think the poster child concept works well for CCW unless it's the victim that gets the ball rolling (such as Suzanna Hupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp)).

We are more likely to win the battle for shall issue CCW with someone like Marion P. Hammer, the woman who spearheaded shall-issue CCW (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/hammer.html) in Florida.

Women are the perfect leaders in this cause for the simple reason that they need shall-issue CCW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue) more than anyone, generally speaking--on the whole they are smaller and weaker than men.

So their "good cause" argument is virtually ironclad.

But issuing only to women would set the stage for discrimination, so shall-issue CCW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue) for all is the only logical legal alternative.

We need to find females who will lead the campaign.

I don't think we'll get shall-issue CCW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue) here in CA any other way.

02-15-2009, 12:05 PM
bad idea.

02-15-2009, 12:06 PM
I don't think we'll get shall-issue CCW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue) here in CA any other way.

Unfortunately even a strong female lead will never (for the foreseeable future) get shall-issue in CA. It will take Judicial intervention as the legislature we have now will not go shall-issue.

02-15-2009, 12:16 PM
Well, my question is if we support her to the point where she supports CCW (No one said what she believes on this issue), wait 2 weeks for Nordyke, then what happens?

02-15-2009, 1:00 PM
Unfortunately even a strong female lead will never (for the foreseeable future) get shall-issue in CA. It will take Judicial intervention as the legislature we have now will not go shall-issue.

Here is the point.

The job of getting shall issue CCW in CA could only be helped if we had a woman like Marion Hammer leading the charge.

Would other battle fronts be useful--such as pressure from the judicial direction?


Of course.

Who would argue against having more help and more than one angle of attack?

But something that people rarely talk about is this: What kind of CCW regulations would result from a mere judicial ruling?

We will continue to be at the mercy of the rule makers unless and until we craft the exact sort of laws we want and then push to get them enacted.

If CA did get shall issue by judicial fiat, all of the most relevant details would still still need to be hammered out: carry in restaurants (with or without alcohol present?), churches, around/near schools, colleges, etc.?

Then there is the issue of burden of proof.

Arizona is shall issue, but until very recently the burden of proof was on the victim of the violent crime to prove that a lethal shooting was the only option. (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5034336&nav=menu216_2)

Now there is an retired school teacher sitting in prison for defending himself with deadly force.

We need to enact several laws simultaneously.

Winning in court is NOT the best way to win.

We need to change the rules of evidence along with the CCW regulations, otherwise innocent lives will be ruined.

The teacher, Harold Fish is still in prison and has not won his appeal. (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5034336&nav=menu216_2)

We do not want a shall issue CCW coupled with duty to retreat, do we?

I don't think you want that happening here.

We should be conferring with AZ Second Amendment attorneys to find out how to write the laws we want here.

Winning by judicial fiat is not some kind of easy, quick, clean best case scenario.

If we win that way, it is a passive win--and all the details of right to carry will be dictated by the very people we don't want writing them!

Hal Fish's statement at the sentencing hearing:

THE COURT: Mr. Fish, did you want to make any statements to the Court at this time?


THE COURT: Okay. Please do so.


THE COURT: And if you could just bend that microphone or move over, that would be great.

THE DEFENDANT: Maybe I can trade places with Mr. Griffen.

MR. GRIFFEN: Just move closer.

THE DEFENDANT: Please forgive me. I'm not -- I'm not in my best emotional state. . . .

And I hope I don't say any thing that will offend you or anybody here. . . .

I did not go out there to kill Mr. Kuenzli or to kill anyone. I am not -- regardless of the verdict -- I am not a murderer. I do not kill people. . . .

I know that the jury found me guilty. I know that you're going to send me to jail for a period of time -- to prison. And I know that.

But regardless, I feel that I am an innocent man who stands before you today. I do not think the trial was fair. And it may have been by the rules that you understand, it was not by mine.

Information was not given to the jury. I don't see how that can be. In my world they should have been told everything and been allowed to make their own decisions.

But I understand I'm not the judge. I understand that we have the opportunity to appeal. I understand that you will have to do your duty. I understand that. . . .

Others have told me the same thing over and over again. It's almost embarrassing. Deputies come up to me all the time. Since I've been in jail several detention officers have come up to me. They told me basically the same thing.

People write to me. And they say, in your situation we would have done the same thing. And people are appalled at how I can stand here convicted of second degree murder for something that everyone in their heart feels was justifiable and defensible. . . .

