Alcohol, Adrenaline, a Knife
(“Pinned by the Evidence,” Forensic Files)
The last two posts told of murders that were horrible, but made some sense just the same. Howard Elkins killed his pregnant girlfriend because she threatened his marriage and social standing.
Sharee Miller enticed her boyfriend to shoot her husband because she wanted all his assets.
XY doings. For Dustin “Dusty” Harless, on the other hand, there were no high stakes. He overreacted to a comment. The ensuing fight caused the end of his own life and the incarceration of another man for years.
Harless’ actions on April 18, 1996 were senseless, but that’s part of what makes them interesting.
The crime and its immediate aftermath demonstrate how an unwritten code on fair parameters for a man-on-man fight — no matter how unwarranted — can spill over into legal judgment.
Rain of terror. Here’s a recap of the Forensic Files episode about the case, “Pinned by the Evidence,” along with some extra information from internet research:
A couple consisting of Sky Flanders and surfboard salesman boyfriend Dusty Harless, age 25, exited a San Diego bar on a rainy night in 1996. She ran ahead of him to get under an awning.
Motorist David Genzler, also 25, spotted her and offered a ride. Although the episode never gives a definitive account of his verbiage, it probably fell somewhere between “Ma’am, do you need a ride?” and “Climb in, baby.”
She declined, citing the existence of a boyfriend.
Appalled to learn that a man had spoken to his girlfriend while she was standing alone, the legally intoxicated Harless walked to the passenger side of Genzler’s car to confront him.
The pin man. Twelve minutes later, Harless lay bleeding from a 4-inch knife wound to his aorta. Genzler fled the scene. So did another motorist, Scott Davis, a Naval officer and bouncer who knew and apparently liked Harless enough to get out of his car to help him grapple with Genzler.
The part I forgot to mention is that Harless was a former AAU national wrestling champion who had a huge advantage over the eyeglass-wearing Genzler.
A chess club match was probably the closest the slender San Diego State University finance student ever got to beating anybody.
But Genzler was carrying a knife and he stabbed Harless during their struggle. Flanders made note of his license plate number, and police traced it to Genzler’s mother. He then turned himself in.
Blood evidence. Genzler said that Harless dragged him out of his car and pinned him so that he was facing the ground. Genzler defended himself, he said, by grabbing the knife from his pocket, reaching backward, and blindly trying to hit Harless in the shoulder.
But investigators found Harless’ blood on the front of Genzler’s shirt. That, according to the prosecution, proved the two were face to face when the knife pierced Harless’ body — and that Genzler intended to deliver a fatal wound.
Whichever the real scenario, it still sounds as though Genzler did nothing illegal. I don’t believe he willingly exited his car to confront a riled-up boyfriend in the first place.
Genzler had nothing at stake; the woman at the center of the conflict had already rebuffed him. And no one, except Sky Flanders, had heard the exchange between her and Genzler. It’s not as though she embarrassed Genzler in front of a group of people.
Waves of friends. And if a nationally recognized wrestler is attacking an unwilling opponent, doesn’t that give the latter the right to do anything he can to defend himself?
The jury didn’t think so, and convicted Genzler of second-degree murder. He received 20 years to life, and Forensic Files shows Flanders in cathartic joy upon hearing the verdict.
It’s possible Harless’ popularity in the community ultimately contributed to the guilty verdict. He was outgoing, belonged to a competitive surfing team, and had hundreds of friends. A number of them paddled into the Pacific Ocean to lay commemorative wreaths in his honor.
A post honoring Harless on the Parents of Murdered Children website places all the blame for his death on Genzler:
“…Dustin was on his way home with his girlfriend. Dustin was stabbed by David Genzler in cold blood. David jumped out of his car, hit Dustin in the temple and Dustin fell to the pavement. David jumped on top and stabbed Dustin with a 4″ knife, putting it in all the way to the hilt.”
A paid obituary for Harless that appeared in the Montana Standard referred to the killing as “a tragic act of a demented individual.”
Genzler served his sentence in Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, until he won a new trial on the basis of having been denied his counsel of choice at the first one. (Sources vary on how much time Genzler served; it was at least three years and possibly as many as six.)
Rhythm to it. This time, Genzler’s attorneys brought in Wrestling Hall of Fame member Ned Blass to refute the most damning forensic evidence against him: Harless’ blood on the front of Genzler’s shirt.
Blass showed a common wrestling hold that would have forced Genzler to face the pavement before he stabbed Harless. The defense team also used forensic animation to show how Genzler might have flipped over right after the stabbing.
An expert testified that, because the aorta spurts at a cadence, it’s possible Harless wasn’t bleeding in the split second before Genzler turned face up.
Also, the defense found witnesses who said Dusty made a habit out of starting physical fights with other men, including one he incited after another man allegedly made an insulting comment to his girlfriend at a bar.
Justice not done. The defense also found discrepancies between the story Flanders gave to police on the night of the accident and the one she offered on the witness stand. In her first account, she admitted that Harless had Genzler on the ground and wouldn’t let him up before the stabbing.
