This information was presented to the county attorney more than 10 days ago. Naturally, in the interest of serving the public, our reporters repeatedly pressed for whatever information they could find on this incident from day one.

Why?

First and foremost, there is the safety issue, especially when the cops announce that the incident was gang- and drug-related. The public should have had this information to know who was doing what in the community, if there was/is further danger to anybody living near the area or if they were in any danger by having even casual contact with any of the parties involved.

Second, there is this thing about transparencey and fairness in the court system. If investigations are held outside the public view, there is no guarantee that fairness will abide in either direction. In other words, people can either be given a pass by authorities because of their relationship to those in power or they can be railroaded and convicted unfairly if the public has no clue about the proceedings.

There are myriad questions surrounding this event.

Why did Hurricane investigators immediately -- the morning after the incident -- release a statement that it was a justified shooting? That is not a decision that is made at the police level, it is a decision made by the county attorney who must weigh the evidence and then decide if a crime was committed.

But, the cops took it upon themselves to make this announcement.

Why did the county attorney, Brock Belnap, when pressed on just about a daily basis for facts on this case, play dumb? Our reporters had gathered information early on that the alleged shooter was the mayor's nephew, yet when asked -- repeatedly -- there was no comment from Belnap? Our reporter even contacted the mayor, who gave us a terse "no comment" when first asked about his nephew's alleged involvement. And, the Hurricane Police Chief was suddenly unavailable for comment when evidence surfaced regarding the alleged shooter. What, he doesn't have a cellular telephone?

All we got was mysterious answers about a gang being involved and that there was fear for the safety of those involved.

Hang on here. If these intruders knew the people involved, knew their address and went to it to do harm, how is withholding the names from the media protecting anybody? And, how is withholding the name of the dead man protecting him? He's dead. The line of reasoning by the police and the county attorney, does not wash.

There is also the gang issue. There are rumors about which gang was involved. But, that, too, is being held under wraps. Why? Doesn't the public have the right to know who is a threat in the community?

We have since learned that the alleged shooter has been cleared by the county attorney of taking a life. But, again, no details of the vital events that led up to it. Was the intruder shot in the back while trying to escape? How many times was he shot? Was he inside or outside of the residence? Was the shooter under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident? Was this a dope deal gone bad? Who knows? The cops and county attorney aren't talking.

That makes the county attorney's position dodgy. Shooting an invader in the back is not acting in self-defense in many jurisdictions. The reasoning is that the person weilding the gun has made a sufficient demonstration of force to discourage the intruder who, it can be assumed, was making an escape. And, if the threat of a weapon was enough for the intruder to attempt to flee, pulling the trigger may not have been necessary. But, we don't know because the facts are still under wraps.

Maybe it was a clean shooting, maybe it wasn't. Where will these facts surface? If the triggerman is not charged with the shooting and the intruder is dead, then how can those events be brought into open court? Will they surface in a trial of the alleged accomplice? Will the alleged shooter, who has been charged with other crimes, such as unlawful possession of a weapon other crimes, be given immunity from those charges for testimony against the alleged accomplice?

At the heart of this is the question: Did the Hurricane Mayor put any pressure on the investigators, Hurricane Police Chief or Washington County Attorney's Office to either withhold his nephew's name or clear him of a crime?

It must also be added that since the incident, other strange things have occurred within the Hurricane PD.

First, and it may be coincidental, the department has hired a non-cop as a public information officer. PIOs are good sources for day-to-day information. However, when something at this level occurs, it is the chief who is responsible for dealing with the media, not a PIO.

Second, the officer who was in charge of dealing with the media in the past -- and wrote the initial press releases regarding this case -- has been relieved, at least temporarily, of his media responsibilities.

Third, the assistant police chief, who has always been extremely cooperative with our staff, made a statement to us. However, the next day, when another reporter was calling on an incident in Hurricane, we were told that all statements must now come from the chief, who would be unavailable until Monday.

That's no way to run a police department. The news occurs on a 24-hour basis. Withholding information for 36 hours is unacceptable, particularly in an incident like what we were investigating Saturday that could put others in harm's way.

I would suggest that at this point, an independent investigation of the Hurricane Police Department policies and practices by an outside agency is in order. I would strongly recommend that the investigation be conducted by the Utah Highway Patrol, which has an excellent rapport with the media and is often called in to perform such investigations.

We cannot allow the choked flow of information that is vital to the public's safety or its right to know.

If that's the case, it's time for a new police chief in Hurricane and for the county attorney to step down.

A person died, shot to death.

The public has the right to know why.