Captain's Quarters -

Sorry to see it was a Fox reporter. You'd think Fox would be the only station to support the fellow.

So who said she was suspended without pay?

Perhaps they just want to spin this for their public, and just gave the reporter a little time off. Ya know... (wink! wink!) consequences for what you did... just lay low until the heat is off!

Just my cynical $.02
DRK

Traditional media is bleeding money out, and it is obviously showing up in the quality of the people they hire.

How to improve the situation in the media is problematical.

I am amazed at the gentleman's patience. 42 times???? Heck, once you get into double digits, it's time to try something else.

KDFW is a local TV station - it has nothing to do with The Fox News Channel. Whatever political position FNC has, has nothing to do with the local stations politics.

You are right about management - probably the reporter was assigned to do the story by the Assignment Editor (a mid-management position). The script would have been read by the newscast producer (a low-level manager) and approved by someone such as an Executive Producer, Assistant News Director or News Director (all management positions). However, it is usual with TV that the on-air folks get the money and take too much credit and too much of the blame. (Yes, I worked in TV newsrooms for years).

Her behavior was despicable, but my attitude is, this is TV news - it's all sewage.

Cable TV, local TV, what's the difference? Who can sit there through a single moment of it? I'd rather go have a tooth pulled. Stupidity and vulgarity on parade.

Yes, she's an idiot and so is her editor. But that's pretty much their jobs as TV media hacks. Ethics and professional standards went straight out the window years ago. Why suspend them? They are who they are - hacks.

I find the story of the man interesting though. He called the police 42 times. Citizens should realize that the police are under no legal obligation to protect citizens or their property and that's exactly why we need the Second Amendment. It's good that this story is getting airing, but it's too bad the media that's doing so, has botched it, as usual.

May she never have to defend her life. On the other hand, may she Have to defend her life, and spend the Rest of her life regretting not being able to do so. She may have a bit more sympathy for people like Mr. Walton after that.

As much as I would like to suspend the MSM, the woman was verbally attacking the guy. Whether or not her management should show her attacking the guy, she should have been fired for the pure crap she was putting the guy through.

Sure, management screwed up by running the episode, but at least we got a view of how the reporter operates. She doesn't report, she condemns.

The accelerated production schedule that newsrooms have to follow should also be born in mind. Footage comes in, it's given the minimum overview necessary to determine it's at least up to minimum production standards, often by hurried people trying to do ten things at once, and has to be on the air within hours or you've got a serious gap in your program. If Aguilar is generally trusted to get things right (and she might be; everybody has a first major screwup), it wouldn't surprise me if people skimped on her overview.

Added to that, if the decision was entirely Aguilar's to veer from a prepackaged script that did *not* take her particular in-your-face rude approach, then it's not fair to punish some low-level cassette-pusher for not wanting to contradict a field reporter (not something that's encouraged, as I understand it).

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately blamed on bureaucracy.

(And without suggesting that I agree with Aguilar, it does occur to me that she may have thought, not unreasonably, that a man demonstrably capable of shooting to protect his life had the strength of will to deal with a few hard questions without being reduced to tears, 70 years old or not.)

We see a disturbing narrative emerging:

Leftist power-brokers are abusing the powers of congress and big media to attack and intimidate private citizens. This is exactly what America was not supposed to be about.

What the hell is to stop these leftist activists from standing outside of a church with cameras rolling, putting your face on show-trial, declaring you guilty for espousing beliefs that contradict leftist party dogma?

This is some bad dope, my friends. While the leftists squeal hysterically that we have the gestapo and the goon squads, the stark fact is, the only goon squads out there are radical leftist goon squads.

On the upside, Aguilar is getting all of the abuse by Texans and Walton all of the sympathy and praise. Way to go, Texas! Poor man. The system doesn't protect him so his self-defense is challenged by some self-serving hack who feels she has a license to practically assault this man who followed the law to protect life, limb, and property subsequent to numerous break-ins.

I'm surprised she was suspended since ambush journalism is such a stock in trade for ratings boosts. I'd hope she would be fired and her supervisors suspended (w/o pay) for such a callous and unprofessional gambit, but that's too much to ask, I'm sure.

Remember though - leave the judgment, editing, and reporting to the professionals and not the pajama wearing civvies. What do they know?

Is that what what you wanted to do? Shoot to kill?

