Yep, those three Yale students, 2 of them immigrants, who burned that man’s American flag on his porch apparently got a very high bond and were shackled as they were arrested. So what’s the problem? Arthur Aidala and Drew Findling duked it out on Studio B this afternoon. These guys were charged with arson, not flag burning, so I don’t understand Findling’s arguments. Shepard Smith also doesn’t get it either. It’s arson. This flag was the property of another. The “other” had the flag attached to his house. His house was wooden. But Shepard has to argue that the house didn’t burn down? WTF? As Aidala explains it, probably the only reason the house didn’t burn down is that a police officer passing by saw it on fire and pulled it out of the holder. It’s not the absolute outcome of a crime; it’s the intent and danger imposed by the very crime itself.

Then Shepard says something that I find more outrageous: that a judge should not set bond on the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of a case. What law school did he go to? Aidala correctly added that, oh, yes, a judge considers the totality of the circumstance on ALL bond cases. He is supposed to. Say, for instance, someone has a criminal history of FTA (Failure to Appear) or bail jumping, do you think that judge would set a damn bond at all? Hell no, especially not in the case of a group of thugs who set fire to someone else’s property!

And who gives two sh**s about whether or not they should have taken their passports – that’s what happens when you’re a foreigner here and you commit a crime. I personally think the two immigrants should be deported immediately after trial, to boot. I agree with Shep and Aidala though, that if they did that at my house, they might not make it to trial. Regardless what anybody says, the American flag is a symbol of our country. What if this had been a group of three American kids burning a Koran? Would it still be considered an “inaniminate” object, Findling?

Watch the shout-fest here.