Flanders conceded on camera during her Forensic Files appearance that she wasn’t entirely “truthful” during the first trial because she didn’t want to help the defense lawyers. (She later claimed the prosecutor had coached her to withhold information during the first trial.)
The jury found Genzler guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The judge sentenced him to time served and set him free.
I still think Genzler was railroaded. Another unfair contention was that, because Genzler carried a knife in his pocket, he must have been looking for trouble.
Feckless fight. My brothers own and sometimes carry sporting knives, and they have never gotten into any fights (except the battles we all got into as kids, but we didn’t use weapons).
In fact, all of Genzler’s actions to end the fight seem justifiable. Evidence suggested that Harless, on the other hand, enjoyed conflict for conflict’s sake.
In the Genzler case, Harless more than likely defended honor that no one had attacked. He let adrenaline and testosterone coax him into his own demise.
That’s all for this week. For next time, I’ll dig up some research on what does and doesn’t qualify as self-defense under California law as it applies to this case. Until then, cheers. — RR
Update: Read Part 2 of the Dusty Harless story.
Testosterone poisoning. If it isn’t heart disease from all the steroids, it’s the addled, muscle-bound mind that mail orders a head stone, usually on impulse. Or jail term. People should take up knitting. It’s amazing that people still think they have the right to use violence.
You’d think with all those friends and a fiancee and surfboarding he wouldn’t feel compelled to recapture varsity glory via needless violence.
It would be interesting to know if Genzler was picked on a lot when he was younger and was carrying a knife in the first place because of the Dusty Harless types he’d encountered before. The whole situation is one sad shame after another — one person ended up in prison, and the other not only died, he lost any chance to grow up and stop being such a jerk.
With a few more years of maturity, his character arc definitely could have progressed from bully to responsible adult. I also wonder why the girlfriend didn’t try to stop the fight.
It sounds like the girlfriend started it. Sky Flanders apparently liked Dusty beating people up for her honor. Good job Sky you got Dusty killed!! Then she went and lied to get an innocent man locked up. She’s terrible!!
I wish Dave Genzler could sue Sky and the prosecutor. They knew that man was innocent, so they manipulated the facts of the case. They didn’t know Dusty or Dave, so why do that? They said Dusty was popular, so it was probably political. That prosecutor is the worst of the worst.
I suspect that, too — that she liked the drama.
She liked it, obviously it wasn’t the first time this happened when she was around….It was the last though. LoL
Absolutely.
Surfer boy got what he deserved! Not that tough anymore.
Yep. He sounds like the typical dominant alpha type who’s cool until you disagree on something. With his wrestling background, that gives him a very large advantage. He needed to get stuck, or shot. Whichever.
He is not the alpha type. To be that you need to have leadership qualities — he was just a bully!
Saw the ‘Forensic Files’ files episode tonight here in UK; am inclined to agree with RR that, even with a much lighter sentence, Genzler was hard done by. It’s hard not to stereotype Harless as a foolish jock who went, lubricated by booze, too far. But why wasn’t Genzler acquitted? Given the FF presentation, including Harless’s g/friend admitting perjury in court, had I been a juror I’d have been inclined to acquit (albeit we don’t see things from the jurors’ perspective). [However, I understand it was only on FF that she admitted the perjury…] Six years in prison was a high price to pay, and I note that Genzler sought compensation after his release, which I think he well deserved… I may also have sought prosecution of the g/friend for perjury, since in FF she couldn’t have been clearer about its commission: ‘I changed my story because I thought that what I saw would aid the defense’ [not verbatim]. Touche.
I can understand that she felt under pressure from Harless’s family and friends to present in his ‘favour’ — but other ‘friends’ felt able to say that he was a fight-starter; and in any case, seeking an unfair murder conviction to make one and one’s friends feel better is so obviously immoral as not to need stating when one knows of exculpatory evidence.
Excellent points — it’s surprising she didn’t face any legal consequences for lying. Maybe Genzler was tired of drama and court dates and wanted to move on.
Thanks, RR, for such an interesting website.
You may well be right about Genzler being jaded — but the state could have sought her prosecution, I suspect, regardless of his position. The web indicates that it got messy later for one of the lawyers, who was disbarred for a time due to alleged mishandling of exculpatory evidence, and over which Genzler was paid a settlement. It adds to the sense that he was unfairly treated.
A sad postscript is that around a decade later, his mother, in her 60s, was killed in a fatal car accident.
So glad you’re enjoying the site — thanks much for the kind words!
And so true about the Harless matter. A lot of sadness for a lot of people. It amazes me that a guy with a fiancée, a job, exciting hobbies, and a ton of friends still craved the high of picking a fight in the street.
PS That’s Harless’s mother who was killed.
Great question about the prosecutor’s “discretion” to forgive the girlfriend’s acknowledged perjury. She helped the prosecution “to win.” If she had lied and caused the prosecution “to lose,” a perjury charge would likely have been in order.
Having a pair of tits under your shirt has its advantages.
