Epilogues for the Cast
(“Pinned by the Evidence,” Forensic Files)
After doing some elementary research on California self-defense laws, I’m starting to understand how two juries found David Genzler guilty of charges related to his struggle with Dusty Harless.
Last week’s post told the story of how Genzler ended up in jail for his actions during a 1996 street fight in San Diego that was doubtlessly initiated by Harless.
Two on one. Offended that Genzler offered his girlfriend, Sky Flanders, a ride and called her “baby” — or some other slightly inappropriate term — the former college wrestling champion straightened out the non-issue by pinning him to the ground.
Scott Davis, a Harless associate, joined the fray by kicking Genzler, who pulled a knife from his pocket and stabbed Harless.
During the first trial, blood evidence seemed to support the theory that Harless and Genzler, both 25 years old, were face to face when the knife wound happened, although the defense maintained Harless had Genzler pinned face to the ground.
The law gives the right to defend yourself when you reasonably believe you’re in “imminent danger of being killed, hurt, or molested, believe immediate force is necessary, and use no more force than necessary.”
Sharp outcome. I tend to think anyone violent enough to pin a stranger to the ground over a minor provocation is also dangerous enough to kill someone whether intentionally or not.
But that’s me. (I’m also the person who still stands far from the edges of subway platforms because a mentally ill man pushed a woman onto the tracks in 1985.)
California state law — and unwritten guy code — probably assumes no one is likely to die from a weaponless street fight, hence pulling out a knife during such a struggle constitutes more force than necessary.
Face to face, it’s more likely Genzler intended to inflict a deadly wound, which explains the second-degree murder conviction at the first trial.
Newer laws. The jury at the second trial believed Genzler’s contention that Harless had him pinned face to the ground, meaning Genzler reached backward with his knife without necessarily intending to hit a major artery, hence the manslaughter conviction.
Either way, Genzler might have fared better under the Stand Your Ground laws that states started passing in 2005. They specify that as long as the victim didn’t make the first strike, he doesn’t necessarily have to retreat or run away when he feels threatened.
A defense lawyer today could make a case that brandishing a knife is simply standing your ground.
Fortunately, manslaughter verdict notwithstanding, the second judge sentenced Genzler to time served and set him free.
Legal recourse. Still, Genzler, a finance student who had no criminal history prior to the Harless tragedy, had to spend at least three years in prison, presumably with hardened criminals.
Genzler did get some satisfaction in the matter when he sued Deputy District Attorney Peter Longanbach for prosecutorial misconduct related to false testimony from Sky Flanders. (It’s not clear whether it applied to both trials or just the first one.)
According to the suit, the night of the Harless stabbing, Flanders told police that Harless “flip[ped] Genzler to the ground, and Genzler stabbed Harless while Harless held Genzler on the ground.” She also admitted to police that Harless had engaged in other street fights.
After meeting with Longanbach and his investigator, Jeffrey O’Brien, however, Flanders changed her story. She said she “remembered little of the actual fight.” She also failed to repeat her earlier statement that Harless had a history of fighting both on and off the wrestling mat.
Alternate facts. She also stated that she thought Davis had pulled Genzler off Harless after the stabbing — when, in fact, Genzler was still beneath Harless.
The amount of the settlement, reached in 2006, wasn’t disclosed.
A bit more consolation for Genzler: Longanbach’s law license was suspended for two years.
The Forensic Files episode mentioned Genzler himself was considering a career as a lawyer. I did a little poking around to find out whether that happened or to at least discover some kind of epilogue for him.
There wasn’t any confirmation on whether or not he went to law school, but he did complete his finance degree by 2006.
No information came up about him for the last decade or so. I didn’t look very hard because he probably prefers to not be found.
Sky Flanders appears to be alive and well and to have a son. She was never prosecuted for perjury relating to the legal actions against Genzler.
Flanders has stated that she prefers not to talk about the tragedy.
Car accident. After the trial, Dusty’s mother, Cathy Harless, who appeared in “Pinned by the Evidence,” moved to Butte, Montana, and then to San Diego.
She worked as a caretaker for ranch owners’ properties and also had two dogs and two horses of her own.
Her relationship with Sky Flanders ultimately turned sour. A 2006 story in the San Diego Union-Tribune contained the following quote from Cathy Harless:
“I consider [Flanders] really part of the problem, and I think she should be so ashamed for ruining Pete Longanbach’s life and career,” she said. “It turned from a trial about murder into a trial about lawyer misconduct.”