A better punishment would be for her to go do an indepth piece on gun owners, including extensive time at a range. There, she might learn the wisdom that my father passed on to me: Never point a gun at something unless you intend to shoot it. Never point a gun at another person unless you intend to kill them.

As far as Mr. Walton is concerned, my first thought is maybe you won't have to call the cops for awhile, now.

Usually, it is the local FOX affiliate that stinks, not the national.

In the area where I live (Corpus Christi), one company owns both the FOX and NBC affiliates. News broadcasts are done by the same people on both channels, at different times. I guess that makes sure there's a little more "quality" to what they do.

What that reporter did was completely uncalled for. She should have been fired. But, on the other hand, if she's fired, it is possible that she would have turned it around and accused the affiliate of "discrimination" or some other thing. Who knows?

That was disgusting, what a fraud. I think she should be fired for the crime of emotional blackmail.

I agree, she's a member of the goon squad.

AnonymousDrivel,

The system did protect him. Under Texas law, he's allowed to shoot people taking his property. He was allowed to own his gun and use it. Isn't that what the system really should be protecting -- personal freedom? If you read the article and listen to the police sargeant who took the reporters' questions, everything is going right form Mr. Walton.

Texas appears to be a state where killing someone to protect your property is allowed; if a shop owner in California shot a burglar in the yard, they'd be up for murder.

Personally, I could not do what Mr. Walton did. Property is not worth a life. A life is worth a life, not property.

Now, if only Texas had an unlawful restraint type of law they could unleash against Ms. Aguilar for shoving herself part way into Mr. Walton's car...

And IRA Darth Aggie,

I'm glad you aren't a policeman. Twice I've had a policeman point a gun at me, and each time, they had to apologize. Once when a rapist ran into my apartment building as I was leaving, and once when a policeman thought I was an intruder on my own property as I talked to children left alone by parents in my rental unit to reassure them that we had called the police to catch the guy they saw staring at them through their bedroom screen. Under your philosophy, I'd be dead. Twice.

"Prior to these two incidents, he called police forty-two times to protect him against intruders, and that strategy obviously had not paid off."

No, no other possible angles here.

Not about the police (possibly) not doing protecting a senior citizen/businessman who obviously needs their help.

Not about the criminals who find his store so attractive.

What purpose does the media serve here? In the past, perhaps a story regarding how the police are not protecting people might have led to improvements.

But now, it's just useless sensationalism and "fight the power" (i.e. white males) crapola.

So again, why watch the news?

Don't blame a skunk for being a skunk.

"What the hell is to stop these leftist activists from standing outside of a church with cameras rolling, putting your face on show-trial, declaring you guilty for espousing beliefs that contradict leftist party dogma?"

Fear of violence

The Texas Congress Critters just passed the "Castle Law", which allows the use of deadly force to protect your home. There has been an increase of news stories about folks shooting intruders in their homes recently. No doubt, the ACLU and their ilk will be trying to set up a "test case" to take to the Supreme Court to get the law overturned. I suspect this is what is going one here... the "anti Castle Law" crowd taking their battle to the next level.

RE: unclesmrgol (October 18, 2007 9:31 AM)

"The system did protect him. Under Texas law, he's allowed to shoot people taking his property. He was allowed to own his gun and use it. Isn't that what the system really should be protecting -- personal freedom?..."

I should've been more precise. Yes, there is law that can potentially shield him from criminality, but there is no guarantee that it will. A county DA, with the right motivation, could still call for a Grand Jury and a sympathetic pool of grand jurors find enough leeway depending on evidence provided to force a trial. Yes, it's Texas and public sentiment would suggest that to be unlikely, but the courts are no guarantee of justice.

Furthermore, the system was unable to protect this man's property. Police had been called for crimes on his property (it would appear) countless times. What kind of police force can be considered adequate with such a record? What kind of system is in place that would place such a burden on an individual? See, he doesn't look particularly wealthy, so I gather his residence or others at such a low socioeconomic level sit pretty low on the totem pole for proactive response. Do you think the likes of someone from Highland Park, for example, would suffer such relative abandonment and repeated assault? The wealthy I'm certain could demand, and would receive, priority response despite their capacity to better survive economic loss; the disadvantaged, however, would not and did not (as this case illustrates) despite their diminished capacity to survive economic loss.

