Site Feedback

Advertisement

In Site Feedback, we publish interesting or relevant comments submitted through our website, from readers across the country, or around the world.

Re: Shooting of Grant Kuenzli

The killing by Harold Fish leaves three questions unanswered:

1. Why were the dogs not shot before Mr. Kuenzli if they were in fact attacking or about to attack?

2. If the animals were vicious, why did they not attack Fish after Kuenzli was killed?

3. Is Mr. Fish known to have an uncontrolled temper -- which could explain his intemperate actions on this occasion?

The story as reported simply does not ring true.

Re: Shooting of Grant Kuenzli

I was shocked to hear that the Coconino County sheriff's detective ruled that the shooting of Grant Kuenzli was justifiable. This really is the Wild West if you can shoot a man -- three times -- because his dogs are frightening you and then walk away scot-free. Did Fish consider shooting the dog(s)? If the dogs were a threat why didn't he aim at them? Clearly he is a good marksman if he can hit a running man in the chest three times. I'll be canceling my family vacation to Payson and I hope others do the same. I'd rather cross paths with a careless dog walker than a trigger-happy camper with carte blanche thanks to the sheriff.

Re: Shooting of Grant Kuenzli

Were there any bite marks on the hiker? Any blood on any of the dogs' mouths? Or is this just a case of someone who was not part of the politically correct/social elite getting killed by someone in a higher caste, and now the innocent dogs have to be killed to perpetuate the cover-up?

Sounds like an independent investigation is in order, perhaps the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.