Is this true or not?! Because if it is, the Parker's story is just complete nonsense. If the 'gangland hit' rendition of the story is true, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT THE PARKER'S WOULD LET THEIR SON GO OVER TO THE 'CHIEF ASSASSIN’S HOUSE TO PLAY AFTER THE 'VICIOUS BEATING'!!! AND IF THEY DID, THEY HAVE SERIOUS MENTAL PROBLEMS OR SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE ELSE RAISE THEIR CHILDREN!!!
Plus, there is just no way that I can see the 'ASSASSIN’S PARENTS' (who supposedly put the kid up to it) letting the 'Parker kid' over their house to play with their son. This whole thing smells bad.
By the way, I always enjoyed your movies.... :)
Your argument is just another variation the many made here -some by you --just another variation of why did he not do this or why did he do this because if it had been this I would have done this or would not have done this or most would have done this or that...
It is termed conjecture -and my response is so what? I am the jury and you did not sell me the bill of goods counselor.
I tend to just accept what is evident and has been stated. That David Parker's son was beaten up and that Mr. Parker feels it was related to his opposition to the homosexual agenda. I believe Mr Parker and do not believe his adversaries regardless the web of wacko conspiracy theories that can be woven...