I did not kill that man on purpose. . . .

I could not tell whether I had hit him on the first shot or the second shot or the third shot. When the last shot fired -- was fired, his gait changed and he slumped, he slid down. That was the only time that I knew that any of the shots that hit him. But I couldn't have told you where. I couldn't have told you which. I couldn't have told you in what -- what order; whether there was one that hit and two that missed or any combination thereof.

There was no physical reaction until that last shot was fired. I never took one step towards Mr. Kuenzli. . . . I knew I could not retreat any further.

I had Mr. Kuenzli bearing down on me and contrary to any false reports in the newspapers or other places, he never, never stopped or slowed his progress. He increased and accelerated his pace towards me.

He was yelling at me. He said words that led me to know that that man intended to either kill or harm me. Absolutely. Fists swinging. I couldn't tell if he was going to punch me or if he had something in those closed hands -- a knife, a small pistol. I couldn't see. I couldn't tell when the arms were moving fast. He wouldn't stop.

I -- I was yelling . He was yelling. It was pandemonium. Dogs on either side of me. I couldn't get away. There was absolutely no place that I could go I had a firearm in my hand. He knew that. He had heard the shot. He must have seen it. It's not a small handgun. You've seen it in court. It's a bright colored handgun. He had to have known it was there.

And yet, he continued to come at me, fast and threatening. I stood there perplexed. Waited far too long. Several police officers asked me as they came out to investigate, they said , "Why did you wait so long to shoot him? We would have shot him up here. Why did you wait?"

And I told them the same answer I'll tell you today. Because to be honest with you the thought didn't cross my mind that I would have to shoot. I didn't want to shoot. I couldn't believe that he would not stop. And yet, he did not.

And at the last minute when he was just out of arms reach, a short distance in my perception, a feeling hit me right here, right here, right here that if I did not shoot, if I did not, I would die.

And it is my conviction today that that man would have run me down. How he would have killed me, I don't know. I did not know that he had a screwdriver in his pocket. I assumed he was going to get my gun or he would use a rock or he had something in his hands that I couldn't see.

. . . Now, it's hard for people to understand that, because you haven't been there; you haven't had to take a life. I did. But you haven't, I don't believe. But I know that feeling. I had never, never felt that feeling before in my life and never care to feel it again. It's an awful feeling.

And I moved faster than I've ever moved in my life driven by the circumstance and by the instinct to survive. And, yeah, I shot three times. Because it took three shots to stop him. It's just that simple. If he had closed with me and had put those hands on me, my life would have ended. . . .

And did I know that he would die? No. I couldn't even tell where I shot. My experience, my training was that most people who are shot live and recover. In the movies it looks awful. In real life with paramedics and medical help with the resources that we have today most people who are gunshot are -- are saved.

I didn't know that one shot had gone through his heart. I didn't know that one had gone through his lung. I had no idea that one had hit his hand. The hands were moving. I was not aiming at the hands. I didn't know until I went over to help him out and looked at that hand and I thought, Oh, gosh. It was awful. . . .

In my foolishness, I thought if I got on the cell phone, I would be able to reach Payson or Pine Dell and they would respond with a helicopter and get people there soon. I couldn't get a call out. Nobody did.

And then when they responded, they didn't send a helicopter; they sent an ambulance. . . .

Did I think he was still alive at that point? No, I did not. . . .
Could I have left? Could I have just turned my back in a callous fashion or just gone away? Of course I could have. I knew no one had seen me. I looked around. There was no one that ran off, you know, screaming and yelling to get away from me with a gun. There was no one there. There was no one that came to help. There was no one to my best -- to the best of my knowledge anywhere around there. It was me and the dogs and Mr. Kuenzli and that was it.

Could I have walked to the road and instead of stopping Mr. Dieringer just walked along the road until I got up to my van? Yes, I could have.

. . . Maybe in the foolishness of my heart, I thought that the truth would be a defense. I knew it was my word against a dead man's. But I believed that forensic science and detective police work would bear me out.

. . . I simply felt that I needed to tell the truth. . . .

The County Attorney's office, bowing I think to political pressure, went in another direction. But those detectives have never changed their opinion. If you asked them today whether it was self-defense or not, they would say it was self-defense. If you ask a number of people -- was it a self-defense situation or not, and what would you have done, that's what they would tell you. That's what they have told me. . . . (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/hfstatementpostsentence.htm) (<--Read the whole statement by clicking here.)