So, while there is a systemic social default defense via law that should protect this man, 1) there is no guarantee that it will, and 2) there is evidence that the rest of the system as constructed cannot or will not intercede to thwart extreme measures. I'm all for the personal freedom this man engaged but think the external forces society has purchased to help are insufficiently applied or just misapplied.

Nonetheless and on the upside again, at least he has a law that could defend him which is more than can be said about some other states.

What a golden opportunity for a face off between the Fifth Estate and the Second Amendment.

I don't live in Dallas any more, but I'd love to see constant pickets and other protests outside KDFW. If you live in Dallas, contact the station's advertisers and tell them you will not buy their products for 30 days as an act of protest. Money talks.

I'd love to see someone open a bank account for Mr. Walton so he can beef up security at his house.

You would never see KDFW treat a suspected child molester or illegal immigrant so shabbily.

... I suspect this is what is going one here... the "anti Castle Law" crowd taking their battle to the next level.

In which case, I think they shoot themselves in the foot. Mr. Wilson's case is only going to demonstrate why a "Castle Law" is needed.

And unclesmrgol, you never know when a property assaulting criminal will turn murderous.

BTW, Texas has never had a duty to retreat inside your own home. The Castle law we passed simply codified that common law and extended it to your business and vehicle.

"Police had been called for crimes on his property (it would appear) countless times. What kind of police force can be considered adequate with such a record? What kind of system is in place that would place such a burden on an individual?"

Exactly. THAT'S the story the public needs, so they can hold the bozos who oversee this fiasco, accountable. And to improve things, so taxpaying business owners and citizens aren't getting terrorized by criminals. That's the purpose of journalism.

Instead, the Drive-By media hacks here, decided the REAL story here, is the mean ol' white guy who (sniff, sniff!) offed two poor, defenseless burglers. Jean Valjean, stealing a loaf of bread.

What used to be called "journalism" has deteriorated beyond recognition.

Cap'n Ed: A Texas television station suspended a reporter after berating a 70-year-old man who had to shoot two burglars in the last three weeks. Rebecca Aguilar, who had just won an award for Hispanic journalists last week, stood over James Walton as he sat in his car, tearfully trying to answer such questions as "Are you a trigger happy kind of person? Is that what what you wanted to do? Shoot to kill?"

Perhaps you've read my book, "Conservatives Are From Earth, Liberals Are From The Twilight Zone".

/sarcasm

Aguilar's "remarks" simply portray the liberal attitude toward guns: only closet psychopaths have them because they just can't wait to cap somebody. Think about this the next time you read a newspaper article or watch a TV news segment that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms: libs have an agenda and reporting is generally colored by it.

As for what Mr. Walton did... I'm sorry that he killed the two burglars. I'd wager that I'm not half as sorry as he is, however: one of the strongest taboos in our society is killing another person, and I imagine that he's feeling a lot of guilt. "Should I have waited for the police? Should I have fired a warning shot? Should I have fired to wound?" But what else was he supposed to do? unclesmrgol writes that, "rsonally, I could not do what Mr. Walton did. Property is not worth a life. A life is worth a life, not property." This is an admirable sentiment, though I wonder what the crime rate would be like if more crimes ended up with the criminal in a body bag.

I work with a number of very talented techie types. All are very politically aware. NONE get their news from TV. That's as in NONE (for the dhimmicrats out there).

If you get your news from TV (or even radio, for that matter), you are quite simply not qualified to make a judgement on anything.

I love reporters! When anyone else 'makes a mistake', they have to be held accountable. A reporter or news orgainzation makes a mistake and the excuses flow like beer at Octoberfest. A cop or citizen makes a split second decision to shoot someone in the dark at 2:30am and reporters will Monday morning quaterback everything. A reporter makes a mistake at a well-lit editing desk, in a nice cozy room and all we hear about are "work pressures". Yeah, I buy that.

First, this is what you get when you hire reporters/journalists/tvpersonalities. Why would anyone expect anything else?

Second, the incidence of elderly being killed by burglars is high enough, that were anyone to burgle me, I would expect them to be willing to kill me, so . . . Exactly how long am I supposed to wait for what kind of additional evidence that my life is at risk? Being tried by twelve still beats being carried by six.

And, actually, the idiot reporter *is* being defended by the usual assortment of gun grabbers who believe you should always wait for the cops. I really, really hope they need a cop someday and have to wait. Really. Screw them and the horse they rode in on.

