This is all I am going to say, don't start insuting me. The term, "witness" should be reserved for 'unrelated and uninvolved parties that observe an event'. Using witness to describe someone engaging in the criminal act that served as a catalyst for another is a bit too much.
This person was part of both the catalyst event and the resultant event, which semi-precludes him from being a witness. There is NO WAY he could have know for sure if the shooter went home. How would he know this? Did he see the guy go in his home? If he did, why doesn't he show the cops where the guy lives so they can arrest him or look up property records and announce the suspect's name. The statement from this so-called witness is presumptious at best. We cannot know if it is true or not. I can point out a number of stories where something happened and some phantom third-party was invented by someone already perpetrating a crime.
I dealt a lot with inner-city gans in my earlier days. When there was a skirmish and someone got shot, the victim normally would invent some phantom assailant as to not rat out another gang member or incrimiate themselve's in gang activity. This happens fairly often here, not sure about where some of you folks are or where this incident occurred.
The shooter could have had the gun in his car and simply drove away and came back, we don't know. Assuming that either you or this alleged witness could know is sheer folly, because the story eludes to the facts that:
They did not know the shooter because he was not named, and the police do not know who he is or where he lives. How can you know someone went home unless you saw them or know who they are and where they live? if they do, why isn't this guy in custody then?
If you feel the need to insult people because they do not presume to know what you presume to, perhaps this discussion is a bit too much for you.