Sadly, Cathy Harless died at age 63 when a drunk driver hit her pickup truck in Alpine, California, in 2010. Two daughters survived her.
That’s all for this post. Until next week, cheers. — RR
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Books-a-Million
Target
Walmart
Indie Bound
Gosh, with a name like Sky Flanders, you’d think she’d choose her friends more carefully. She seems ‘poorly grounded.’ Great article, once again proving that in a complex court case, on an unclear day you can see forever.
No relation to Ned. None of his kin would lie under oath.
Love it. Keep them coming!
I too was intrigued by this case. I hope Genzler is doing ok these days. Terrible to go to jail for defending yourself.
I concur
Love your posts! So well researched, thought out and written. Please never stop. I’m obsessed! Cheers from Australia.
Thanks so much for the kind words, Jeanne — glad to know I have an intercontinental reader!
Being obsessed with Forensic Files & reviewing past episodes to see if any were missed; I always feel like I want “more” after the episode ends. Thank you so much for the updates!!! BTW, as a former wrestler & coach, I believe Genzler’s version of events.
Glad to hear that you as a former wrestler believe Genzler. I don’t know much about the sport, but I find it hard to imagine that Genzler had the upper hand in a struggle like that or that he would initiate a fight.
I imagine that a crucial question was what was in Genzler’s mind in the choke-hold: did he think he could be killed? If so, any action to cease the hold would be deemed reasonable. If I thought I was being suffocated and there was no relaxation of the hold such that I reasonably thought I’d lose consciousness/die, I’d lash out with anything available — the potential damage that may do is understandably secondary to self-preservation. I presume that this is what the second jury thought…
Why was Genzler carrying a knife in his pocket? Why was he trying to pick her up? Could it be he would have used his knife on her if she got into his car and rejected him after some sexual advances? For someone who supposedly never harmed anyone, he is pretty good at stabbing someone and doing a lot of damage. Suspicious of him of probably having experience in stabbing people.
Interesting theory. I guess the fact that he had a clean record before the incident and hasn’t committed any crimes since makes me give him the benefit of the doubt.
I can recognize myself in Dusty, right down to being an AAU Champion (and Most Outstanding Wrestler). Unfortunately, getting inebriated and engaging in hand-to-hand fighting was a way too common occurrence after college.
The difference, however, is that I was fortunate enough to grow up, mellow, and mature past this stage. Thank the Lord for that..
So many of us crave drama in our youth — it’s great that you (and most others) grew out of it.
Carrying a knife is not illegal and indicates no intent. It’s irrelevant why he was trying to pick her up: that’s not illegal either! You engage in pointless speculation improper in court for good reason — pointless. There was no evidence of a violent background — frankly a foolish thing to state.
According to the TV show Forensic Files, Genzler was only offering Flanders a ride because it was raining really hard and she was standing by herself on the sidewalk, he offered her a ride out of pure courtesy.
I agree — there’s nothing wrong with offering a ride to anyone who is standing alone in the rain.
There seems to have been a contested claim Genzler made a lewd remark. So what? That wouldn’t entitle Harless to intervene physically, though perhaps verbally. The issue is who initiated physical contact, and whether the response to that was reasonable in the circumstances.
Genzler seems creepy to me…knife in pocket…. driving around asking a woman if she needs a ride at 2am. When Harless approaches the car he doesn’t drive away. Did he put the car in park in the middle of the road so it wouldn’t roll & then went out of the car?
You are making stuff up, creepy sock puppet.
Not really. People are pretty jaded about shoulder wounds when in reality they can be exceptionally serious and cause life-long pain, loss of movement, and disability. Yet, often in media, these types of wounds are portrayed as not being all that serious and heal quickly, returning function to normal. We tend to think that for a shoulder wound to be exceptionally serious it must have been done with some kind of intent when in reality, all shoulder wounds can cause a lot of issues.
There have been numerous cases over the years of death caused by just luck – a bullet that bounces into someone just right, one stab that hits something important and causes death, one shove in a bar confrontation where the shoved person hits their head on the way down and just up and dies. On the flip side, we’ve had victims survive throat-cutting, being stabbed numerous times with large blades and being riddled with bullets – all because they didn’t hit a vital system that would cause death within seconds.
A four-inch blade is around the size of a steak knife. It would be a gamble even in the hands of someone skilled in anatomy that they could hit and sever the Aorta under the calmest of circumstances. Let alone while being assaulted by someone with more physical prowess and strength who has been choking them even if they were facing them, even less of a possibility when taken into consideration the victim was face down and more than likely simply stabbed where he could reach.
