No, I didn't say nor imply they were misguided youths. I certainly knew better than that. They were robbing a home. They were fleeing. Did that mean that they couldn't in the future turn their lives around? It has been known to happen.

Unless the news articles have changed, neither man was on the killer's property and they had dropped the bags when threatened by him. And, I'm sorry, but if you shoot two men in the back, you tell me where the threat is to you. They were fleeing -- plain and simple.

Yes, the grand jury found the neighbor not guilty of any charges. I'm sure in most communities that would not have been the case unless a lot of facts (like he was being threatened) were hidden from the public at large. Our justice system is not perfect. Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to prison and even put to death. Guilty people have been decided to be not guilty -- sometimes in a trial, sometimes by decisions made by others, sometimes by error. Telling me that two people are shot in the back for having stolen property makes it murder to me. Unless you can show me that these men were in fact threatening the neighbors, the man who did the shooting, the little old lady from Pasadena, someone, you're not going to convince me otherwise. And I doubt anything I can say will convince you that this man is other than a hero.

That's why I asked if we could agree to disagree. You said no. I'll hold out my hand again. Is this subject really worth the debate?