MORE

Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, August 13, 2009

TEARDOWN TOWN

Like 1984 all over again: To ASU President Michael Crow: Which is more sustainable, which is greener, which uses less energy? Renovating, reusing, and recycling existing buildings or tearing them down and building anew ("Greek Ruins," Robrt L. Pela, July 30)?

The ideas and ideals you're pushing have the same air of ignorance about them that our government's "Cash for Clunkers" program has — that "old" means "inefficient" and that "new" (plus debt) means "green."

What kind of Orwellian doublethink is this?
Andrew L. Ayers, Glendale

Let the frats renovate: It's a shame what Michael Crow is doing to ASU's fraternities. Greek life brings tradition, honor, and true bonds that nothing else in life can bring. Fraternities have been the greatest experience of my life, and I feel it's an outrage by Crow to try to shut them down and rebuild.

ASU's old architecture keeps it unique and is a main attraction. ASU should allow fraternities to feel confident that they will be able to stay for the long run and that money will be reinvested to fund renovations of the treasured landmarks.
Al Michaels, Tempe

KILL CRAZY

Harold Fish paid his debt to society: Shooting an unarmed man is never the right thing to do, especially in macho Arizona ("Right to Kill," Stephen Lemons, July 30). What would any of us have done under similar circumstances with an allegedly crazed younger guy coming at us? Who knows?

I think Harold Fish did the appropriate amount of jail time for what he did. What he did was wrong, and he paid for it. A jury decided his fate, and he got out of prison, fair and square. I think [Arizona Attorney General] Terry Goddard should leave well enough alone.

Why put an elderly guy, who's surely learned his lesson doing hard time, back in the slammer? Doesn't make sense.
John McGhee, Phoenix

A simple case of self-defense: In the case of Harold Fish's shooting Grant Kuenzli, I feel it was self-defense. I know that if I were in the woods by myself and had the potential to be attacked by a man and three dogs, I would have done the same thing.

If Grant would've had his dogs under control or had some sanity, this would've never happened. Also, Harold did not shoot the dogs. It sounds to me that he was just trying to avoid hurting the dogs or being attacked by the dogs.

What do you think would've happened if Harold hadn't shot Grant? Would Grant be on trial because he and his dogs attacked a man? You shouldn't have to fight for your life because someone else is an asshole.

In my opinion, Harold Fish should [stay] free. What is this world coming to when a man cannot defend the life that God gave him?
Travis Mangus, Surprise

Invoking Duke: John Wayne said it best [in Rio Bravo]: "Man gets shot who has a gun, there's room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot without a gun, what else would you call it [but murder]?"
Kenneth Jaeger, Phoenix

Typically liberal: The gentleman had a gun that protected him from the victim's dogs. He didn't kill the dogs; he dispersed them. Then after he had clearly demonstrated he was armed, the victim charged him? My thought would have been, "He thinks he has something that trumps a pistol!"

This is a typical liberal article coming from one of the most left-wing rags in Phoenix.
G.T. Hildebrand, Phoenix

I'd expect to go to jail: The Bird makes a good point: Why the hell did Harold Fish need to shoot the guy three times over an incident involving dogs that were no longer a threat? And if they were a threat, why didn't he shoot the dogs, and not the man?

Like I've always said about myself, if I'd ever have a gun on me — or around — and I'd even perceive a threat, I would shoot somebody. And I would expect to go to jail if that person were unarmed.

Using the logic that Fish's advocates use, would it be kosher to shoot somebody in traffic because he gave you the finger and might use his car as a battering ram to kill you? There will be those in gun-nut-laden Arizona who will argue that even in such a traffic incident, it would be correct to shoot to kill. Sad.
Robert Porter, Phoenix

Victim did not call off the dogs: Many of you will remember the training that you received to get a concealed-weapon permit (this training content was dictated by the state of Arizona):

When threatened, a person can shout at the assailant to stop and drop his weapon. We were instructed not to give a warning shot or shoot to wound. If the assailant does not stop his threatening behavior, the correct procedure is to shoot twice at his torso to prevent bodily injury to yourself.