When does management ever hold itself accountable? As long as no one notices, management will turn a blind eye, then when someone DOES notice, they punish the person who committed the offense, but never the people who gave tacit approval for years before.

Just a few months ago in Chicago there was a high-profile firing of an anchorwoman for much less. In that case again, management spent years profiting from her and her behavior, then suddenly when she became part of the story she was covering they let her go saying "we don't tolerate this" yes you do tolerate it you just don't want people to know.

unclesmrgol,

And IRA Darth Aggie,

I'm glad you aren't a policeman. Twice I've had a policeman point a gun at me, and each time, they had to apologize. Once when a rapist ran into my apartment building as I was leaving, and once when a policeman thought I was an intruder on my own property as I talked to children left alone by parents in my rental unit to reassure them that we had called the police to catch the guy they saw staring at them through their bedroom screen. Under your philosophy, I'd be dead. Twice.

The two situations are entirely different. A policeman pointing a gun is expressing a willingness to use deadly force to make an individual obey him in an extreme situation. He is forbidden to fire unless the subject commits an overt act, such as pointing a weapon or charging the officer. On the other hand, a civilian defending his home has no duty to subdue or arrest an intruder, and may shoot to kill immediately.

Surely no one is surprised about this. No one who works in the newsroom would have found her story or tactics to be the least bit disturbing. They very likely thought it was an excellent story with that "hard hitting ambush journalism" made so famous by 60 Minutes lo these many years ago.

I'm quite sure they were completely shocked when the audience started calling in... irate! How could this be?

After they figured out that their audience was so angry they might start losing viewers, they decided to make the symbolic gesture and suspend the reporter with the idea that this will satisfy those bloodthirsty idiots.

As for "shooting someone over property"... once a burglar enters your house or business, how do you know - in the short time available to determine this, at night, in the dark, with no prospect of the police getting there in time, that this person won't just kill you or beat you up so you end up unable to take care of yourself...

After watching him walk in the parking lot, he is not moving so well. One good blow and he'd be either grievously injured or dead. So he's supposed to wait around and just hope they take what they want and leave without hurting him? Gee - now there's an appealing idea.

Doesn't anybody else find it.... awfully ... convenient that they happened to find him as he was purchasing a replacement for the impounded shotgun?

(Why would it be impounded? It's not like there was any doubt, was there?)

I'd guess that they followed him to the store - the better to ambush him as he came out. With, of course, the new gun, the better to prove he's just bloodthirsty and trigger-happy.

unclesmrgol, in Texas it is legal to shoot to protect property.

Mr Walton was protecting his life, however. I have friends who know two elderly people who were murdered at home by robbers in the Dallas area in two separate incidents. I wish they had been prepared to defend themselves as Mr Walton was. Burglary/robbery all too frequently turns into rape/assault/murder.

She was not just verbally attacking the man. She was unlawfully detaining him by precluding him from closing his car door and leaving. I would have drawn on her and held her under citizen's arrest for unlawful detention until the cops came. What was she trying to do? Get him to shove her so he could close his car door and leave and then claim assault?

If Mr. Walton called the police 42 times privious to taking matters into his own hands it tells me that he must live in a dangerous neighborhood.

Many burglers also carry guns so I would think that the police probably took their time coming because of fear for their own life.

Being a lawman is a dangerous job.

I have heard that texas has a reputation for a high rate of citations issued to drivers on the highways because it generates revenue for the counties. They show a continuous presence on the highways.

It is also safer than pursuing a burgler in the middle of the night on private property - where you might also be accidently shot by the property owner.

I am sure Mr. Walton does feel guilt that he had use deadly force to protect his property. It is a sad state of affairs to call 42 times and not get help.

The reporter should have picked up on that issue. I hope she gets fired.

Capt. Ed says:
I don't mean to argue on Aguilar's behalf for the report.

Eric says:
I do mean to argue on his behalf.

He did what he felt was necessary in a situation that was potentially life threatening. He has been faced with actions such as this in the past. He has required police protection on 42 separate occasions.

He shot a worthless burglar. Probably also a drug abuser. Actually two. The world is two people better in the balance of good vrs. evil as a result.

