This has been the only thing that has made sense (out of the senseless) to me from the very beginning.
I have always suspected that TM was caught in the crossfire but was not ever in the car.
Think about it, if mom and daughter came home and woke the son up to go out and hunt for this kid, how much time would it take for him to wake up, presumably pull on some pants and get his gun?
The time frame just doesn't work for me.
Neither does leaving her 15 year old daughter home alone with a threat that they "know where they live" while they go out armed, especially now that we learn that bullets were already flying a block away from the original altercation.
I just will not buy that this mother would do that. It defies logic. (granted, this case has not followed any logic, but still...)
The only motivation I can come up with for BM and the sister to make up this story that I just outlined would be to paint themselves as the total victims of an unknown road rage stranger and thus take away any responsibility they might have had in the sad outcome of their mother getting shot or that they had any culpability in the shooting.
I think mother entered the fray when it came to the house and she was shot in the crossfire. Like everyone else, I don't think there was a driving lesson. I think the two kids were perhaps circling the parking lot, maybe brandishing a gun, talking trash, did or did not fire the gun. They got in a shootout near the school, raced home with the other car in pursuit and more shots were fired from the silver car at them as they were in their yard. Sister may have ran into the house upon arrival but was there for the altercation.
Now, of course I could be way off. But it is the only way I can wrap my mind around the mother's role. I just can not accept that she would knowingly go home and wake her son, and put both her children in harms way when we now know shots had already been fired.
