TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Abraham wrote:EEllis,

I'm fairly certain you think the 67 year old woman is at fault - I get it!

O.K., O.K. O.K., I get it!

Your message is clear, clear, clear crystal clear!

Thanks!

with Abraham. Enough already!

Wait a second a reasonable assessment is to much but repeat postings of far from likely scenarios of why what she did was OK is just fine? I'm not posting in a vacuum here. My posts are in response to other statements. Why not just put a limit on how many times one can post if it's not the party line. I'm not attacking or belittling anyone so why would anything I post be an issue? And for the record what I think is the information we currently have would have her at fault and it's even stronger that she would be a fault the second time she pointed her gun at the man. It's so clear cut, from what we have heard, that the only responses for

the second half of the incident is that maybe she pointed her gun at the man, when standing with the woman and child bystanders, because she thought the woman and child were in danger.

We know the woman bystander certainly didn't think that was true. If you were in that position with a kid what would you be thinking?

Since we are

Counselor, Tell us what she was thinking and how you know what she was or was not thinking in that very moment she pulled her gun and aimed it at him. Also, explain how you know the lady with the child accurately interpreted the situation and is telling the truth.

Can you say for a fact she did not fear the other lady and child might he in danger?

One the lady with the child gave an interview, and 2, I don't have to. Is it possible? Sure but neither she nor anyone else has ever brought it up before you did. So using pure speculation as part of any critical analysis and attaching such weight to it as to override reasonable and logical analysis to achieve a desired result is the antithesis to reason and logic. I'm not saying it couldn't be true but with there not being the slightest hint of evidence that it is why would any objective person think it is what happened?

I recently had two men on separate occasions come to my door and ring the door bell. Both were workers for the City of Houston, but on both occasions, we were not aware someone was going to come to our house.

There was also a very good opportunity that the wife might be the only one at home at the times they rang the door bell.

In both occasions they rang the door bell and then walked 25 feet away from the door and stood at the side walk next to the curb. They then waiting for someone to come to the door. I peered through the small window saw them 25 feet away and then unlocked and opened the door. We conducted our business from that distance they did not approach the door after they identified themselves.

It appears the City of Houston, who has employees that must come to people's doors, has figured out how to keep their employees safe and not to alarm their citizens many of who may come to the door armed.

Certainly someone coming to your door and ringing the door bell is a much more expected thing for a man to do, than walking up to a woman alone in a Walmart parking lot while she is loading groceries, to ask for a "light".

DANG! First, I wasn't a normal person, now I'm not objective. Oh dear, whatever is to become of me?

Oldgringo wrote:DANG! First, I wasn't a normal person, now I'm not objective. Oh dear, whatever is to become of me?

I get that many view it differently, though I believe many less than you think it's just you've run the off, but is there some flaw in my argument? Because while there have been condesending and dismissive remarks like you just made there haven't been many people actually posting anything to counter my argument except one person arguing that the lady may have pointed her gun at the woman and child because she might have thought they were in danger. I'm not posting why someone who says they are reserving their opinion is wrong. Not saying that someone who posts that they hope that the lady comes out OK is crazy. I post that asking for a light is simply and legally not normally cause for pulling a gun.

That is not what I said.

arguing that the lady may have pointed her gun at the woman and child because she might have thought they were in danger.

The comment was may that the lady pointed her gun at the man a second time when he was near the other lady and child. I said that lady MAY have thought the other lady was in danger and that's why she pointed her gun at him again.

Stop twisting what I say so you can make an argument that I am making an unreasonable and illogical comment. We don't know what was going through the lady's mind at the time.

Stop aging your games with what people say so you can continue to argue and belittle those that don't think the same as you. If you'll look back through the thread, you'll see I am not convinced the lady did the right thing. That means I am also not 100% sure she didn't.

mojo84 wrote:That is not what I said.

arguing that the lady may have pointed her gun at the woman and child because she might have thought they were in danger.

The comment was may that the lady pointed her gun at the man a second time when he was near the other lady and child. I said that lady MAY have thought the other lady was in danger and that's why she pointed her gun at him again.

Stop twisting what I say so you can make an argument that I am making an unreasonable and illogical comment. We don't know what was going through the lady's mind at the time.

Stop aging your games with what people say so you can continue to argue and belittle those that don't think the same as you. If you'll look back through the thread, you'll see I am not convinced the lady did the right thing. That means I am also not 100% sure she didn't.

Wait you are saying that there is some big difference between those two statements and that my paraphrasing was some plan to belittle you? Come on dude. Look I think the single possibility thus far put out by anyone as a justification for her pointing her weapon at the man a second time is particularly weak, that is true. I'm not saying there isn't a legitimate defence just that there has been zero evidence of one. If you look back at my comments for the most part I speak of the evidence and what we know not that she is guilty. I don't think might and MAY is some big difference to justify your comments. Or is it that I didn't add that the man was standing next to the woman and child? Because I did indicate that was the case earlier. It's not always a conspiracy when someone, especially on a site like this, abbreviates or paraphrases for brevity.

Yes because posting it before had such effect that posting more emoj has to be a good idea.