Right on Marcus, you should have been on that jury instead of those weak people who went along with an overzealous prosecution. Genzler was a nerdly bookworm and was probably tired of being intimidated and bullied, and carried that knife for self-defence. He was just very unlucky and was likely trying to get away when Harless dragged him out of the car. It was a clear case of self-defence that was upset by a hostile female witness. Moreover, the jury should have had enough sense to read between the lines …. Harless was very unlucky as a stab wound almost anywhere else would have been survivable.
Incredibly accurate and rational comments here.
Terrie, unfortunately the likelihood is that Dusty would’ve grown up to be much worse, people don’t really change too much.
We are lucky that Dusty did not start using weapons himself. And in time no doubt he would have. Genzler very likely saved someone else’s life, in the future.
Prosecutor, Judge, girlfriend should be given stiff penalties, judge made some crazy comments as well if I recall.
They essentially handed Genzler a death penalty with life in prison, people doubting him, why shouldn’t they receive the same instead of him; now that it is quite obvious that this man is victimized?
I suppose any one asking a woman out should expect to be killed or he better do some serious research as to whether she may have a boyfriend. I can understand her being so upset, how dare Genzler find her somewhat attractive?
The bouncer should be given a prison term. How does he run over there and just start kicking someone, and helping the guy who’s already winning and is already a professional wrestler; that’s incredible to me.
What kind of guy could he possibly be?
Basically everything good was punished and everything bad was praised in this case.
Quite: the Wonderland of justice.
That beef for brains jock got what was coming to him. Rest in piss you jerk.
Wow! Some very judgemental comments. You get a “for tv” view if the situation and you all think you know Dusty and feel sorry for the cry baby Genzler. The defense stacked the witnesses with Dusty haters who were jealous of his success and you all say he deserved to die. That is disgusting! If someone shoves a 4″ knife in your heart, they intended to kill. Stop being so naive.
Posters are NOT (almost all) suggesting he deserved to die: of course he didn’t. They’re merely suggesting, as the second trial found, that this was an unfortunate — deadly — combination of poor judgement and action, perhaps fueled by alcohol, and certainly affected by wrestling ability — on Harless’s part, and the other party (Genzler) happening to have a knife (but with no aggressive history — unlike Harless). The jury accepted that it was reasonable, being in a choke-hold, that a person would use any weapon to hand to cease this (a nearby rock could have been fatal if smashed into the head); that it happened to be a knife; and that the necessarily indiscriminate striking with the knife per choke-hold happened to be fatal, though wasn’t intended to be (though the fact remains that if Genzler thought his life was in danger by asphyxiation, and disabling/killing Harless were the only means of preventing it, it would have been justified.)
As you can have no evidence for jury bias, just your opinion, that is dismissed. And in the first trial it was Genzler who came out worse per the jury. You appear to suggest that if a jury doesn’t agree with you, they were biased! Your last sentence’s claim is unquestionably incorrect: THAT is bias.
This was certainly a sad case in which both parties suffered – one mortally. But Harless caused the chain of events. Perhaps the girlfriend could have intervened to get Harless off Genzler, instead of witnessing, then lying (because SHE thought Harless looked bad!); or the fool who laid-in then drove off.
He wasn’t stabbed in the heart. And his girlfriend later admitted that he was a bully who got into fights easily. Try getting all the facts before you comment next time.
Yes he was. The aorta comes from the heart and up the neck. He was stabbed in the chest, through the aorta, the part that is attached to the heart, y’all. Those are case facts and biological facts of human anatomy.
You’re living on planet delusional. The fact he did any prison time is a travesty of justice. He defended himself, and won the fight. Good for him.
Always treat any confrontation like an armed one, and never underestimate your opponent. Don’t fight unless you are in fear for your life. Defending the honor of a girlfriend is not worth going to prison or getting killed.
Great statement. As a blackbelt in karate, I learned never fight unless your life is in danger.
Exactly, Genzler presented no danger to Harless, Flanders, or Davis. Harless was the aggressor.
That’s a caution to the rational. A likely factor here was Harless’ inebriation and intoxication impairing the judgement that your caution engages with; that is, he wasn’t thinking, just acting. Genzler may have been similarly impaired but avoided assessment per fleeing – which rightly must count against him. His fleeing may have been because he was impaired rather than the ‘shock’ of the encounter…
Some very intense opinions without knowing the laws and the case still being very opinionated.
For those claiming the bouncer should have been charged as well for his supposed actions of kicking Genzler while he was already pinned, those are accusations for 1 and no proof was provided. It would need to be tried in another case, of which I am sure statute of limitations are over this situation.
2. For those stating Sky should be tried for perjury… once again statute of limitations. Once guilt was admitted or found, was the crime still chargable?
3. The judge being charged for his sentencing with the ruling determined is not on him. It’s on what he/she is provided. Found guilty of murder has a base of sentencing. He/she doesn’t go “oh guilty, dice says 9 years for you and only 6 months for the next person convicted of same crime.” This is ludicrous to assert the judge be charged for the sentence they issued.
4. People assuming Harless just started swinging… what if he approached with intent of telling the guy to smarten up and Genzler got aggressive, which riled up Harless.
5. The person saying women are always innocent in an alcohol induced fight… work in a bar for a month and tell me that again.
