Good point about their moving in opposite directions, which would not make sense if they were just headed out into the parking lot to go to their car.
Purple Woman was inbetween the car and the one parked next to it, though; her daughter, from the camera angle, was at or near the front of the car. It’s possible that Purple Woman moved towards the back of the car because that allowed her to get out from inbetween cars while moving initially away from the people in the front seats.
It is, of course, also possible that she meant to block the car.If she was deliberately blocking the car, though, why did her daughter need to shout to warn her? If Purple Shirt was facing the car when her daughter shouted, she didn’t need the warning; if she was facing away from it, that implies that she was moving away from it; if she was moving away from it, all the driver needed to do was wait a moment before driving off.
Maybe the daughter didn’t know what her mother was up to, or even did think she was blocking the car on purpose and was warning her against that. There are all sorts of possibilities; I’m not saying that I know what happened. What I’m saying is that the evidence about her deliberately blocking or banging on the car, either way, is not in that video.
One thing that was drilled into me as a cyclist or a pedestrian, I may have the right of way but it won’t make me any less dead if I am not proactive in preventing collisions.
Another pro-gun person here saying that brandishing a weapon in this scenario is wrong. If the lady did indeed hit her car, I myself would have gotten out of the car most likely which means I would not have pulled a gun.
[quote=“thorny_locust, post:102, topic:914365, full:true”]
Purple Woman was inbetween the car and the one parked next to it, though; her daughter, from the camera angle, was at or near the front of the car. It’s possible that Purple Woman moved towards the back of the car because that allowed her to get out from inbetween cars while moving initially away from the people in the front seats.
I don’t think I follow this. I’m not sure I disagree, I just don’t follow.
It is, of course, also possible that she meant to block the car.If she was deliberately blocking the car, though, why did her daughter need to shout to warn her? If Purple Shirt was facing the car when her daughter shouted, she didn’t need the warning; if she was facing away from it, that implies that she was moving away from it; if she was moving away from it, all the driver needed to do was wait a moment before driving off.
Maybe the daughter didn’t know what her mother was up to, or even did think she was blocking the car on purpose and was warning her against that. There are all sorts of possibilities; I’m not saying that I know what happened. What I’m saying is that the evidence about her deliberately blocking or banging on the car, either way, is not in that video.
The video is certainly not conclusive in any respect (there is also a “missing” chunk between the car starting to move, stopping, and Pregnant Woman getting out – which we miss because Videographer is running to the car – which would be helpful to have). I don’t think Purple Woman is banging on the car (at least prior to its moving) because it looks to me like she is standing behind it several feet, looking at it, when it starts to move. I also don’t think (consistent with my “opposite direction” point) that Videographer knows what Purple Woman was doing (benign or nefarious) – although if someone intentionally blocks a car and it starts moving towards, yelling “watch out” does not strike me as unreasonable – the car is likely to “win” the collision.
I don’t know. I’m all for sitting around parsing the video, but I’m not sure how productive it is. I only wandered in because I thought the “random passerby” theory was… unlikely.
Edit: I definitely mangled my effort to use quotes, so I apologize if I inadvertently deleted any content.