Strange things happen in the woods when armed people are about
Two cases prove this, one in Wisconsin, one in Arizona. They also both show that arguing you shot someone in self-defense when there were no witnesses around doesn't work.
I noticed when I google each of the names, the Arizona shooter, Harold Fish comes up in a number of pro-gun web sites which decry his conviction. Not the case for James Nichols, the Wisconsin hunter who shot a member of the Hmong (highland people from Southeast-Asia) community. Probably because of this:
Nichols also told authorities Hmong people are bad, mean and "kill everything and that they go for anything that moves."
That and his victim had a shotgun wound and five stabbing wounds. That's some suspicious self-defense.... hard to think of a scenario where you have to defend yourself further after either a) blasting someone with a shotgun or b) stabbing someone five times.
The crime was a few years after a Hmong hunter went berserk and shot six white hunters in a nearby area.
The facts in the Fish case are a little more difficult to interpret: no clear motive, no criminal record, etc. But on the other hand, Fish did shoot his victim with hollow point bullets which expand in a person's body to look like this, and are particularly lethal to human beings. They are commonly used in hunting, but Fish had a handgun. Later jurors who were interviewed said they were particularly bothered by his use of that ammo, though to me, since it's legal to use, that shouldn't really factor in the case. The problem I have is why the ammo is legal in the first place for handguns.
I also wonder why Fish had the handgun when he was reportedly just out for a hike... seems like nothing but trouble to be packing heat in that situation.
While some self defense pleas may be suspicious, like stabbing someone numerous times after they have been stopped by a bullet or two. Other cases should be delt with carefully. Remember that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't think that evidence against Fish shows that he was PROVEN guilty. It was mostly conjecture and emotional reaction not fact. Regarding the hollow point bullet statement "They are commonly used in hunting..." the hollow point bullet is meant to expand quickly. This is typical of any self defense ammunition. While some hunters use hollow points the majority of hunters use soft nosed bullets that expand in a more consistant manner than hollow points do. A hunter going after a big game animal is usually trying to preserve as much of the meat as possible and hollow points work against that concept. Hollow point ammunition is for self defense and many hand guns are for self defense therefore hollow points and hand guns go together to make a good combination for self defense. Nothing unusual there, if someone is attacking you and you want to preserve your life you use the means necessary to do that. Hollow point ammunition is one of those means that is extremely useful.