Sean Taylor - RIP UPDATED

Seriously, do you have any access to news media where you are?

 

Yes. Because the real gangsters worry most about the paperwork.

And if he'd been living under such a dire threat of bodily harm for so long, don't you think he'd keep one handy?

 

jg, my honest belief is that BECAUSE he was trying to turn his life around, and BECAUSE his daughter was so important to him, he didn't want to risk the jail time if the cops found a gun. Naive or not, that's my feeling.

 

It was a simple question, based on a quote from a Redskins employee that ran in a major newspaper. If there had been an update, I hadn't seen it. But thanks for clearing it up.

 

ijag -

I have no problem with that - in fact, that's why I think he was armed only with a gardening tool. I'm simply trying to disabuse people of the notion that Mr. Taylor was Tony Montana.

 

And something that had been debunked in later stories and discussed ad nausem on this thread. Maybe you ought to, oh, I don't know, read the thread before you post on it.

 

Couldn't the girlfriend have had a gun? Or was he not even allowed to have one in the house.

 

WHO CARES?!

 

if by running amok you mean making people think, well good for them. the lazy bastards finally are earning their money.

yeah, blatant shot at you, whitlock.

 

He most likely could not legally possess a firearm. He entered a plea agreement in June 06 where he pled guilty to lesser charges related a claim he pointed a firearm at 3 guys in exchange for no jail time and dropping the felony charges.

I believe he would've been barred from legally owning a gun for several years after that under Fla law. I know he could've easily gotten one illegally, but perhaps declined if he really was trying to turn his life around, as all the reports say.

 

By making them think what? That wild conjecture's an apt substitute for fact? That speculation trumps reporting? That even earnest conviction bests empathy or sympathy or simple respect - as long as the murder constitutes another chance to mount the moralizer's soapbox? That any theory's as good as the next if it can be conveniently channeled into a series of rhetorical and social preconceptions?

 

Both of which points go to my original assertion: perhaps this young man wasn't the hardened gangster so many want to be believe he was.