ClickClickD'oh
Member
silicosys4 said:"vehicle to attack you"?
"secondary threats"?
Where the heck do you see any evidence of any of this?
I don't see any evidence of those in this case, but then again, I don't see evidence of any actual criminal intent or activity. I'm citing reasons why you shouldn't go from a known to an unkown where there is a potential threat.
silicosys4 said:Some people seem to need to fantasize about drastic, over the top scenario's just like this in order to justify the paranoia that they feel about other people who are nonthreatening but "tickle" the hairs on the back of their neck for whatever reason.
Vigilance is one thing.
Inventing incredibly unlikely scenario's in one's mind in order to justify your paranoia is another
This thread has had some pretty antisocial tin-hat moments in which people feel the need to invent various situations in their mind in which the OP's nervousness would have been justified.
If you care to read what I'm writing you would realize that what I'm saying is that when you have the luxury of identifying a potential attacker ahead of time you should call the police and let them deal with it because you are unlikely to control the variables of the attack if it does happen, such as the number of attackers or method of attack.
It has nothing to do with justifying paranoia or fantasizing about drastic over the top scenarios.
FYI: I've handled cases with multiple attackers and vehicles used as weapons ... so.. I've also handled cases where people intentionally flatten a tire on you car so they can mug you while you are busy changing it. There's a difference between paranoid BTDT.
silicosys4 said:If the "suspect" was potentially "stalking" the op by observing him as was suggested, then the OP was committing exactly the same acts to the "suspect". That was my point.
The suggestion that the potential attacker in this case was "stalking" is just as laughably ludicrous and should be given no credence.