Thank God We have a guard gate!

[socal78]

 

[JustSayin]

Is Paris's first name Sarah?

Just freakin' relax people.
Do you think she really would have blown the guy's brains out or maybe she was being a little hyperbolic?

I will tell you this.  We all make driving mistakes.
Following someone home is a threatening and deliberate act.
If you threaten someone near their home and get blasted, you got what you deserved.

Again...that's not how it works.  You don't get to shoot people because they threatened  you near your house.  In fact, you don't get to walk back into your house to get a gun to shoot someone who is threatening you.  Unless there is a klan meeting in front of your house and a burning cross on your lawn, you call the police. 

It's not the Wild Wild West (or Florida).

Oh, but it is exactly how it works.
If you persist in threatening someone after they have retreated, they are justified in using force.

They retreat + you follow = you get blasted. 

In reality, if you back someone into a corner, you're getting hit.
If you chase someone to their home, you're getting blasted.
End of story.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Is Paris's first name Sarah?

Just freakin' relax people.
Do you think she really would have blown the guy's brains out or maybe she was being a little hyperbolic?

I will tell you this.  We all make driving mistakes.
Following someone home is a threatening and deliberate act.
If you threaten someone near their home and get blasted, you got what you deserved.

Again...that's not how it works.  You don't get to shoot people because they threatened  you near your house.  In fact, you don't get to walk back into your house to get a gun to shoot someone who is threatening you.  Unless there is a klan meeting in front of your house and a burning cross on your lawn, you call the police. 

It's not the Wild Wild West (or Florida).

Oh, but it is exactly how it works.
If you persist in threatening someone after they have retreated, they are justified in using force.

They retreat + you follow = you get blasted. 

In reality, if you back someone into a corner, you're getting hit.
If you chase someone to their home, you're getting blasted.
End of story.

No...that's not how it works.  The law calls for the use of force as a last resort.  If you have a way out, you take it.  The law does state that you do not need to retreat when you are in your house but the use of force is only justified if someone enters your house.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

Wow, you're even more confused than I thought. I've acknowledged numerous times that we OBVIOUS ONLY KNOW ONE SIDE OF THE STORY, and that we are BASING THIS DISCUSSION ON THIS SIDE OF THE STORY.

your earlier post states:

"I applaud the guy for teaching a bad female driver a lesson. driving a van with two little kids does not mean you own the road and every one has to yield to you."

then you went on to talk a probable hit and run.

Basically, you have your mind made up about Paris as a horrible driver and you are siding with the other driver no matter what, even thought you don't even know his side of the story.

Heck, if you want to go that route, we don't even know if this whole shenanigan even happened.

But you did make your own inferences so let's look at what we have before coming to a conclusion: What we have is that something happened on the road, this guy followed her home, then got kicked out by the security guards. Which, by the way he left the property, we can reasonably deduce that there was no accident and it was pure road rage. What we don't know is what Paris did to cause the road rage, but most importantly, and the point I've been trying so hard to make, is that no matter how much a person pisses you off on the road, DON'T FOLLOW HER HOME.

You would appreciate if others don't follow you home, so why would you support people that do so?

you are the one who is confused. we only get to hear one side of the story so whatever she claims about the other guy you have to take a grain of salt.

Just look at her comments about herself:
"And asshole if you're reading this right now my United States marine husband is on the lookout for your old ass with his gun"
"I was just changing lanes fast to get to my turn"
"I wish I had our gun in the car, I would not have hesitated in shooting at him"

We are looking at a maniac female driver that is a danger on the road; not only she cuts people off, but she will also shoot you if you react back.

You did not answer my question so I take it as you don't have an answer.

That is because there is no excuse for following someone home just for being cut off. And if there were a hit and run he would have told the security that he is merely trying to exchange information and would have called the cops himself to report the accident!

Facts based on Paris' side of the story:

Paris potentially being a bad driver - reprehensible

Guy following someone home - inexcusable

Don't get it confused.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

 

[zubs]

Did Paris get a red ball?  Tom Cruise about to bust down her door.....

I got no PS skills or I'd stick her name on the ball.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

ok, but which is worse offense? following someone in a road rage or making a threat on a public forum with guns, well after the incident is over?

"And asshole if you're reading this right now my United States marine husband is on the lookout for your old ass with his gun"

let's say she is now packed and what if the next time another guy just coincidentally happened to live in the same block (hence "followed her home")? Being as trigger happy as she is, she is far more dangerous on the road than the guy she threatens.

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

ok, but which is worse offense? following someone in a road rage or making a threat on a public forum with guns, well after the incident is over?

