Prometheus 6

What looks like happened was that Taylor had ALWAYS had a desire to keep his family together--even the extended family. This is a value that all Americans purportedly share to some degree.

Because of THIS desire it looks like he was killed. He held a party for one of his relatives, at this party an individual related to the boyfriend of his stepsister purportedly concocted the idea.

Whitlock will likely shift the rhetoric--Taylor wasn't a thug...but because the people who hung around those he loved wanted to THEMSELVES live the thuglife, he was murdered.

All types of hoops to jump through. But the narrative fits the other trait that Americans share--the desire to exit and rebuild new identities in suburban space. 

Lester Spence, PhD

http://lesterspence.com

http://flickr.com/photos/unbowed

Death comes without the beating of drums

"They were certainly not looking to go there and kill anyone," Miami-Dade police director Robert Parker said.

So why were they packing a gun? If the accused suspects believed that the house was empty did they intend to use the gun against any ghosts or dust bunnies they might have encountered in the house? They may not have wanted to kill anybody but one of them was carrying a gun (and the rest of them knew) and now someone is dead. Sean Taylor did not mean to die either. 

having a gun isn't like having a pack of chewing gum. A gun is a deadly weapon. That's the whole purpose for it. If Taylor had had one, it would have been one for protection AGAINST THE CRIMINALS BREAKING INTO HIS HOUSE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. IF they thought his house was empty, then why need a gun?

When they say that they did not enter the home looking to kill it is not a statement regarding whether or not they were armed but whether they intended to murder..i.e. whether they broke into the house to kill S.T or someone specifically. That matters so far as the law is concerned and will determine, to some extent, how they are charged/what they could eventually be sentenced with if found guilty. Possessing a gun in the commission makes any crime committed more severe in most states but only actually reflects on intent in cases where you go confront someone ( I know person x, who i am arguing with and dont like is going to be somewhere...i choose to go there armed to confront him etc). Hope it clears it up a bit. I'm just glad to hear someone was found and hope Scrabble Lips/big chitlin/lick a racist c*** whitlock and all the other racists in the MSWM choke on a fat one now that there idiotic drug deal gone bad/illegal dog fighting/jon bonet ramsey murder/rape/killed the last unicorn/responsible for global warming cause of his black skin explanations for S.T's death have gone up in smoke...Shout out to Andy Garcia too, for the comments he made supporting S.T. and calling him a hero (think his sister is Andy Garcia's sister)

about them being wanna-be's? 

I'm thinking the police director had a reason for saying what he did; like information gained from the confessions/interviews of the suspects.  Seems to me, most "thugs" and even "wanna-be" thugs carry weapons just because that's what "thugs" do.  I think that says more about the definition of a "thug" (and some distorted sense of manhood) than it does in terms of intent to kill.  Not that there are any excuses...  And it's not like Taylor confronted them with Ghandi and MLK.   

These guys should be locked up and kept out of the gene pool for awhile. I understood how intent is determined under the law before I posted above but my question is the same. I've known professional burglars. They did not carry guns. These guys are are rooty-poots and dangerous because they don't think ahead.

Wannabes and pros carry the damn things.

It's really such a tragic situation...

knows this guy? seriously, it is a mental condition or a monetary condition?

to actually SEE if he wasn't going to be at home. You know, read the paper to see if MAYBE he's on injured reserve. You don't bring a gun to an empty house, if you don't think you might not have to use it.

I'm thinking they would have had the gun at an empty house.  I'm thinking they just carry it, period.  And they could have fully intended on threatening anyone found with the gun with no premeditated intent to shoot whoever.  But, then again, that could earn them stripes...  Who knows?  I doubt they were professional burgulars, though, so they wouldn't necessarily subscribe to those code of ethics.

Any event or sequence of events that you believe requires you to use a gun to threaten someone, rightly or wrongly, also contains the extremely great possibility that you may actually shoot someone, too. I don't care what the law says but if you break into someone's home and pull a gun and murder that person, then your actual intent doesn't much matter to me. 

Jamal, you know that Whitlock was in Ann Arbor when WE were? A columnist for the Ann Arbor News of all places.

Earl's got a link somewhere pointing to a statement Whitlock made about wanting to get the Pulitzer off of this stuff.  

Lester Spence, PhD

http://lesterspence.com

http://flickr.com/photos/unbowed

Death comes without the beating of drums

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/18250

Interesting. You can't win a Big Joe by following the crowd - you have to go in the direction of "white" people and their standardized analyses of phenomena. Who has the time? When is HIS real-fun -- I mean funeral? I'll make time for that.

"King and chief probably had a big beef;
'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.