Before people cast stones, they should attempt to look at things from the other side. I do not believe Harless is innocent in this at all and in the end the proper judgement was reached. But the people in this discussion are looking at this from only one side. Another side is that Forensic Files has exaggerated some parts of the stories to help sell their story. This is a television show that makes money by having more viewers. It wouldn’t be the first program to add some intrigue and drama.
For those claiming the bouncer should have been charged as well for his supposed actions of kicking Genzler while he was already pinned, those are accusations for 1 and no proof was provided. It would need to be tried in another case, of which I am sure statute of limitations are over this situation.
* Sure, but the gfriend DID witness: what does she say happened? Agree little mileage in the bouncer issue.
2. For those stating Sky should be tried for perjury… once again statute of limitations. Once guilt was admitted or found, was the crime still chargeable?
* I and others meant possibly could have, not should have. Indeed, it seems only to have been much later that she ‘fessed-up that she’d lied initially.
3. The judge being charged for his sentencing with the ruling determined is not on him. It’s on what he/she is provided. Found guilty of murder has a base of sentencing. He/she doesn’t go “oh guilty, dice says 9 years for you and only 6 months for the next person convicted of same crime.” This is ludicrous to assert the judge be charged for the sentence they issued.
* Has anyone suggested that the judge’s judgment was procedurally wrong?
4. People assuming Harless just started swinging… what if he approached with intent of telling the guy to smarten up and Genzler got aggressive, which riled up Harless.
* Well, that doesn’t appear to have been the view of jurors, and we can’t second-guess their perceptions as we weren’t in court and don’t know what they were presented with for sure. We have no reason NOT to accept FF’s presentation, based on research, which is that Harless initiated physical contact. If it were Genzler — agreed: that puts a different complexion on matters. We can’t claim to judge the facts, only what’s presented to us by FF (and in RR’s and my case, some background reading, including court papers) and what the jury found (that H was the aggressor).
5. The person saying women are always innocent in an alcohol induced fight… work in a bar for a month and tell me that again.
* Agreed! Women are increasingly inclined to violence when inebriated — but that’s possibly because they’re increasingly likely to be as inebriated as men, as taboo against ‘unladylike’ behaviour recedes. Here in UK increase in arrest for drunken/violent behaviour is rising faster for women than men, and I suspect is in US.
Before people cast stones, they should attempt to look at things from the other side. I do not believe Harless is innocent in this at all and in the end the proper judgment was reached. But the people in this discussion are looking at this from only one side. Another side is that Forensic Files has exaggerated some parts of the stories to help sell their story. This is a television show that makes money by having more viewers. It wouldn’t be the first program to add some intrigue and drama.
* I think you overstate this. Fundamentally FF presents the evidence before, and to some degree the reasoning of a reasonable convicting jury, and is NOT there to re-hear the case. It takes it as given that X is guilty as charged. And why not? Of course with 30 mins much has to be precluded, including potentially exculpatory evidence (that necessarily made no difference to the outcome). We know it’s entertainment — but that doesn’t compromise its account as it’s not claiming to present every nuance. That’s enough for me…
Just one quibble….the “Forensic Files” episode mentioned that Genzler actually turned himself in when he learned he had killed someone….though I haven’t had enough coffee yet, so maybe I just missed it above.
You’re right — I changed the verbiage to reflect that he turned himself in after the police tracked the license plate to his mother. Thanks for the correction!
I just watched this episode and I’m so excited to see that others share my viewpoints. I do feel that Genzler was railroaded. One look at the lanky, nerdy dude and I was like…there’s NO WAY he started a fight. Guys don’t pick fights unless they think they can win. I hope he did become a lawyer.
Glad you agree. It sounds as though Dusty was looking for an excuse to show off his old wrestling moves.
Dusty Harless was nothing but a stupid thug and bully. Who knows whom else he would have killed or tried to kill had he lived. When people like him are killed, we can only say: “Thank God — No more victims of a stupid, macho, thug bully!”
Good riddance, you damned trouble maker!
And shame on the guy who knew Dusty and joined in on the fight, kicking Genzler while he was down on the ground, being pinned down by a wrestling champion/emotional idiot.
Thank God this hot-headed hooligan will never hurt anyone again.
Thank “God”, really? For a sensless fight, ending in a death? You know nothing about either fighter, nor their actual intention. The truth about that fight was only learned in 2015 and, only a couple siblings know the truth. It will never become public knowledge. There are too many bored people, making ignorant statements like this person… Porous – you know nothing.
Agreed: a foolish, unjustified, remark. How on earth can it be suggested Harless ‘deserved’ to die? An interesting facet of these posts is just how absurd some people’s opinions are…
I agree 100% !! This asshole got what he deserved, pulling a guy out of his car, it’s a game of Russian Roulette !
The trouble- maker thug/bully deserved to die. He met his match. THANK GOD HE CAN’T HURT ANYONE ELSE. HE WOULD BEAT OTHERS SENSELESS. HE WAS A PIG AND DESERVES DEATH FOR ALL HE DID AGAINST OTHERS. SHAME ON SKY FLANDERS – GIRLFRIEND – FOR ALLOWING AN INNOCENT MAN TO BE IN PRISON BC SHE LIED ABOUT WHAT SHE REALLY SAW.
