As a reference for others to better follow along, Lisa this was your #2 in your post that I was referring to: "2) The guy was brandishing (waving) a gun, not in stealth mode."
Lisa, the "who cares?" was in reference to the fact that the guy showed up with a gun (concealed or "waiving it around", as you put it). Brandishing a firearm can also include the simple act of displaying it, in this case it could have been as simple as him having it in the open for the homeowner to see. Also, the "who cares" was followed by "Show up with a gun at my house, you take your chances" which you did quote later in your reply. I think when my full quote is quoted in context my meaning is clear and does, in fact, follow the facts presented in the article.
*** Upon a second reading of the article I noticed this, the third (3rd) paragraph of the article: "The intruder allegedly arrived at the residence brandishing a semi-automatic handgun and a fight erupted with the man who lives at the home." The fact that they knew each other wasn't included until the very last (9th) paragraph.
Considering that, 1) I stand by my comments that the controversy over the term used to describe the "intruder" IS of the news media's own making, and 2) I have to RETRACT my comment stating that the intruder could possibly be considered "an uninvited guest". Even the author of the article described him as an "intruder" first and the other description was most definitely not an appropriate description in a serious news article about a serious subject, as bagger's OP pointed out. .
I apologize Bagger, Lisa helped me (seriously) to see that I had missed the original term used to describe him when her reply made me decide that I needed to reread the article.
"Who would argue anything to the contrary ?!?!?!?!" My response to your #4 - "(4) This all took place on the patio, not IN the house." is what I guess we are both in agreement to. Glad to see that we could end on an agreeing note.
Lisa, perhaps I did miss your intended point with your reply, I honestly still cannot tell if I did or not. If it was meant to be satire, you did such a good job of defending the news outlet's softer description term that I fell for it. BTW, I was serious about enjoying your interpretation, visualizing the conversation you had suggested was a nice break. |