KDFW Reporter Attacks Senior Citizen

[Guest cfif]

[yt=425,350]HnZd-5dYXfk[/yt]

 

What a TERRIBLE piece of reporting. Basically grilling some old man who was within his right to defend his property and probably did a good thing by taking two shitbags off the streets.

 

KDFW dropped the ball on this one.

[Ntropolis 596]

...some old man who was within his right to defend his property...

 

Um, no. This is Texas, not Florida... they don't have "make my day" laws. He's still a criminal.

 

I'm not sure if this reporter did the right thing by going after him... when you're a criminal, you're gonna have to face media going after you.

[newsman123 114]

I actually dont fault the reporter. Any station in this country...would have had an EP saying: "We've gotta get an interview with this guy!" She got the soundbites..she got the interview. It was a big story.

 

She asked him appropriate questions... and didnt show his face when he asked not to.

[TSSZNews 1051]

Um....you guys know KDFW indefinitely suspended the reporter for that story, right?

 

-T

[10Viewer 335]

This is one of the crappiest stories I've seen. I am disgusted with some of the reporting that passes for news today.

 

That reporter was way out of line. Asking questions like "Are you a trigger happy kind of person?" "Is that you wanted to do: Shoot to kill?"

 

The reporter is obviously baiting this individual. That's what I have a real problem with. If this story was done objectively, she should have also asked a district attorney about the 2nd Amendment rights any law abiding gun owner possess. This story was one-sided beyond repair.

 

What the hell does the reporter think this man is going to do when intruders climb his fence to steal from his business; shake his hand? Any sane business owner would grab their gun and tell the dirtbag to get off their property or else. He was well within his rights.

 

I hope this reporter is fired and never works in television again.

[Sam Horn 78]

Um, no. This is Texas, not Florida... they don't have "make my day" laws. He's still a criminal.

 

Huh? Every state has right-to-defend laws, and the anchor even said at the end of the report that the man "didn't break any laws."

 

He's not a criminal, and he shouldn't have been accosted as one.

[jdcnow 14]

...some old man who was within his right to defend his property...

Um, no. This is Texas, not Florida... they don't have "make my day" laws. He's still a criminal.

 

Actually, yeah we do...now. Meet the Texas "Castle Doctrine" Law, or as some call it, "The Texas Justice Law", that went into effect on Sept 1st, 2007:

 

From The Dallas Morning News:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-castle_13wes.ART0.North.Edition1.3e193c8.html

Bill to seek 'castle doctrine' crime protection: Texas may join states that allow deadly force first against intruders

 

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 13, 2006

By BRANDON FORMBY / The Dallas Morning News

 

The way state Sen. Jeff Wentworth sees it, Texans should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves and their property without facing prosecution.

 

Even if that means using deadly force as a first resort.

 

Mr. Wentworth, R-San Antonio, this week said he will author a bill that would give potential crime victims broader powers to protect themselves, their relatives and their property. It is patterned after a controversial Florida law passed last year that several states, mostly in the South and Midwest, are copying.

 

State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, is co-authoring the bill and said in a written statement that the proposal, if passed, means "you enter at your own risk" if you break into someone's home.

 

Essentially, the bill would legally establish the assumption that someone criminally entering a person's home, business or vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm and would allow potential victims to use any force – including deadly force – in retaliation.

 

The bill would also do away with the state's "duty to retreat" provision, which states that someone may not use deadly force if a reasonable person in the same situation would have retreated. And it would protect people from being sued by the criminals or relatives of criminals they injure or kill.

 

"If you break into my house with intent to commit a crime, I shouldn't have to calculate, 'Does he have a knife, does he have a gun, is the gun loaded,' " Mr. Wentworth said. "I ought to be able to protect my property and my family without worrying about those other things."

 

About 14 states – including Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Michigan – have passed similar laws since Florida became the first state to do so last year. Dubbed "castle doctrine" laws, they are a derivative of English common law. The spirit of the castle doctrine has traditionally been upheld in court cases across the country. But Mr. Wentworth wants to see it on the books.

 

The laws are backed by the National Rifle Association, which gives them the moniker "stand your ground" laws because they allow possible crime victims who are in a place where they have a right to be to fight back without being second-guessed by courts.

 

"If this becomes law in Texas, it would put the law on the side of the victim, but not the criminal," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA.

 

For more information >> Wikipedia article on the "Castle Doctrine" Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

I agree with 8Viewer and cfif on this one. I had an acquaintance of my mom's to park his car, once, in a fire lane. He was just going to run inside a building for just a moment. When he was inside, this girl wasn't paying attention while driving and hit his car, totaling it. He wanted to go after her for wrecking his car. Well he shouldn't have parked in the fire lane. My point: When you break the law, you accept full consequences for what happens to you and your property. Same thing here. When you break into someone else's property, you take your life into your own hands. It's that simple. If somebody kills you, attempting to defend their family/property, you shouldn't have been there breaking and entering to begin with.

 

Speaking as a longtime KDFW viewer:

SHAME ON REBECCA AGULAR, WHO SHOULD HAVE F---ING KNOWN BETTER!!!

 

> > >

She's been with KDFW for a longtime (at least a decade, I think). I hate to see her go, but if this is way she does her job, then she needs to go. And don't let the door hit her on the way out!

[Ntropolis 596]

Um, no. This is Texas, not Florida... they don't have "make my day" laws. He's still a criminal.

 

Huh? Every state has right-to-defend laws, and the anchor even said at the end of the report that the man "didn't break any laws."

 

He's not a criminal, and he shouldn't have been accosted as one.