It seems more than likely that Genzler just wanted Harless to stop hurting him and ran when he was released, not realizing how badly Harless was hurt. Most people wouldn’t think that they killed someone with something the size of a steak knife with just one stab. Given that Harless was the one with the history of picking fights and muscular dominance along with suddenly have two attackers at one point, I don’t think it unreasonable that Genzler feared for his life and/or well-being. It’s pretty sad that just having a pocket knife somehow makes Genzler a criminal mastermind and nulls all the other stuff that happened to him that night.
I truly feel bad for Genzler not just for what he went through or that he will always have this on his record, but that he will have to live the rest of his life with the burden of guilt over having killed someone, even if it was to save himself.
Agreed: I feel sorry for both of them. This tragedy is really about the danger of alcohol, drugs, and aggression (by H) converging horribly – not that it’s a rare scenario. Both happened to have weapons not intended to kill but having the potential to or seriously harm: strength and technique, and a knife.
Shocked that there was no mention of Genzler’s black belt in Tae Kwon Do or his history of fights at Madison High School or any mention of all the crazy sh*t David was known for in Clairemont in the late 80’s! I guarantee Genzler had way more fights than Harless. Also shocked how clean cut and “nerdy” his defense team had him looking. I guess that’s smart on their part though.
That would have been relevant evidence — certainly if there’d been any knife use. Nonetheless, there’s no evidence that Genzler STARTED the violence that night, and the one witness that eventually appears to have been truthful — the girlfriend — never suggested that Genzler was aggressive, rather Harless. She herself thought it looked bad for Harless, which is why she initially lied.
What’s “H” stand for — Harless?
Yes.
So why wasn’t this info presented at trial, lying sock puppet?
Here’s a point to ponder….if Dusty Harless were black, Genzler would probably still be rotting in jail, methinks. Irrelevant, but there it is.
Maybe the other way around you think????
Nope.
I do not think that I would have liked Dusty Harless had I known him.
Especially when he was drinking.
I don’t think I would have either. It seems he may have gotten by with assaults before simply because he was a popular sports personality….His attitude just finally caught up with him…
FF stated that Harless had traces of, I think, cocaine in his system. With that, the booze, and the witnesses that said he could be aggressive and start fights (Flanders herself said this) it would seem entirely plausible that (i) he was the initiator of aggression that was (ii) excessive and potentially fatal to Genzler given H’s wrestling ability and likely impaired judgement. This all adds up to the reasonableness of Genzler’s fear and perception that he needed to defend himself with anything to hand. What would we do in his place if we had a knife?
While driving away and coming forward only three days later was unwise and damaged his cause, it’s reasonable to assume he was in a shocked and frightened state. I would be.
Reviewing the case again, Genzler’s six years in prison for involuntary manslaughter seems wrong: he was defending himself from – at the time – a violent thug; and had Flanders not perjured herself – though she came clean in the end, and deserves credit for that – he may not have served time. The safest conclusion is that this was self-defence, albeit with tragic consequence.
Very sad for the Harless family that Dusty died, then his mother in a crash.
Thank God that show-off, thug, testosterone-driven troublemaker, immature macho man was killed! Genzler should have been given a medal for removing a future murderer/maimer from society. Genzler is an intelligent, university-educated man who had a bright future ahead of him using his BRAIN and who had no reason to prove himself in a fight. Dusty Harless was a street thug who was ruled by testosterone who had viciously beaten others previous. Genzler was smart to have carried a knife or HE probably would have been the one killed. He offered the ghetto-gal a ride out of courtesy bc it was raining. I doubt that he was trying to steal that ghetto gal/perjurer Sky Flanders away from fellow ghetto-guy Dusty Harless. Today, Genzler has a good life using his BRAIN, and he is a contributor to society; Dusty Harless is in a grave still with excess alcohol and drugs in his body — where he can no longer hurt others. Harless was like a wild animal — like a vicious bobcat who attacked others. Thank God he is dead! Thank you, Mr. Genzler!!! And Sky Flanders should be in prison for perjury. Shame on her lying and putting an innocent man in prison! Harless and company are nothing but ghetto all the way! Good riddance, you street thug!