Dusty Harless would have eventually killed or seriously injured others. He, his girlfriend and family are ghetto. You can spot people like them a mile away.
There are a lot of these bully types in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego where the bars are looking for a fight. The bouncer, a Navy guy, should have been charged by NCIS and sentenced to the brig. What happened to Scott Davis?
Never found out what happened to Scott Davis. It’s too bad people like him and his buddy didn’t have to answer for their violence earlier in life. The tragedy with Genzler could have been prevented.
The most obvious and remarkably unaddressed issue I saw, is why David Genzler didn’t simply drive away…in the 10 or 15 seconds he had to do so? Also, why was a university ‘nerd’ cruising around on a rainy night with a knife? Was he just a country-boy prepared for the occasional roadkill one so often encounters? Who was really looking for the fight…or was it that someone was actually looking for a victim? Maybe David Genzler was a Ted Bundy in-the-making. See, anyone can speculate…just like the silly Disney animation, which only proves you can feed people shit and convince them it’s steak.
Yeah, that really bothered me, too. I’ve been hit on by guys at night while I was walking down the sidewalk, just trying to get home from work. Their intent was never benign. Add to that he had a knife on him, and was willing to get out of the car to engage in an altercation with her boyfriend, and whatever little sympathy I have for Genzler completely evaporates.
Bottom line: If you don’t want to get your ass kicked, don’t go cruising for chicks in the middle of night and randomly hitting on them in the street like a serial killer. And if you don’t want to get put away for murder, don’t get out of your car to continue an altercation and use a knife in a fight where weapons are not otherwise being used.
Personally, I think Genzler is damned lucky he got as little time as he did. I’m a bit appalled at all the victim-blaming here. I mean, Genzler did commit a homicide and did contribute heavily to the events leading up to that homicide. It’s ridiculous to call that self-defense or not worthy of jail time.
You’re wrong, the asshole Harless pulled him out of his car, not the other way around.
Drugs are bad, how can you confuse being pulled out of your vehicle. With getting out with a knife ? Can’t make up things to fit your narrative! Facts are he was a bully and his girlfriend got off on him fighting for her. She probably got wet watching his wrestling matches and these situations were nostalgic to her ! Shame on her !
Paula:
Being ‘hit on’ is largely benign – unless they don’t take no for an answer. And as you can only infer their intent (what is it?), you can’t really claim it to be hostile (unless they WERE hostile… but then that’s not being ‘hit on’ but forcefully harassed, or touched).
No, according to witness testimony G did NOT get out of the car but was dragged out by H.
You go rather beyond the evidence here to fit a narrative of his notional ‘cruising for trouble’. Is there something wrong with stopping to give someone a lift in rain (you find attractive)? No. Are there multiple reasons one could be carrying a knife? Yes (inc for cutting a seatbelt in an accident or as a utility penknife). These two facts do not remotely equate to the narrative that G was a creep with nefarious intention. In the movies, maybe… And your citation of the serial killer caps the hyperbole! Now he’s a nascent serial killer!
The jury disagrees with you that G ‘contributed heavily’ to the death – but he was held to have some culpability and served time for it.
What concerns me is the ‘urban paranoia’ that regards a person engaging in entirely lawful activity (with apparently no criminal record) – driving on a rainy night, with a knife on his person, and offering someone a lift – is cast as a potential monster… Should police be stopping men in cars on rainy nights… just in case?
“The most obvious and remarkably unaddressed issue I saw, is why David Genzler didn’t simply drive away…in the 10 or 15 seconds he had to do so? ”
That would be ‘cos it’s entirely insignificant and immaterial to the case…
For the record, I think being “hit on” has such a wide spectrum of severity and interpretation. If you haven’t walked in those shoes or seen it repeatedly-(the unsolicited advances) I’m not sure you can really speak to knowing what that’s like for a female in whatever situation they happen to be in. Just because they are standing in space, minding their business shouldn’t be an automatic (insert random advance from passer by man) and it happens SO OFTEN that if the roles were reversed you would honestly be so fed up and the automatic response would be to spurn any and all unsolicited advances.
Ask your girlfriends about it. It would shock you to know how they feel.
Do you know how many women are murdered by men? Women have a REAL cause to be skeptical and leery about dudes driving up to them at night offering them a “ride.” You have no idea and that is obvious by how easily you dismiss Paula’s shared, collective fear of serial rapists and murderers. Before you dismiss me, just check the stats. You don’t even have to dig for them. It’s as easy as opening your eyes.
But apart from some men irritating some women with unwanted attention, your point is…?
