My accusation was that her stories about dogs, and particularly on /r/dogfree, read as fiction. If I'm not mistaken hasn't she basically admitted as much here? She says she just rants to vent as a coping mechanism. And if so, fine, whatever, but you have to realize sometimes you will be called out on that, which is all I was doing.

Furthermore, I would contend that this actually is giving her the benefit of doubt, because if she's telling the truth with these stories some of them look much worse on her than if she's just BSing. In one I referenced, for example, she would have gone over to her neighbor's house in order to antagonize a situation, while armed, knowing that her neighbor has a dog she fears, trespassed onto his property (in the eyes of the dog, and possibly also the law), and then, in reaction to the dog that she knew would be there and knew she was afraid of, who had done nothing at this point to harm her and was merely reacting to her intrusion, reached for her gun. If that situation is real, if she really did what she claims to have done, think about the logical conclusions of that. It would be mere happenstance that this ends without injury. It would be far more likely for her to kill the dog in its own home--imagine how pissed off any of us would be if one of our neighbor's trespassed on our property and shot our pets. Or the neighbor might have killed her, or they might have killed one another. In this scenario, she hadgone, while armed, without rights or permission, onto someone else's property, knowing full well that this situation would trigger her fight-or-flight instincts. Any predictable, negative consequences of that are morally, if not necessarily legally, entirely on her.

I'm saying that's bullshit, that it didn't happen. And that IS me giving her the benefit of doubt, because if it really did happen, that's a lot worse.

Do you disagree?