Nice attempt at a troll comment, prokus. But on the “for real,” Dustin seemed like a jerk and he got shanked real good. I’m not celebrating his death and I’m not saying that his death is necessarily a bad thing, but I am the same age as these people now in 2018 as they were in 1996 and I can tell you both of them were out of line. I would have locked my door and pulled off if I were the Jewish kid. Dude seriously screwed up by pulling off and disappearing for 3 days after dumping the car in a random location, it almost seemed to me like he did know that he killed the guy but honestly everything turned out pretty well for him with just a minimal amount of punishment of 6 years, which is more than half a decade being taken from his life. He’s definitely laying low in this new Internet era. But I hope he is doing OK. Also I hope that Dustin’s family is OK but I mean it sort of seemed like a pretty tragic end to the whole thing. In my opinion, Sky Flanders was a stupid s*** who got Dusty (who was a bone head) into more than his fair share of scraps and ended up getting his chest sliced up and now he’s a skeleton. RIP the kid, man. But he did make his own decision and he got smoked up and left in the street like some meat. This sort of thing happens every day in Chicago, and other major cities.
This time Dusty fucked with the wrong person.
So Dusty was only 5 feet, 8 inches tall! That fact may have been mentioned in the Forensic Files episode, but if so I missed it. So besides everything else, we may have a classic case of Napoleon syndrome! Interesting.
Napoleon Komplex, so heisst Das. Beobachte ich bei vielen kleinen Männern, dass die voller Komplexe sind und dann machens Kampfsport und dann ist der Teufel los.. aber er verliert schlussendlich immer.
Entschuldigung für schlechtes Deutsch:
Little man syndrom: es hätte gut sein können. Aber was ihm an höhe fehlte, machte er in der breite wett!
Ray: Could be – him deciding to make himself as wide as possible (the working-out) to compensate.
These posts are great, and I agree with you 100%. Clearly Dusty thought that skinny nerd was an easy target for his Napoleonic aggression – not this time, you drunk bully!
So glad you’re enjoying the blog — and very true, Dusty should have saved his moves for wrestling events with willing participants.
Oh, also, can you BELIEVE the theatrics of one Sky Flanders when the initial verdict was read? Clearly she sat right up front to make sure the cameras captured every moment of her jubilation when she got away with ruining that poor nerd’s life (with the help of her drunk muscly monkey of a boyfriend, of course). Obviously I googled her directly after watching the video, fully expecting her acting talents to have garnered her a lucrative career in porn. Yuck, she was for sure my most-hated person of the episode thanks to the aforementioned jubilation.
At the very least, she should have tried to stop the fight before it started.
She might be my most hated person of the entire Forensic Files SERIES for her fake jubilation and her “oh I only lied because they couldn’t convict that guy for shanking my dirt dirtbag bully of a boyfriend if I testified to what actually happened.”
It’s probably why she has kept such a low profile over the years following Genzler’s release from jail.
Theresa: Yes, Flanders perjured herself in court. But to her credit she appeared on FF and admitted as much – which couldn’t have been easy; and in mitigation she says she was coached to say what she did, which is plausible because the prosecutor was charged with misconduct. I can understand that she felt under pressure to colour her evidence in Harless’ favour for his mother’s sake and the many friends/supporters he and she apparently had in common. I perceived that she was contrite for that on FF (though is that only ‘cos Genzler was somewhat exonerated by this stage? That is, would she have come forward voluntarily?)
Even the best ‘street fighter’ can be bested by a weapon. Hand to hand + man to man is the ‘honorable’ way to fight (if you must). However, the well prepared citizen ‘expects’ the possibility of a weapon. The whole Harless situation was tragic (for all sides) and unnecessary. The Bible rightly states “wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1, KJV). Alcohol is a determent to wisdom and prudence.
‘Soloman’ would no doubt today say the same of the drugs that it is suggested was also consumed…
Of course, Genzler may have been intoxicated also. He didn’t come forward until some days later so it’s unknown, though it’s unlikely to be materially significant.
This was such a fascinating episode for some reason. I’m always intrigued how these self defense type cases play out when they occur outside of a home setting.
I do think Genzler was innocent here, even if we don’t have a clear picture of what led up to the fight. It may have been innocent as offering a ride, but who knows. Genzler ended up on the ground and could have very well faced serious bodily harm or even death in that type of scenario.
I’d disagree with the idea that it’s an unwritten “guy code” that a weapon shouldn’t be introduced in a fight. Let’s keep in mind two things here:
1) this was a 2 on 1 fight, in front of a bar. One could assume it’s entirely possible the two guys assaulting you have a few more friends inside who could potentially be jumping in very quickly to assist in beating down the guy pinned to street.
2) Numerous people have been killed/maimed by a “hand to hand” fight.