Gary: While there’s some room for speculation, some of yours is irrelevant. The facts as presented are that Harless started the fight, not Genzler, and it’s of no consequence that G happened to have a knife on him (unless possession of a knife is illegal, as it is here in UK). If he’d started the fight, then used the knife, that puts a different slant on it. Do we KNOW G had some time to get away? Even if he did, that doesn’t in any degree make him responsible for the subsequent actions: Harless was the aggressor. If G had time simply to drive off and didn’t, we may wonder why – but that doesn’t have a bearing on the case, nor his culpability, and as such is irrelevant. To put it another way, did G do anything wrong? It appears not. Offering a lift to someone in the rain is hardly a crime, and while he may have been foolish not to drive off – if he had the opportunity – when Harless ‘started,’ that’s no more than merely unwise and takes nothing away from Harless’s responsibility.
You can feed STUPID people shit and convince them it’s steak – and we just have to hope juries aren’t stupid…
Fascinating website you have here! I enjoyed your interpretation and almost all the comments. Bullies, back when I was going to school, got a virtually free ride far too often no matter how many kids they verbally tormented, beat up, raped, or even, in some sick cases, killed. I’m glad to see that in recent years the tide of public opinion has turned a great deal and that people are far more aware of the damage, both physical and emotional, bullying does — definitely to the victims but really, in the long run, to the bullies as well, as they tend to find as they age that very few people want anything to do with bullies in adult life. Bullies who never change as adults may turn increasingly to alcohol and bitter, seething resentment against the rest of the world. Bullies may benefit from a mistaken “rebel” or “bad boy” mystique in school, especially if they’re accomplished jocks. But that begins to wear off after school days — thank goodness.
Hello Ray: Perhaps it’s pat psychology, but children bully to address conscious – and less conscious – deficits in their own lives. It would be an interesting longitudinal study to discern if identified childhood bullies grow into similar adults, exhibiting bullying in its varying forms, such as the narcissistic boss.
I certainly agree that the damage bullies do seems to have been rather belatedly appreciated, and schools and the police are more proactive these days – as is law addressed to the workplace bully. Some childhood bullies claim to have comprehended their bad behaviour and repented in adulthood; others, as you state, are probably rather unlovely adults.
As to Harless, it can’t meaningfully be said he was a bully from one viscious act fuelled by drink and drugs, albeit that some acquaintances described him as fight-happy. It would be too easy to judge by the superficials – surfing dude/jock/jock-popular/worked-out/wrestler – and infer a bully. He may or may not have been. All we can say is that that night he made a foolish mistake that cost him his life. It’s very sad, and I’m sure Genzler (who paid a high price for Harless’ foolishness) might say the same…
Thanks much for the kind words about the blog, Ray. Regarding bullies — same here, when I was in school, they pretty much got away with it. Kids who complained were considered at fault for not being able to handle the bullies themselves.
The first trial baffled me. 15 minutes into the FF episode, I had a good idea what happened. This Dusty Harless guy, looks straight out of an 80’s high school movie. The popular, douchebag, aggressive Bully-Jock. Surprise surprise, many people say he enjoyed starting fights. The drunk, stoned, Bully, got upset that another man talked to his gf. He ran up to the guy’s car, and pulled him out. Genzler: a skinny, introverted-looking guy. Then Bully Douche started kicking his ass in the street. Well, the skinny guy had a knife, and acted in self-defense.
When skinny dude got a life conviction, in the first trial, Harless’ gf, Sky Flanders, acted like a real happy cheerleader. “Hoorah Hoorah!” Yet she had lied about what happened, and changed her story. Those two are the types that got everything their way in HS, and acted as if nerdy guys, like Genzler were trash, to be stepped on. They grew up thinking the world owed them something. Genzler could sue the gf, Flanders, for perjury. In the end, the Bully got his, happy ending.
These ‘characters’ in this sad story are amenable to being stereotyped, sure. That temptation should be resisted. We, the viewers, have no idea of the character of Harless and Genzler, yet you comment as though you do. It is precisely this approach that jurors are warned not to engage in, but to find on the facts as presented in court only… It cannot be said that Harless was a bully (whatever a bully is defined as), nor Genzler as a nerd – concepts that are entirely unhelpful in assessing the case against Genzler.
You crack me up. It was stated more than once, in the FF episode, that Harless enjoyed starting fights. These were people that grew up around him, and knew him. Let’s see: Varsity athlete, (a wrestler actually, so a violent, physical sport), unstable dude, he starts fights a lot, because he feels slighted, or offended in some way, (which is usually nonexistent btw). He could have had ‘Little Man Syndrome/Napoleon Syndrome.’ He could have been on steroids. These are all hypotheses, but they are important to the case. Could they be proven? Of course. That is what we see so often, in Forensic Files.
Furthermore, you are stating, that even though he may be a violent, aggressive, jock, on roids, with a little d*ck (that he compensates for, by trying to alpha), that he is not capable of attacking a complete stranger? Because he felt the stranger was ‘hitting on his girl’? Haha, again, you crack me up. Re-cap, ‘Napoleon Syndrome’, compensating for a small d*ck, (like manlets who buy big trucks), aggression, steroids, etc, etc. Anyway, Harless went down, due to several factors I stated earlier. His GF was also a douchebag, like him. Happy Ending.
Joe,
1 Wrestling is not violent per se: it only becomes so with the wrong attitude. Violence is defined as intent to harm. What you mean is he had the capability to harm, which he did. Anything more begs the question.
