You didn't answer my second question. Actually, my third question.barstoolguru wrote: Maybe when she cut him off, squeezed in front of him when she thought the things she had to do was more important than his!
You're saying that she could have taken the hypothetical action of gesturing to express that she was sorry, and thereby avoiding this entire situation. I understand and completely agree with this.
Others are saying that the man could have taken the hypothetical action of not approaching the car in a threatening manner, and thereby avoiding this entire situation. I understand and completely agree with this too.
Both of these are viable options, and would have resulted in no one being hurt. What I don't understand is why you choose to lay the blame solely at her feet when, when the gentleman could have also made a decision to alter the course of events. Both individuals had opportunities to end this before he got shot, so why should she be more accountable for her decision making, or lack thereof, than him? I assume your response is going to be because she could have made the decision chronologically before him. However, this is an arbitrary distinction which can be carried to absurdity. If the man had left 5 minutes earlier the situation is likely to not have happened. If he hadn't have agreed to meet his friend bob at the bowling alley, it could have not happened. If bob hadn't asked him to go to the bowling alley, it wouldn't have happened. If his mother and father hadn't had a child, it wouldn't have happen. Are his parents more responsible than the woman who shot him because they had a decision they could have made chronologically before her? Of course not, everything I just wrote is silly, and your line of reasoning is of the same vein. We should be making conclusions based on what DID happen, and what did happen is quite clear. She pulled into a gas station after a non-verbal road rage incident. He followed(which could be read as CHASED) her into that gas station, and then attempted to gain entry into her vehicle. His behaviour was predatory. She defended herself from a predator. Them cutting each other off in traffic is irrelevant to his predatory actions. They don't justify them in the least. Any police officer or lawyer would tell you that.