Unfortunately, there are people out there who think they can just go around assaulting anyone they like for any reason. Considering Harless was likely intoxicated at the time, he likely would have been a poor judge of what was going too far. His friend already jumped in and started kicking Genzler, so who knows what could have happened had the fight dragged on for longer. I’ve lived near enough bars to know it’s basically a mob mentality after awhile. Likely more drunks would have joined in and beat him to a bloody pulp – perhaps leaving him with serious injuries, maybe a lifelong disability or even death.
What Harless (and many others) failed to realize is that doling out a random beating isn’t always going to end well as some may have a knife (or gun) with them.
Good point about the fight ratio — 2 on 1 is a threat of death or disability.
JC: In this situation any ‘unwritten “guy code”‘ – if such a thing exists – couldn’t possibly apply in this situation, where the ‘contestants’ had never met.
I think the point is that in this situation (ie, being strangles by a trained wrestler) any reasonable person who had a weapon such a penknife to hand would use it if they perceived they could be in serious or mortal danger (such as losing consciousness due to constriction). No third party could reasonably suggest, it seems to me, that Genzler did not or should not so have perceived. To be sure, if I were him and had a gun on me, and could aim to maim, I’m pretty sure I’d have tried to shoot Harless in the leg or arm. If I couldn’t aim intentionally I might well have shot fatally…
In short, in Genzler’s situation there was no right or wrong way to act: there was no time to think. One is forced to fight, perhaps seemingly for one’s life, and anything goes. I suggest a parallel with ‘home invasion’ – only there there may be opportunity to warn that one has a gun. Genzler’s person was ‘invaded,’ with seemingly little or no opportunity to warn that he had a weapon.
This is a great website RR. I watched the episode last night on german TV and was intrigued by the case, because initially I also thought Genzler was guilty. Blood on the front side of his shirt although he lay on his stomach, a passing motorist allegedly jumping into the fray, the hiding. But then, with the second trial, all the assumptions were clarified.
Some commentators have mentioned that Harless’ girlfriend Sky was partly responsible for his death and I think they are correct. She had at least half a minute to step in during the altercation and the actual fight, but she just watched and enjoyed the drama. The bouncer friend who decided to kick a stranger instead of breaking up the fight, is partly responsible as well. I think that Genzler’s survival instincts were activated when a second person started to kick him while being held on the ground.
So there were 3 persons enjoying violence and one of them is dead unfortunately. You really have to wonder why Harless was so belligerent. Wakeboarders and surfers are usually chill and easy going, but maybe he had hidden aggressions and his varsity success as a wrestler made him think he is invincible in a fight.
Thanks for the kind words — so glad you’re enjoying the site!
I agree about SF. She could have done something to prevent the fight, like telling her bf that Genzler just asked her what time it was.
David: Harless’ gf not intervening doesn’t constitute ‘responsibility’ for the death in any degree: we can’t say what would’ve happened had she – though she could indeed have intervened (and we can’t say she enjoyed the scene as a spectator either – that’s conjecture). You overstate her part. Where she IS responsible is her ‘misleading’ testimony in the first trial. Equally, the bouncer is only responsible for intervening violently/inappropriately, not for the death. It certainly cannot be said that but for his intervention the death wouldn’t have occured (Genzler might have stabbed him too!)
Much care needs to be taken in ascribing responsibility. Two persons may, then, have enjoyed ‘violence’ because they willingly initiated/participated – that’s all. As to Harless’s attitude, the more likely explanation is alcohol and drugs, as previously discussed.
Rebecca also: She could have done something to [try to] prevent the fight.’ No assumption can be made about her success had she tried…
Well said David. I agree with you. I think Sky Flanders and the bouncer buddy both are partially responsible for the entire mess. It’s obvious that Flanders is a dishonest person, and I question if Genzler even made a lewd comment to her. I seriously doubt it. She was in the rain, appeared to be alone and so he most likely just offered her a ride. That was a courteous gesture, not an invitation to be beaten (possibly to death). The bouncer buddy showed more than poor judgement too by escalating the violence and prompting the stabbing. How was he even a bouncer if that’s how he “breaks up” fights? Honestly, if two knuckleheads were beating me up, I’d tried to protect myself too. I think we all would.
It sounds like perhaps Sky wanted to make her Harless jealous or engage him in some drama. It also sounds like Harless and the bouncer were two stupid bullies who enjoyed intimidation and physical confrontations. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I honestly think that Harless deserved what happened to him. He made the decision to pull a random stranger out of the car for no valid reason and try to beat him (possibly to death). Harless’ death may have actually saved multiple lives in the long run. Had he gone on unchecked, he probably would have killed someone himself. At the risk of sounding callous (or behaving like Sky Flanders at the initial verdict), good riddance!