2 No, it was not ‘proved’ that he was a bully, which in any case needs defining. He may well have been – but a couple of people claiming he enjoyed starting fights is not proof (they would need to be cross-examined to determine if they had ‘issues’ with him). This does not amount to my claiming he didn’t like starting fights.
3 No, I absolutely do not suggest he was incapable of the attack. Of course he was – he did it – and I totally accept that he was the aggressor. You didn’t read my entries…
4 In my preceding entry I’m simply cautioning against stereotyping the persons as opposed to judgement per the facts as established in court. I don’t doubt that Harless brought about his own end.
Great blog! I agree with many of the comments as well.
This really was a complex case, and in my op, with the real victim being Genzler, not Harless. I think Genzler acted in self-defense, especially after bully #2, the baby boi bouncer, joined in on the fight. Btw, it was cowardly of the bouncer to kick someone while they’re down and then drive off after his buddy was stabbed. What a wuss.
Marty: The caveat is that the bouncer MAY not have seen the whole altercation and thought or assumed Genzler was the aggressor. But in that case discretion would’ve been the better part of valour as he didn’t know So his action was wrong whatever the explanation. I’m not sure if I’m correct in thinking that he was said to be a friend of Harless – in which case his behaviour was partisan. So, yes, he made matters worse and is himself answerable for assault (which is presumably why he ran and never identified himself later, when he’s highly likely to have been aware of the death from the news/local talk.)
If a friend of Harless he may well think it was Genzler’s fault – but we know better…
Good riddance! He seemed like a douchebag and enjoyed starting fights! Do i feel pity for him and his liar of a skank ex gf? Hell no! I feel pity for the poor man who had to sit many years in jail for defending himself.
High school all over.
The bully jock picks on the ‘nerd.’
His scumbag girlfriend probably egged him on.
It should have been treated as self defence.
She is to blame for Dustin’s death, she could have prevented it but, instead, loved the cudos that goes with having the jock boyfriend.
One day she may become human enough to recognise her many flaws.
‘She is to blame for Dustin’s death, she could have prevented it…’ A gross distortion.
Yeah. After watching this episode twice, it is clear the G was acting in self defense. He is a college student driving around the Pacific Beach area of San Diego at night. That is not unusual as many college students live in that area because back then it was cheap and only like a 15-20 minute drive from where he attended school at San Diego State University. Though it is not clear where G lived at the time. What we do know is that it was raining and he sees a lone woman on the street. He asks if she needs a ride. The woman refuses. At this point there is no evidence that the G insulted or badgered her. It should have ended there.
But before G drives away, H comes to the passenger side of his car. No way G would want to confront this sudden, unexpected man who is angry and aggressive. But he is given no choice by being dragged from his car and taken to the ground. He is then assaulted by H, and possibly another man. Doesn’t matter how many there were. If just one man is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself. G had a knife on him which is perfectly legal in California. He was being violently attacked by a man much stronger and experienced at fighting than him, who had just grabbed and thrown him to the street. Of course he uses his knife to defend himself.
H dies and G turns himself in shortly afterwards. G was sober at the time of the incident and had no prior incidents of any kind. He was simply a college student driving the street at night who offered a woman a ride. H on the other hand had a history of getting in fights and was intoxicated while coming out of a bar. His girlfriend was most likely intoxicated too. She does nothing to try to stop the fight, like a responsible girlfriend would do, and is not forthcoming with the facts afterwards. She even lies about H’s history of picking fights and injuring others. Their behavior brought about this unfortunate incident, and an innocent man’s life was ruined. I have absolutely no pity for H or his girlfriend. Yes, H died, but it was his own doing. And I’m sure his girlfriend suffered because of it, but even so, she should have been punished for lying to send an innocent man to jail for 6 years.
J: ‘G was sober at the time of the incident…’ We don’t know that. It’s speculated that he drove off because he thought he was over the limit/s and would’ve been charged with drink/drug-driving (as well as the worse complexion it would place on the stabbing). While I don’t think it’s material to the incident, the prosecution would’ve made something of it. If I were prosecuting I’d argue that it emboldened him to be overly-aggressive. Indeed, it may’ve emboldened him to offer the ride…
Although it didn’t play well for him that he fled, were he intoxicated by drink/drugs it was likely wise, as it’d have played worse if he’d been determined…
‘His girlfriend was most likely intoxicated too.’ Pointless speculation: while she could, seemingly, have tried to intervene she was under no legal obligation to, so from a legal perspective it’s irrelevant. She was merely a witness (initially unreliable). Care needs to be taken that a witness isn’t ‘blamed’… As to her reportage, the prosecutor takes the much greater blame for altering her account (and misconduct was found for doing so), though she could’ve resisted. I accept she was under pressure not just by professionals – prosecution – but by H’s family/friends, so I aver that a degree of understanding is apt. Indeed, if she were intoxicated, morally speaking that could be a reason for non-intervention: she was in no fit state, she incorrectly construed it as initially funny (before the knife appeared), etc.
