I'll give my opinion - - I did not see the video, but, if everything reported above is true, he deserves everything he gets. There is responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership. This is clearly irresponsible gun ownership.

I am not sure your meaning behind your commentary...but I will say this....the gun issue is secondary to why in the hell, a guy charged with aggravated sexual assault on a child, is out on bail...it is outrageous! Who is the Judge is my first question?...and now they are holding him without bail?

I just judged & convicted this creep . If I'm wrong I'll say I'm sorry later , but till then lets keep him in jail !

Dead for a teenage prank www.cbsnews.com/news /cops-arkansas-girl- 15-fatally-shot-in-p rank-gone-wrong

Charged with aggravated assault - don't know what the evidence is - no guilt yet - so I'm fine with the bail thing; but if its true for a 73 yr old to molest a 5 yr old - if guilty I hope he never sees the light of day. but to put a gun to the reporters. Not the brightest move. Glad he isn't my neighbor. But everyone (neighbors at least) - should be aware of him.

@Fairlane67: He's been CHARGED, not CONVICTED....Remember that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty in the USA...Unless it's determined that he's a flight risk or he has some kind of shady history, it's not unreasonable that they granted him bail...

In Fairlane's world he would not have bail...3 k bond...not good enough. Perhaps you wouldn't mind him if he were your neighbor...but I damn sure would.

@EddyFree: agreed but he is guilty of pointing a gun at reporters, that's for sure.

@HumbleGirl: Yes...Agreed...That's why I "thanked" niceguy's post....Just because someone enters your property doesn't give you the right to threaten them with a gun...I'm not "taking up" for this guy, I'm standing up for the U.S. citizen...

@Fairlane67: In EddyFree's world, he'd still be innocent until proven otherwise....Many years ago, I knew a guy who had a huge falling out with his former wife(they married young and had a daughter)...Out of spite, she made accusations toward him of molesting their daughter(I guess on "behalf" of the daughter as she was very young at the time)...He was jailed and lost his job right away...He used to call me a few nights per week from jail because he needed someone to talk to, and he always denied the charges...He was in jail for a few months...When the dust finally settled, she eventually "dropped" everything and went on her merry way...Unfortunately, while she could just "move on" as if those events never happened, his life was a wreck afterward...Now, I know the guy in question here is 70+ years old and such, but my personal "life's lessons" like the one above still lead me to believe that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is the absolute right one for everyone no matter what...

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with EddyFree on this one. It does not matter what you are alleged to have done, you still have a basic, irrefutable right to due process of law. And our law says that everyone has the right to argue for being released, pending trial, on bail. Not guaranteed bail, but the right to stand before an impartial judge and make your case for bail. And bail hearings are to be based solely on the judge's perception of whether you will appear for your trial - and the imposition of what is hopefully a sufficient deterrent (bail amount) to entice not to miss your court dates.

Two Points and I am done.
1. Bail...is not a civil liberty.
2. Only after the guy brandishes a weapon at a reporter standing on his front porch, does the Judge decide he is dangerous enough to hold him WITHOUT bail....and not because he is formally charged with AGGRAVATED Sexual Assault of a Child...AKA, sticking body parts inside this 5 year old little girl...Niceguy...bail is NOT determined "solely on the judges perception of whether you will appear for your trial." It has several other parameters...not the least of which, is whether the person is a danger to others.OK. three points.

@Fairlane67: Contrary to popular believe, the term AGGRAVATED does not necessarily indicate that it was a physically violent act, but mainly that the victim was under a certain age when certain body parts made contact and/or threats were made or weapons used...There doesn't even have to be "penetration" for it to be "AGGRAVATED"...For example, if a victim is under 14 and 2 particular body parts just "touch", that's Aggravated Sexual Assault in Texas...I used to think it was always a SEVERE form of physical abuse too, until I was in a Jury Pool for an Aggravated Sexual Assault Trail and got educated by the Prosecutor (BTW, I did not get chosen for the Jury in this case, but it was a very informative experience)...Legal Definition Here

@Fairlane67: Agreed. I should have included that the judge weighs other things besides flight risk. I stand corrected. What I intended was to refute the implications made above that he should have been denied bail solely because of the crime he has been accused of committing. But, yes, the judge should take into account the alleged perp's danger to others - like pointing a gun at a news reporter at the door!And, while bail is not a civil liberty, due process of law is; and a chance for bail is part of that process.

Just for comparisons sake...100 k bond was set for a 31 year old athletic trainer, for allegedly having sex with a 17 year old student, in Conroe.30k for sexually assaulting a 5 year old....or 100k for a 17 year old?