"And asshole if you're reading this right now my United States marine husband is on the lookout for your old ass with his gun"

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

I would the following because the latter is protected by the First Amendment.

 

[irvineguy]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

Agree with Irvinecommuter's comment above; and her comments here are no more than venting through a public forum, which is totally fine under the first amendment .
Also, how did she instigate this whole thing? I thought we agreed that's the part WE DON'T KNOW.

 

[irvineguy]

hmmm... let me think.. following a guy home?!?

ok, but which is worse offense? following someone in a road rage or making a threat on a public forum with guns, well after the incident is over?

"And asshole if you're reading this right now my United States marine husband is on the lookout for your old ass with his gun"

let's say she is now packed and what if the next time another guy just coincidentally happened to live in the same block (hence "followed her home")? Being as trigger happy as she is, she is far more dangerous on the road than this guy she threatened with guns.

 

[JustSayin]

Is Paris's first name Sarah?

Just freakin' relax people.
Do you think she really would have blown the guy's brains out or maybe she was being a little hyperbolic?

I will tell you this.  We all make driving mistakes.
Following someone home is a threatening and deliberate act.
If you threaten someone near their home and get blasted, you got what you deserved.

Again...that's not how it works.  You don't get to shoot people because they threatened  you near your house.  In fact, you don't get to walk back into your house to get a gun to shoot someone who is threatening you.  Unless there is a klan meeting in front of your house and a burning cross on your lawn, you call the police. 

It's not the Wild Wild West (or Florida).

Oh, but it is exactly how it works.
If you persist in threatening someone after they have retreated, they are justified in using force.

They retreat + you follow = you get blasted. 

In reality, if you back someone into a corner, you're getting hit.
If you chase someone to their home, you're getting blasted.
End of story.

No...that's not how it works.  The law calls for the use of force as a last resort.  If you have a way out, you take it.  The law does state that you do not need to retreat when you are in your house but the use of force is only justified if someone enters your house.

Wrong.  You can use reasonable force to protect yourself and others from the threat of harm, regardless of location.
But if you're at your home, your perception of the threat increases and so does what would be considered reasonable. 

So, if you follow someone to their home, it is reasonable for them to blast you.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

Agree with Irvinecommuter's comment above; and her comments here are no more than venting through a public forum, which is totally fine under the first amendment .
Also, how did she instigate this whole thing? I thought we agreed that's the part WE DON'T KNOW.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she cut the guy off by her statement that she "changed lane" quickly.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Is Paris's first name Sarah?

Just freakin' relax people.
Do you think she really would have blown the guy's brains out or maybe she was being a little hyperbolic?

I will tell you this.  We all make driving mistakes.
Following someone home is a threatening and deliberate act.
If you threaten someone near their home and get blasted, you got what you deserved.

Again...that's not how it works.  You don't get to shoot people because they threatened  you near your house.  In fact, you don't get to walk back into your house to get a gun to shoot someone who is threatening you.  Unless there is a klan meeting in front of your house and a burning cross on your lawn, you call the police. 

It's not the Wild Wild West (or Florida).

Oh, but it is exactly how it works.
If you persist in threatening someone after they have retreated, they are justified in using force.

They retreat + you follow = you get blasted. 

In reality, if you back someone into a corner, you're getting hit.
If you chase someone to their home, you're getting blasted.
End of story.

No...that's not how it works.  The law calls for the use of force as a last resort.  If you have a way out, you take it.  The law does state that you do not need to retreat when you are in your house but the use of force is only justified if someone enters your house.

Wrong.  You can use reasonable force to protect yourself and others from the threat of harm, regardless of location.
But if you're at your home, your perception of the threat increases and so does what would be considered reasonable. 

So, if you follow someoone to their home, it is reasonable for them to blast you.

No...use of deadly force is a completely different standard.  It's not Mad Max.  Threats and speech are almost never sufficient to justify the use of deadly force. 

I feel like this is the perception of the law for people who like guns and believing blasting people is a right.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

first amendment? just replace that guy's name with Barrack Obama and let's see if it applies.

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

Agree with Irvinecommuter's comment above; and her comments here are no more than venting through a public forum, which is totally fine under the first amendment .
Also, how did she instigate this whole thing? I thought we agreed that's the part WE DON'T KNOW.

 

[irvineguy]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

Agree with Irvinecommuter's comment above; and her comments here are no more than venting through a public forum, which is totally fine under the first amendment .
Also, how did she instigate this whole thing? I thought we agreed that's the part WE DON'T KNOW.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she cut the guy off by her statement that she "changed lane" quickly.

