KDFW Suspends Rebecca Aguilar After Controversial "Ambush"

Monday night, KDFW-Channel 4 ran a piece about 70-year-old James Walton, owner of Able Walton Machine & Welding in West Dallas, who, early Sunday morning, shot and killed and man trying to break into his business. What made Walton's story so extraordinary was that it was the second time he'd killed an intruder in three weeks. As it happens, Walton also lives at his place of business.

I had seen this remarkable story in the paper, and thought to myself, "poor guy - he must feel awful, having been put in fear of his life twice in three weeks. So much so, he was compelled to defend himself, using deadly force." That had to be a difficult experience, at best.

Apparently, Mr. Walton was interviewed by a local reporter about his experiences. Well, Catfish pointed me to the article that this post links to, and I must say I'm not surprised at what transpired in this "interview."

Rrrrrebecca Aguilar was a local Fox affiliate reporter who did what a lot of anti-gun media types do: make a bad guy out of someone who uses a firearm in self-defense. I didn't see the video (which has since been pulled from the Fox site), but from all accounts, she essentially brought a 70-year-old man to tears, badgering him with questions like "Are you a trigger-happy kind of person? Is that what you wanted to do? Shoot to kill?"

Again, I think to myself and wonder, "what would she have done in the same situation?" Fire a warning shot? Shoot him in the hand/leg/arm/buttocks? Shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand? Submit, and take your chances at the hand of a criminal? In case you're wondering, all of the above are VERY BAD IDEAS. I'm sure we'd be happy to elaborate for those of you who might have questions.

So what, in fact, would a sane and reasonable person do in a situation where they are in imminent and immediate fear of death or bodily harm? Allow me to posit this: the same thing Mr. Walton did, no questions asked. Shoot to stop is what Texas law proscribes for use of deadly force. If the perpetrator happens to die as a result of this stopping, so be it. The LAW is on Mr. Walton's side, and so is sanity and logic.

How dare Ms. Aguilar question this man like she did? I'd venture to guess that the police didn't try to incriminate Mr. Walton - they could see what happened, and he'll likely be no-billed as a result of the circumstances. As a result of her incredibly bad judgement, Ms. Aguilar has been indefinitely suspended from Fox. AMF.

Deputy fired 30 shots from rifle in killing 6, officials say - CNN.com

First off, this is a tragedy beyond words, make no mistake. Here's a young man who apparently didn't have the tools to cope with stress, and was in a position to inflict great harm. 'Nuff said.

Here's what I want you to see in this article:

An off-duty sheriff's deputy used a police-style AR-15 rifle to kill six people at an early morning party in a small Wisconsin town, officials said Monday.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Had this crime been perpetrated by anyone other than a law-enforcment officer, that rifle would've been decried as one of those damned "assault" rifles. Yet here we have all the elements of such a story: a high-powered rifle, with a 30-round magazine, wielded by a psychopath is usually fodder for all manner of hysteria about how this wouldn't have happened had the Clinton ban still been in effect, and all other sorts of nonsense.

None of that here. Why?

There was an incident here in Dallas late last week where a 20-year-old armed security guard fought off 3 teenagers intent on robbing him with an SKS rifle - a $139 curio and relic piece. Guess what that rifle was classified as? Bingo - "assault rifle." What makes this 20-year-old young man any different? It's not an assault rifle, it's a "police-style AR-15 rifle," which for some reason doesn't garner the same criticism had the weapon been borne by a "civilian." Because he was a "law-enforcement officer?"

I don't get it.