Emily: Your analysis isn’t careful enough, I’m afraid (something that jurors MUST be – and in effect we on this site are proxy jurors). There’s a significant distinction in a death being X’s fault and X DESERVING death. It was (almost certainly) Harless’s fault – but I doubt even Genzler would suggest H deserved to die – and it can’t be said on the evidence that he was INTENDING to kill Genzler – just that through poor, impaired judgement that could have happened. Nor can you reasonably suggest that ‘cos H might have killed other people it makes his death appropriate – an outrageous claim morally (and legally). Even if H were a bully – and that needs defining – where is it determined that bullies (unpleasant/aggressive/anti-social or whatever) deserve loss of life?
As to the bouncer, whatever else can be said of him (it’s not good) it cannot be that he was a “stupid bull[y] who enjoyed intimidation and physical confrontations.” You have no basis for that view – one swallow not making a summer.
You’ve gone beyond the evidence to complete a picture that you want to see, with the blanks filled by prejudice. Prejudice is just what jurors must resist, judging by evidence only.
Genzler probably wouldn’t ask a fat 60 year old woman if she needed a ride. He’s a a creepy perv that had no woman and pus for pulling a knife – fight with your fist creep – karma coming creep.
Not many people have come in on Harless’ side — interesting to read an opposing view.
Joe,
Assuming your ‘probably’ is true, what of it? Since when is offering a relatively attractive person a lift in the rain indicative of criminal intent/perversion, deserving of assault? Your comment is stereotypical prejudice… and if you’re implying that you’d react the same as Harless – well, beware whom you pick a fight with… Harless may have been impaired per booze and drugs (in addition to a claimed liking to pick fights): without them, would he have exhibited such hostility / paranoia? Harless’s behaviour, particularly in the context of propensity for aggression and chemical impairments was indefensible.
Sky Flanders should have been charged with perjury. Longanbach is/was highly unethical and should have had his license revoked and he should have faced criminal charges too. I’m sure he guided Flanders into saying whatever needed to be said to get a conviction. That probably explains why she was not charged with perjury. Why was her initial interview stating that Harless was on top of Genzler not presented by the defense to impeach her falsified testimony on the stand? Was that video discovery withheld from the defense? Would not the detectives who took her first statements been called as witnesses and if so, what was their testimony? If they also failed to rebut her falsified testimony, they also should have been charged with perjury. This appeared to me to be a well orchestrated cover up of the facts in order to get a conviction.
Not sure why Mother Harless claimed that Flanders destroyed the prosecutor’s life/career as Flanders was saying what I’m sure the prosecutor wanted her to say. I also don’t believe Mother Harless was clueless to her son’s previous anti-social or violent run-ins with others prior to the incident with Genzler.
Genzler had that knife as an equalizer when he was selling those woof cookies to Harless. Only a fool enters a fight without a game plan when he was better served to just drive off. It would be interesting to know whether or not they were familiar with each other prior to the deadly confrontation.
Lastly, I think the producers knew Harless would be seen as an unsympathetic victim, thus the home video to open the episode seeming to show Harless in a less than imposing light.
Thanks.
DK: Ma Harless was not, and couldn’t be expected to be, objective: there was therefore little point interviewing her but for the sentiment angle. You may well be right that she had some knowledge of her son’s ‘temper’ – but there may have been incomplete knowledge, including that of his drug-taking. We don’t know. I agree that her making the – given the facts – curious reference to a lawyer who committed misconduct by seemingly seeking to pervert the course of justice as having been ruined by (‘nasty’) Flanders is grossly misplaced and tells us all we need to know about her (Ma’s) perverse take on thinks. I can only think it was grief that caused her to see things in that ‘twisted’ way.
“Genzler had that knife as an equalizer when he was selling those woof cookies to Harless.” I’m only guessing that you mean he had a plan to use a knife on this or other occasions. If he did, that could render his action more serious… But the facts as reported suggest he had no opportunity to drive off but was dragged from the car by Harless. That’s in G’s favour. Your interpretation – that he CHOSE – to engage in a fight, with a knife, is in Harless’s case’s favour, as if one opts into a fight and has a knife, it could be interpreted that one planned to use it – this demonstrating some premeditation to use a deadly weapon. Thus far, it’s unclear whom you think was the aggressor here!
There’s no evidence that they knew each other and therefore one assumes they didn’t. Pointless speculating that they did.