Doesnt mean that she "instigated" the whole thing. We don't know if it was an honest mistake or not, hence, the part we don't know. All we know is that the other driver didn't accidently follow her home...

 

[Irvinecommuter]

first amendment? just replace that guy's name with Barrack Obama and let's see if it applies.

Not following you at all.  I agree with you that the OP's story clashes with her attitude/statements going forward but ultimately, it's what you do that generally gets you in trouble. 

OP said a lot of scary things but ultimately she decided to call the police and go to gate guards.  That shows restraint and some thought.  I give her credit for that.  Again, I am just glad that what she said was not what really happened.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I can only focus on her attitude based what she said about herself, since we don't know the facts.

But based on what she said:
1. She cut some one off (true because she admitted it)
2. The guy followed her, got off his car and screamed at her and her children (probably true)
3. She wants to shoot the guy if she had a gun (true because she admitted it)
4. She threatens the guy with more gun violence on a public forum (true because she admitted it) 

She instigated the entire thing and followed up with the threat of gun violence. This is way bigger than allegedly being followed home.

I would disagree you there.  Actions are a lot more damning than words or thoughts.  Him following her home was the worse act in the whole sequence.  Her words and thoughts after the facts goes to other things (like her mentality). 

Thankfully, it never escalated beyond what actually happened.

Agree with Irvinecommuter's comment above; and her comments here are no more than venting through a public forum, which is totally fine under the first amendment .
Also, how did she instigate this whole thing? I thought we agreed that's the part WE DON'T KNOW.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she cut the guy off by her statement that she "changed lane" quickly.

Doesnt mean that she "instigated" the whole thing. We don't know if it was an honest mistake or not, hence, the part we don't know. All we know is that the other driver didn't accidently follow her home...

Didn't mean to thank the comment (was going for the quote button).  Which, by the should a feature.  I should be able to remove my own thank yous.

Instigate doesn't necessary require intent.  A person may do something that he or she did not mean to do but results in an action/response.  You can argue whether it was reasonable for the other person to react in such a strong manner but I think it is reasonable for people to react negatively being cutoff. 

 

[The Motor Court Company]

restraint? really?
"I wish I had our gun in the car, I would not have hesitated in shooting at him"

first amendment? just replace that guy's name with Barrack Obama and let's see if it applies.

Not following you at all.  I agree with you that the OP's story clashes with her attitude/statements going forward but ultimately, it's what you do that generally gets you in trouble. 

OP said a lot of scary things but ultimately she decided to call the police and go to gate guards.  That shows restraint and some thought.  I give her credit for that.  Again, I am just glad that what she said was not what really happened.

 

[JustSayin]

Is Paris's first name Sarah?

Just freakin' relax people.
Do you think she really would have blown the guy's brains out or maybe she was being a little hyperbolic?

I will tell you this.  We all make driving mistakes.
Following someone home is a threatening and deliberate act.
If you threaten someone near their home and get blasted, you got what you deserved.

Again...that's not how it works.  You don't get to shoot people because they threatened  you near your house.  In fact, you don't get to walk back into your house to get a gun to shoot someone who is threatening you.  Unless there is a klan meeting in front of your house and a burning cross on your lawn, you call the police. 

It's not the Wild Wild West (or Florida).

Oh, but it is exactly how it works.
If you persist in threatening someone after they have retreated, they are justified in using force.

They retreat + you follow = you get blasted. 

In reality, if you back someone into a corner, you're getting hit.
If you chase someone to their home, you're getting blasted.
End of story.

No...that's not how it works.  The law calls for the use of force as a last resort.  If you have a way out, you take it.  The law does state that you do not need to retreat when you are in your house but the use of force is only justified if someone enters your house.

Wrong.  You can use reasonable force to protect yourself and others from the threat of harm, regardless of location.
But if you're at your home, your perception of the threat increases and so does what would be considered reasonable. 

So, if you follow someoone to their home, it is reasonable for them to blast you.

No...use of deadly force is a completely different standard.  It's not Mad Max.  Threats and speech are almost never sufficient to justify the use of deadly force. 

I feel like this is the perception of the law for people who like guns and believing blasting people is a right.

You've obviously never been to Santa Ana.  (Oops was that shockingly racist?)

Just dont follow people to their homes and you wont have to worry about getting blasted by people who keep guns.

 

[irvineguy]

first amendment? just replace that guy's name with Barrack Obama and let's see if it applies.

With the president is a little trickier... feel free to read about it. But otherwise, I am constitutionally protected to say almost anything on this forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States