I live in a nice neighborhood that until recently has been free of crime. A few months ago, in the middle of the night, a home had been broken into and burglarized (nobody was home.) Days later, a woman was alone in her house and woke up as her dog was barking. She walked out of her bedroom and found a man standing in the entry hall to her home. He ran. A few days later, an elderly couple heard someone attempting to enter their house in the middle of the night. The old man proceeds to put a shotgun shell through his closed and locked front door, and then calls 911. No body on the porch, just a small amount of blood.

Our neighborhood has not had any further problems. He has not been charged. I keep meaning to buy a gun as I fear I'm going to need it someday.

"A county DA, with the right motivation, could still call for a Grand Jury and a sympathetic pool of grand jurors find enough leeway depending on evidence provided to force a trial."

That's exactly what is happening. At the very end of the segment, the reporter said that "Even though the police said Walton did not break any laws, the case will be turned over to a Grand Jury. It will decide if Walton should be booked on any criminal charges."

Just why the hell is the case being turned over to a Grand Jury if no laws were broken?

Well let's all be glad that the worthless offal Walton offed was white. Just imagine the hysteria if he shot a black criminal or one of the gazillion illegal Mexicans in Texas. The usual suspects would be marching in the streets.

Which just points out another little chewed up wad of Liberal hypocrisy. All they care about here is getting the gun "maniac". They don't care a lick about the deceased in this case, because he's a white male and therefore unworthy of consideration.

You, too, can unload your vitriol upon the _good_ people of KDFW by the simple expedient of going here:

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/ContactUs?pageId=5.11

Use any legit zip code you care, no real name or email is necessary.

Let them know what you think. Might help.

It could happen.....

Though I just moved to Georgia 3 weeks ago, Dallas was my home for the previous 10 years. Several things are going on with this story. First, Rebecca Aguillar is probably the leftest leaning reporter at Fox 4. She has a long history of doing 'left leaning' stories, and she has never been very unbiased. So I was not surprised (but very upset) when she pulled this crap. Second, the Dallas police department has been understrength for almost 8 years. The city of Dallas has a minimum staffing law of one officer for x-amount of people. (I cant recall the exact amount at the moment) At last count, they are about 800 officers short of what they are supposed to be. Why? Because the Dallas city council whines about lack of officers, but fight over the money and wont take it out of their district's pet projects to fund more officers. So, you get things like 42+ calls with hours of wait time before responses. (An aside, my wife and I got out car broken into a few years ago, called Dallas pd, and were told to submit a report by phone and a detective would call us within 30 days... ) Third, the area that Mr. Walton's business is in is, quite frankly, an area that is very bad after dark. That section of town is old, run down and economically disadvantaged. So, he has to defend his own home and property. He installed cameras, motion detectors and burgular alarms. He only fired upon people who climbed the fence, went through the salvage yard itself, then broke into his inner shop/living quarters. So lets sumarize: two low life, non law abiding, non low respecting burgulars/thugs break into a 70 year old mans home, AFTER a minimum of 42 previous incidents and lose their lives? I say better the scum than the law abiding.

Ray in Mpls asked:

"Just why the hell is the case being turned over to a Grand Jury if no laws were broken?"

'Cause this is Texas, and we protect law-abiding citizens.

Any shooting of this nature goes to a Grand Jury. ANY shooting. Under these circumstances the Grand Jury returns a verdict that there is no grounds for filing charges -- that the shooting was justified. No bill of indictment will be filed. In Texas, this is called "No billing" an incident.

If it is no-billed, it is legally dead. He cannot be charged for a crime related to the shooting later. It also protects him from certain types of civil actions. (It is harder to get a wrongful death judgment, for instance.)

In fact, in most cases, the DA will present a clear self-defense case with a recommendation that it be No-billed, and it dies right there. It is virtually automatic.

If OTOH, a DA attempts to return a bill of indictment in this type of case, in law-and-order Texas, he better have a damn good case that the homeowner did something very, very wrong (like invite someone into the house, and then shoot him in an attempt to get away with murder), or that DA is likely to be seeking private employment come the next election.

Liberals don't get it, they always feel sorry for the perpetrator. Common sense says, you decide to step outside the bounds of society and attempt to take something from someone else, whatever happens to you is your own fault. If you don't want to get shot, stay out of other's property. Of course, liberals believe that all property belongs to the people, as it was all stolen from the poor, right? Except their (liberals) property. That gets seriously protected.