 

Kind of a tough policy, but those dogs were, effectively, weapons and, in this case, they were not called off by the man who was killed. Unfortunately, we do not have a videotape of the incident to prove exactly what happened.
Max Williams, Phoenix

Wouldn't pepper spray work, too?: Why do [people] choose to believe that the jury was wrong when it decided that Harold Fish's actions were not reasonable and justified under the law? The jury judged Fish's actions based on what he knew (or testified that he knew) about the victim at the time of the shooting.

Fish made a choice without knowing about the victim's background. The jury was asked to judge Fish's actions based on the circumstances knowable to Fish at the time of the shooting. They chose to not believe Fish acted reasonably and with justification under the law in the circumstances in which he acted.

Fish says that he was trained to not fire a warning shot, but he wasn't trained to use lethal force on an unarmed person. Also, why, if his training was key, did he violate it by firing a warning shot at snarling, charging dogs moving faster than a human? Why assume that a vicious dog would be deterred by the sound of a gunshot? Why take that risk? Nobody has ever been charged with homicide against a dog.

Fish had time to note the victim's expression and body language, time to listen to him make a homicidal declaration (supposedly), time to watch him walk forward "swinging his fists." He had time after that to aim for the chest and shoot three times. The victim was unarmed, and neither a warning shot nor a single shot with a pause to gauge effect would have been too risky, provided he kept his bead.

Why, if the victim was intent on killing the defendant, didn't the victim take the screwdriver from his pocket for use as a weapon? Maybe he didn't think of it as a weapon? Maybe he was trying to get close to Fish, but if so, why announce his intent to kill him verbally?

Why did Fish take a gun, choosing not to carry less-lethal weapons of self-defense in case of bodily threats that did not rise to the level of the threat of death? Didn't he cite his training, and didn't his training include the justification of lethal force under Arizona law? Fish had the money to buy a nice gun. Surely, he had the money for a can of pepper spray.
Emil Pulsifer, Phoenix

Thank you for your intelligent contribution to this debate, Steve: I just read your article regarding gun owners, and I'm sorry to inform you that [your writer's] an idiot. I would love to debate for hours, but my time is better spent elsewhere.

Maybe one day he or his family's lives will depend on a legally armed citizen — better yet, I hope [the writer] never needs one of us to help him. Until then, he should do us all a favor and move back to New York or California. I'm sure he's not from Arizona, probably not even an American.
Steve Schaedel, via the Internet

BACKWARD IN AZ

A smart-ass Mexican: The entire nation is already aware of what's going on in Arizona. Your state's backward antics are hilarious and entertaining to us. I seriously read Arizona news on a daily basis because it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys are actually afraid of Joe Arpaio ("Wrecking Crew," The Bird, July 30).

He wouldn't last two minutes in a real city. I am Mexican, and I can't imagine why a Mexican would consider his life better by moving to AZ. You may as well just stay in Mexico, rather than having to work for peanuts for a bunch of trashy people with long, dirty hair, tattoos, and pit smell.

Come to Seattle. We have something called technology here. Let me explain that in Arizona talk: It be computerz n fancy doo-hickeys, y'all. We actually have green plants here and not a bunch of anal-retentive police who [wouldn't be] man enough to cut it in any civilized state.

Arpaio acts like Arizona is some paradise that needs to be protected from the Mexican invasion. Your state really cannot get much worse than it already is. Let's say all the Mexicans did get deported, then what would you have? You would have 5 million meth users, tweakers, police with the IQs of 4-year-olds, and other miscreants.

All of you would be so strung out on meth that you wouldn't be able to tend to your cactus gardens or do any of the other work that the Mexicans do. "Hey, Pa, there ain't no more tomaters to put on mah burgers since all them Mexicans been deeported. Ain't none of us smart enuff to pick them tomaters so we be hongry."

 

Basically, quit treating the Mexicans as unwanted guests and thank them for being the only people on Earth who actually want to be anywhere near your trashy selves. Oh, yeah, the Cardinals and the Diamondbacks suck.
Juan Granillo, Seattle


Sponsor Content