IF Genzler was in some degree looking for trouble, and given he had a (potentially) deadly weapon, the eventual outcome was wrong. But my reading of the case is that he was literally dragged into a fight, by someone whose judgement was impaired through drink and drugs, happened to have the weapon, and used it in desperation. Genzler may have been impaired too by at least drink, and that’s why he may have chosen to flee the scene, as that could have made thinks look a little worse for him. We don’t know.
Flanders was wrong but ‘fessed-up in the end – and she says she was schooled by the lawyer, so I don’t think one should be too hard on her.
I abhor Stand Your Ground laws. I feel less safe in my community, which is Midwestern and so armed to the teeth. Had a dispute with a neighbor a few years ago about supposedly abducting her cat, since it came by our house often looking for food. She made several threats and sent the police to our house. We have 6 cats, we aren’t looking for more! I was too afraid to confront her at her home to settle things because of this law. If she found me threatening in any way she could shoot me, and i have no doubt she is armed, and have a case, batty as she was.
I simply don’t feel as safe in altercations such as car accidents or street incidents (was verbally sexually harassed at night downtown). Stand Your Ground just feels like a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Also, statistics have shown that homicides have indeed increased by some 40% now that people feel empowered and given a “right” to use their weapons more freely.
It’s a recipe for disaster in the agency of the bad, mad, and sad in a gun-owning nation. Here in UK, stand-your-ground applies in using reasonable force in self-defence, with no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker; nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, will find it harder to justify his use of force as ‘reasonable’.
Any force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the person honestly perceived them to be, after making allowance for the fact that some degree of excess force might still be reasonable in the heat of the moment.
In the home, the householder is protected by an additional piece of legislation in which is specified that force used against an intruder is not to be regarded as reasonable if it is ‘grossly disproportionate’ (as distinct from merely ‘disproportionate’ force, which can still be reasonable). In practice here, a burglar is likely to be hit with a bat or table-leg – never shot! – with the crucial difference from US being that the burglar is extremely likely to be unarmed (but could have a knife).
It’s clear that in the hands of a gun-owner, all hell could break loose; and that’s what’s happened in the US.
The root problem is gun-ownership and a culture of violence – but the constitutional genie that let that let gun-ownership out of the lamp can’t, I suspect, be returned – in which case SYG needs changing. Canada is more sensible that US.
More where-are-they-now updates:
Peter Longanbach (from the March 2002 California Bar Journal):
“A second trial [for Genzler] was held amid allegations by the defense attorney that Longanbach coached a key witness to lie. The witness admitted she perjured herself and Longanbach, called as a witness, took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions.
“The defendant was found guilty last year of the less serious charge of involuntary manslaughter by a second jury. He subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against Longanbach and the district attorney’s office, charging that the former prosecutor engaged in criminal conduct to win a murder conviction.
“As a result of the murder case, Longanbach became the subject of a separate criminal investigation by the attorney general.
“In addition, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled in 2000 that Longanbach committed prosecutorial misconduct in a 1998 grand theft and forgery case. Judge Judith Hayes said he “willfully violated both the spirit and the letter” of the law requiring disclosure of evidence.”
Mr. Longanbach’s law license was reactivated in 2004 but since December 2008 his law license has been “inactive.”
Regarding defense attorney Jerry Blank, he passed away December 14, 2019 of an atypical Parkinson’s condition.
Animator Chris Neuhahn transitioned from forensic animation to Hollywood productions and won a Primetime Emmy in 2012 for The Penquins of Madagascar (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0969805/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm)
As for me, I still operate Legal Arts, Inc. full time, producing litigation graphics for non-criminal cases and as a licensed private investigator, I produce visual mitigation packages for civilian and military criminal defense cases (https://www.legalarts.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimgripp/).
Great article. I remember this case and it always bothered me that this guy, Genzler, did time for defending himself. Harless was a cocky, arrogant asshole IMOP. I’ve know a few wrestlers and top athletes and none would act so reckless. None. One more point, when you pull a guy out of his car, your life is at risk by your megalomaniac behavior. What is Genzler supposed to do ? Let them beat them to death ? I’ve been with beautiful women too and sometimes guys get out of line, I let the woman handle it, I keep composed, don’t get abusive and everyone goes home alive. Well, Harless did the opposite and his self absorbed girlfriend didn’t help either, she’s such a liar, a perjurer. She should have done time, the lying twit. This case pisses me off, Genzler did nothing wrong and he did a lot of time. Learn from this case guys, when a guy makes a pass at your girl, take it as a compliment because no matter how tough you are, there is always somebody tougher.