I don't live in Dallas any more, but I'd love to see constant pickets and other protests outside KDFW. If you live in Dallas, contact the station's advertisers and tell them you will not buy their products for 30 days as an act of protest. Money talks.

I DO live in the Dallas area, and know many other bloggers who do, as well. Check my blog around 8:30 AM when I can get home from work. I am going to get started on a Fire The Liar protest!

Liar? Yes! By deliberately leaving out the fact that Wilson LIVED at his place of business, thus making it his HOME he was defending, Aguilar was engaging in a half-truth. The neglected detail changed the nature of the event.
A half-truth is a WHOLE LIE.

I don't understand the "sting" style reporting in this case. Why would this be necessary? And why so personal? It isn't as if this guy is "Enemy Number One" in Texas. I think when you are a reporter, you should check your racist politics at the front door.

Viewers have been complaining about biased news reporting tactics for years, and this kind of thing isn't going to just happen quietly any more.

Had this man broken the law and gotten away with murder, then maybe you could put a fine point on that kind of story and confront him. But, when it becomes a "crime" to defend yourself in your own home, then we are all going to go to hell in a hand basket. Somehow, the right to defend yourself has become something wrong. On the other hand, I would bet that this same reporter, in her personal life, would try to defend herself if she felt her life was in danger. It's just basic survival.

Instead of being suspended, she should have been fired.

WAKE UP! The 'story airing' isn't the story here people. Her demeanor and line of questioning towards this crime victim/war veteran IS the story. No editor can take that back. Mr. Walton experienced it in real time. Unless you conspiracy minded folks think she had an earphone and was being fed the questions - then WAKE UP and face the fact that SHE is the story and no one else should be held responsible for her actions.

Whether the story ran or not - the fact of the matter is the QUESTION 'Are you trigger happy' was asked of this Crime Victim/War Veteran. No redub, edit or censor could change the fact that she asked an ignorant question with a derogatory, skeptical tone - in an obvious effort to further her well known personal anti-gun agenda.

She asked a hurtful question - so hurtful that the gentleman could not contain his emotions. It doesn't matter that the editors let this story air or not - she asked the question - no edit can erase that from the mind of the person who was asked.

So she's still a dirtbag for asking it - edit or not - airing or not. That my friends is why SHE, and no one else, is on leave - hopefully a permanent one.

Producers do NOT see packages or other pre-taped pieces before they hit the air. The first time the audience sees it is the first time everyone at the station besides the reporter and editor see it. Management has no responsibility in this. "Managing editors" (what are really called news directors and producers) do not have the time NOR is it their job to hold some reporter's hand every step of the way. It is the reporter's job to live up to the station standards and do their own jobs correctly.

And SC, local Fox affiliates are ENTIRELY different from "Fox News", the cable news station. San Francisco's Fox affiliate is just as left-leaning as every other station. Many of the local Fox affiliates also happen to be CNN afiliates.

The part of the story every one seems to miss is the fact of where they approached him.

They did not just "happen" to find him coming out of a store with a new shotgun.

They followed him looking for an opportunity to approach him and judging by her opening remarks in reference to the package -they waited outside of a gun store knowing they had hit pay dirt.

Nor did this reporter just happen to turn into the jackass she came across as for this one interview. This situation simply provided an opportunity for it to be shown in the complete context.

Management is 100% responsible for letting this kind of garbage and reporting -1. happen 2. air.

Slight confusion though, here. He runs a "junk yard." Ever hear the phrase "junkyard dog"? Cats domesticated humans because they killed mice who ate up and contaminated grain stores. Dogs domesticated humans because they acted as both sentinals and attack dogs. Where were this dude's Pinchers and Rotweilers? I smell a rat, who had a chip on his shoulder, and maybe knew that it wasn't 42 random felons eating at his trough, but probably two guys who kept showing up. Thank god for them that they died in an instant instead of being mauled to death by guard dogs. I say this because I used to be a minor deliquient as a teen, and a “Beware of Dog” sign was usually enough to keep myself and crazy friends from snipping the barbed wire at the top of fences, during our industrial zone expolorations.

There they go again, proving my point about liberals. "I smell a rat, who had a chip on his shoulder..." If the two guys didn't want to get shot, they should have stayed off property that wasn't theirs. Noone shot them while they were doing legal activities on their own property. You break the rules of decency, you take a chance.