Had it not been for prosecutorial misconduct I’d still disagree that Flanders’ testimony reached the bar for perjury: hers is a case less of lying than of presenting an account partially, favourable to one party more by omission of potentially relevant information (eg, H’s history of aggression) than commission of lies. Furthermore, it seems she told the truth to the prosecutor and he advised/instructed her to alter it ‘in the interest of justice’. He is the representative of the law (supposedly): it is understandable that she fell into line. And of course she can’t be expected to be entirely objective when her man died (insofar as any witness is capable of total objectivity).
Yours (and my) anger at injustice should primarily be directed to the disgraceful prosecutor, who sought to manipulate evidence to favour his case (and therefore his career). Flanders’ failure was in moral weakness – succumbing to the coercion of the prosecutor, the perceived expectation of family/friend… and perhaps her own grief and loss.
He stabbed a man right in the heart, in the aorta. A little too perfect for me to believe is a defense wound.
I’m sorry but Dusty didn’t deserve to die no matter if he started it or not.
Picking fights because he was hot-headed is also not a reason to be cheering for his death and saying he deserved it.
A lot of you sound like incels, I’m afraid. Especially for the way you also speak of Sky, saying she asked for it and encouraged Dusty to fight for her.
Shame on everyone for thinking a fight that likely wouldn’t end in Genzler’s death was worthy of self defense via a knife. Shame on everyone for cheering for a man killing another man.
He certainly didn’t deserve to die – and anyone suggesting that’s a fool – but he did likely cause his own death through recklessness. As I’ve said, Sky did the right thing in the end and oughtn’t to be condemned – particularly because it was found she was coached to present Genzler in as bad a light as possible by the prosecutor (though that doesn’t suit your anti-Genzler stance), misconduct having been found. There’s no evidence she encouraged the fight – but if she did it could be through impairment (H was over booze limit and had taken a drug; F MAY’ve been similarly impaired (so might G, which is why he might’ve fled)).
I don’t think it can be said that the fight (attack?) likely would’ve ended any particular way. If someone had me – us? – in a choke-hold and we thought we were about to pass out, and we had a knife to hand, I suspect we’d use it ANY way possible. Genzler was a weed; Harless was powerful and may have inflicted unintentional death by asphyxiation otherwise. You’re not going to wait to find out…
The jury decided G was broadly justified in his action; I agree. There’s plainly insufficient evidence that G intended to inflict a deadly wound.
The brain-dead narrative some here subscribe to: the ‘bully’ (H) ‘got what was coming’ is just that. This was a tragic accident – the outcome possibly having been caused/contributed to by drink/drugs impairing judgement).
Harless got exactly what was coming to him. He thought it was funny to harass and beat up others because he liked it. Well guess what, ole “Billy Bad” Harliss ain’t going to do that anymore — he is pushing up daisy’s from now on. Genzler was only defending himself, nothing more, nothing less. He never should have spent even 1 day in prison.
Dusty shouldn’t have started the fight, that’s very obvious, and I’m sure he regretted it as soon as he got stabbed. In his other fights he was very lucky it didn’t happen sooner. You never know what will happen in a fight as the ultimate outcome and that’s why you should ONLY ever fight to a) protect a loved one from potential death or severe harm or b) to protect yourself from death or severe harm. So many people out there carry weapons to protect themselves. Do you know how many people get jumped or robbed? Happens all the time and a ton of people I know both men and women carry weapons for self defence not because they’re looking for trouble as someone suggested above. It’s possible but the vast majority I bet are law abiding people who are carrying for a last resort situation.
Instead, Dusty acted machismo cuz a guy was talking to his girl. I’ve seen this happen a lot downtown – big sign that a guy is probably insecure and feels inadequate. He was a champion wrestler, surfer and popular and clearly still felt the need to show off. Or maybe he was sadistic and liked to hurt people? Could be that too, but probably less likely.
G should’ve been acquitted. Hope he sued and got mad money for this BS.
Sky Flanders was quite the little actress. I watched her dab at her eyes right on cue in every interview. Very choreographed. Self-aware enough to not mess up the eyeliner. Most people would be streaming tears and not really caring what they looked like, being truly distraught. She appears to be a master manipulator and a narcissist who loves drama like this.
I agree!
Colin: At least part of the problem (for the unsafe conviction) was that prosecution engaged in misconduct. Flanders states she was ‘coached’ by it not to be candid about what she saw and knew of Harless’s aggressive background (his physique may suggest use of steroids, which can induce paranoia/aggression — and I would have looked into this were I defending). I suspect that had she come clean as she later did the jury would’ve thought differently. Perhaps, too, the initial defence was subpar.
Here in UK plenty of people carry penknives (I don’t recall what the knife was) on, say, a keyring as a useful implement such that here, at least, no inference as to offensive weaponry would be made. Any other type of knife could be much harder to explain. The point the second defence made was surely correct: Harless was his own weapon… Case law exists for this findings of the likes of military personnel trained in unarmed combat who have seriously harmed or killed civilians.
The case is sad: a wrongful conviction and several years’ imprisonment; a death; and Harless’s mother’s death by accident.