Thanks, Mark. This case always bothered me, too. Agreed — there was no reason for Harless to even approach the car, let alone start a physical fight, over nothing.
He DID do wrong: he fled the scene – a major, criminal, mistake that cast him in a bad, even guilty, light. But that’s peripheral to the central action. The problem with fleeing is that Harless’s intoxication by alcohol and drugs properly counted against him – but Genzler, who may have been similarly intoxicated, couldn’t be adjudged. That is, was Genzler’s action also possibly impaired? It would’ve helped his case had he been able to show not; and the opposite was the case per his fleeing.
If one seriously injures or kills, whether in self-defence or not, it’s wholly inapt to flee, whatever the reason.
He shouldn’t have fled like that. But he was was probably scared and traumatized, so it’s understandable that wanted to zip out of there as fast as he could.
We can appreciate why – but that goes for many people involved in a traumatic accident or fight, and the fact remains it’s a criminal offence to flee for good reason – potential concealment of evidence. Furthermore, he took some days to contact police. This inevitably raises the question of whether he was trying to conceal intoxication, knowing that he’d be done for DUI (hardly serious in context) but also that his intoxication could be mooted as an explanation for ‘excessive force’ (much as it was viz Harless).
The emotive Harless was going to end up dead soon enough at the hands of someone who outclassed him or by a bespectacled fellow not interested in getting pounded. That strumpet Flanders is a liar and a perjurer who, as has been mentioned, thrived on the attention. She was nothing without that clown bf and was going on about protecting his name and legacy and other bollocks. Harless was just an aggressive out of control drunken bully with a learned fighting skill. Few useful people are crying over him. His legacy? Someone got tired of his antics and cancelled his ass.
4 sure not the other way around, he got him in the heart and saved his life, so must have done it before. Not logical
You know I was thinking the same thing. I have no sympathy for a bully picking fights simply because he thought he was such a tough guy. Mix that with a little alcohol and a s*** who was stimulated by a bad boy type and you have someone who resembles more of a coward. Genzler was no angel, and Dusty bit more than he could chew and got his just dessert.
Dusty was a drunken steroid monkey. His girlfriend Sky was a privileged dumb twit who should have been the one in jail for six years for lying in a court of law. Genzler should have sued the state for malicious prosecution and wrongful incarceration. Classic scumbag bully gets his just deserts.
Rob: Flanders was indeed dumb to allow herself to be manipulated by the prosecution — as she was — but it is they who must take principal responsibility for her omissions because they knowingly manipulated her into thinking this was ‘legal’ even if morally wrong. As the g/f she can’t really be expected to be entirely objective. Had she *lied* about what she saw that would indeed be egregious — but this was more a case of her omitting arguably relevant background observations (about his starting fights, for example), at the prosecution’s instigation rather than positive lying. She was a flawed witness, yes, but I suggest that many in her impassioned position (as g/friend) would also testify in the most favourable light for ‘their’ victim. So I think you are too harsh. She also corrected this later when it would have been easier to stick to the story.
People seem to forget in the (seductive) David and Goliath narrative that Genzler, perhaps in shock but possibly to avoid alcohol/drug detection, and criminal nonetheless, fled the scene for some days. That evidentiary potentially crucial period allowed any alcohol or some drugs in him to pass that could (and would) have been used against him, just as they were against Harless. Were he over the legal limit or had taken drugs, this would have counted against him in court (on the ground that it could have fuelled a ‘rage’ response from him that they were speculated to have fuelled in Harless).
Of course, were the aforementioned the case it doesn’t absolve Harless as the initiator and the more able to overcome an opponent/victim, being trained, but it would logically have either to nullify the part Harless’s intoxication was claimed to play or to detract from and thus disadvantage Genzler as ‘pure’ – that is, unimpaired — victim. It raises the question whether he too was overly aggressive/offensive, not just defensive, in the jury’s eyes.
I doubt this would have affected the ultimate outcome but it would have to be a consideration. I agree that Genzler had to do what he could given that he reasonably thought he was being choked to the point of imminent unconsciousness (or death?) and that he used the weapon that was to hand, with inability in the moment to know where it would strike Harless and that the location was in a dangerous area.
Dusty Harless paid the ultimate price for trying to show everyone he was a supreme bad ass. However, one should consider that if you are a bully, at some time in your life, you just might encounter someone who doesn’t want to be (or is tired of being) bullied.
I agree — live by the sword, die by the sword.