 

Sorry... notice I posted at 6:41am. Sometimes you don't pay attention too well that early.

 

...some old man who was within his right to defend his property...

Um, no. This is Texas, not Florida... they don't have "make my day" laws. He's still a criminal.

 

Actually, yeah we do...now. Meet the Texas "Castle Doctrine" Law, or as some call it, "The Texas Justice Law", that went into effect on Sept 1st, 2007:

 

Ah... I thought it was just Florida and Oklahoma. It's what is what happens when you took law & justice a year ago.

 

I'll agree that the style of reporting wasn't right. Nobody wants to be bothered by media in a parking lot.

[AutisticPsycho 0]

The video's gone.

[WAVY 10 Fan 233]

(Remembering a Budweiser commercial from 5 years ago...)

 

Real reporter of genius...NOT!!!

[hopdevil 1]

Station Suspends "Journalist of Year"

 

http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/071018_prince/

[stevieboy247 42]

Doesn't surprise me.

[ShawnO 0]

Once again, cfif knows how to wreck a thread (even if it is one he/she started).

 

cfif: you said "reporter attacks senior citizen." Did she beat him up? Was there a physical altercation between the reporter and the senior citizen? How was this senior citizen attacked? I'm really sick and tired of your biased postings.

[Ntropolis 596]

"Attacks" may have not been the right word to use, but I get what he's saying... it's a verbal attack/altercation.

 

You can bias your posts all you want here... it's a message board.

[Sam Horn 78]

Mr. O'Domski:

 

I know you're busy pushing buttons and whatnot at WPRI, so I'll do my best to keep this short.

 

First, I'm surprised that you wasted post 13 on this. Usually your vitriol is reserved for the likes of Julius May, and you target only posts demanding we be rolling tape or editing some Wikipedia page.

 

Yes, this challenge of yours to a legitimate contributor to our community here is quite surprising. Your first post here since July used to flame someone. What? Did you need a fix?

 

Many people at many boards have grown tired of your antics -- namely your actions against the before-mentioned mentally challenged Julius May. Yet, you persist for whatever reason. You say you're sick and tired of bias; I say we're all sick and tired of your completely out-of-context flaming -- seriously, you're arguing semantics and you're wrong. Ouch.

 

I'll let you go; you don't want to keep Karen Adams waiting for her coffee.

[ShawnO 0]

SH: I don't post here very much, because I don't even read these forums all the time. I noticed how you had to twist the topic around to make me look like the bad guy. Well, since you want an argument...Julius May isn't retarded. He's what you call a "gimmick poster." His gimmick on boards like this one, are to get people to believe he's "mentally challenged." He isn't. In praise of Mr. May, he's actually behaved himself as of late on the boards he frequents. Besides, I don't even read those boards as much as I used to, because it's always full of Julius' ramblings with information that I usually find elsewhere. Secondly, you must be one of those message board trolls who have spent years posting libelous/slanderous comments about me, threatening me, and so forth. It seems you have not grown up. It's a shame that you continue to lower yourself lower then Hell's basement. Also, some breaking news for you, I'm not a "button pusher" at the station I work for and never have been. But you know everything about me and my life. Yeah right. Let's see how long it takes for those internet radio losers/broadcasting wannabees in suburban Philadelphia to talk about this on their show that nobody listens to. : I just noticed that you are a moderator of this forum. Go ahead and ban me from posting because I called you out on your bullshit. I really don't give a rat's hairy ass.

 

cfif: I'm still waiting for your answers to my earlier concerns. It seems you are having difficulty in responding in a professional manner. I asked legit questions, and I am wondering why you refuse to answer them. :

[Sam Horn 78]

SH: I don't post here very much, because I don't even read these forums all the time. I noticed how you had to twist the topic around to make me look like the bad guy. Well, since you want an argument...Julius May isn't retarded. He's what you call a "gimmick poster." His gimmick on boards like this one, are to get people to believe he's "mentally challenged." He isn't. In praise of Mr. May, he's actually behaved himself as of late on the boards he frequents. Besides, I don't even read those boards as much as I used to, because it's always full of Julius' ramblings with information that I usually find elsewhere. Secondly, you must be one of those message board trolls who have spent years posting libelous/slanderous comments about me, threatening me, and so forth. It seems you have not grown up. It's a shame that you continue to lower yourself lower then Hell's basement. Also, some breaking news for you, I'm not a "button pusher" at the station I work for and never have been. But you know everything about me and my life. Yeah right. Let's see how long it takes for those internet radio losers/broadcasting wannabees in suburban Philadelphia to talk about this on their show that nobody listens to. : I just noticed that you are a moderator of this forum. Go ahead and ban me from posting because I called you out on your bullshit. I really don't give a rat's hairy ass.

 

You're wrong on so many counts, and I'm not going to rehash that which I know is correct. So, please don't mistake a lack of direct reply on some matters as an admittance of your being correct.

 

First, I must say this is the first time I've ever directly addressed you on any board. It's amazing though that you can so easily lump me in with the hundreds of other people who have found exception with your tripe. Desensitization at it's finest!

 

And really, I didn't have to twist anything -- you are indeed the bad guy.

 

Good on you if you feel you've really called me out on my bullshit, but I think it's funny that you think I'm just going to "ban" you for that. I have something that you're apparently not familiar with -- integrity. I put myself out there; so I'm not just going to lock the topic or get rid of you because you replied. If another mod or admin wants to get rid of all this, they certainly can, but I'm not because I made myself a part of it, and I'm man enough to play on a level field.

 

Novel concept, yes?