Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sean Taylor dead at 24

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I wonderwhat actually happened? Taylor had some history in misusing a gun.

    No hint of that yet in any of the reportings I've seen.

    But.....it is just.....suspicious....the lack of details provided by the news media...

    I wonder what happened?



    Taylor dead at 24 (Ryan O'Halloran)
    November 27, 2007

    Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor died this morning in a Miami hospital, a day after he was shot in the leg during a home invasion.

    Taylor was 24 years old.

    Family friend and Taylor's former lawyer, Richard Sharpstein, said Taylor's father called him with the news at 5:30 a.m.


    "His father called and said he was with Christ and he cried and thanked me," Sharpstein told the Associated Press. "It's a tremendously sad and unnecessary event. He was a wonderful, humble, talented young man, and had a huge life in front of him. Obviously God had other plans."

    The Taylor family was optimistic Monday night after doctors told them Taylor had squeezed a nurse's hand. But Taylor reportedly never regained consciousness after being airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital early Monday morning.

    Taylor was shot in the upper leg, damaging an artery and experiencing significant blood loss.

    The shooting, called a "deliberate attack" by Redskins vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato was reported to police at 1:46 a.m. Monday by Taylor's girlfriend. Taylor's house had been broken into a week earlier.

    Taylor was in his fourth season with the Redskins.

    Funeral plans were pending. The Redskins have their regularly scheduled day off today and play Sunday against the Buffalo Bills.


    http://video1.washingtontimes.com/re...n_ohallor.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Maybe Taylor was spotted driving 26mph in a 25mph zone earlier in the day, and a good, law-abiding citizen decided that he wasn't going to "let him get away with it". We're better off without those criminal-types anyway.

    On a serious note, I really do wonder what happened. Apparently, home invasions are rather rare, so I also suspect that there's more to it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Someone wanted to kill him. It was not a random home invasion, but they came to kill this young man.

    "Sharpstein said Taylor's girlfriend told him the couple was awakened by loud noises, and Taylor grabbed a machete he keeps in the bedroom for protection. Someone then broke through the bedroom door and fired two shots, one missing and one hitting Taylor, Sharpstein said. Taylor's 1-year-old daughter, Jackie, was also in the house, but neither she nor Taylor's girlfriend were injured."

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T61GF80.html



    I heard on the radio this morning that his phone lines were cut.

    Because of his firearms problems a couple of years ago he probably could not own a gun and thus the Machete, but you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.



    "Meanwhile, Taylor endured a yearlong legal battle after he was accused in 2005 of brandishing a gun at a man during a fight over allegedly stolen all-terrain vehicles near Taylor's home. He eventually pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to 18 months' probation."

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T61GF80.html



    The tenor of the whole article is a young man who had more than his share of interpersonal problems.

    My take is that someone took him out.

    Tarzan




  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Maybe Taylor was spotted driving 26mph in a 25mph zone earlier in the day, and a good, law-abiding citizen decided that he wasn't going to "let him get away with it". We're better off without those criminal-types anyway.

    On a serious note, I really do wonder what happened. Apparently, home invasions are rather rare, so I also suspect that there's more to it.
    Relatingspeeding 1 mile over the speed limit to burglarizing a house is not areasonable comparison.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    1. Took a knife to a gun fight.

    2. Another home invasion.

    3. Were his Rights to KABA taken away because of a misdemeanor?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Maybe Taylor was spotted driving 26mph in a 25mph zone earlier in the day, and a good, law-abiding citizen decided that he wasn't going to "let him get away with it". We're better off without those criminal-types anyway.

    On a serious note, I really do wonder what happened. Apparently, home invasions are rather rare, so I also suspect that there's more to it.
    Relatingspeeding 1 mile over the speed limit to burglarizing a house is not areasonable comparison.
    You have to consider the source.



    Tarzan

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    ""It was clearly a burglary, an armed burglary," Sharpstein said, adding nothing appeared to have been stolen. "



    Is it just me or does someone else have a problem with this statement?

    http://kdka.com/topstories/Sean.Tayl....2.595535.html



    "Burglary is a crime related to theft or another crime. It typically involves breaking into a house, outbuilding (such as a shed, stable, or garage), business, school, place of worship, boat, aircraft, rail car, or motor vehicle with an intent to commit a theft..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary



    This guy breaks in making all kind of noise, then kicks in the door to the bedroom and immediately shoots the only person there that could stop him, and then leaves taking NOTHING.

    This is a burglary?

    I don't think so.



    Tarzan

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Maybe Taylor was spotted driving 26mph in a 25mph zone earlier in the day, and a good, law-abiding citizen decided that he wasn't going to "let him get away with it". We're better off without those criminal-types anyway.

    On a serious note, I really do wonder what happened. Apparently, home invasions are rather rare, so I also suspect that there's more to it.
    Relatingspeeding 1 mile over the speed limit to burglarizing a house is not areasonable comparison.
    You have to consider the source.



    Tarzan
    All I've been asking for is where the line is drawn for the civilian use of lethal force to punish criminals for being criminals. No one has been able to provide a standard for this.

    Anyhow, this seems to be another situation where that "sensible" and "reasonable" gun control that takes guns away from people convicted of a crime has failed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Maybe Taylor was spotted driving 26mph in a 25mph zone earlier in the day, and a good, law-abiding citizen decided that he wasn't going to "let him get away with it". We're better off without those criminal-types anyway.

    On a serious note, I really do wonder what happened. Apparently, home invasions are rather rare, so I also suspect that there's more to it.
    Relatingspeeding 1 mile over the speed limit to burglarizing a house is not areasonable comparison.
    You have to consider the source.



    Tarzan
    All I've been asking for is where the line is drawn for the civilian use of lethal force to punish criminals for being criminals. No one has been able to provide a standard for this.

    Anyhow, this seems to be another situation where that "sensible" and "reasonable" gun control that takes guns away from people convicted of a crime has failed.

    You miss the point it is not about "the civilian use of lethal force to punish criminals"

    It is about stopping a threat.

    In the instances you allude to;

    1. Joe Horn shot two men who had been burglarizing his neighbor and then came to his yard where he confronted them with a shot gun. They then lunged at him and he shot them. No punishment here just stopping a threat.

    2. The 30 year old man and the 15 year old boy at the stop light, we still don't know all the details, but what we have is that the man says the boy drew his gun and so he stopped the threat, again no punishment, but, if what he says is true, he only stopped a threat.

    Tarzan


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    No one has been able to provide a standard for this.

    Willfull ignorance isn't exactly a good policy to have.

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    1. Joe Horn shot two men who had been burglarizing his neighbor and then came to his yard where he confronted them with a shot gun. They then lunged at him and he shot them. No punishment here just stopping a threat.



    We do not know this. We do not know that theburglars lunged at Joe Horn.

    Unless you were there, of course...

    P.S. Hey, T1888, what happened to the crowbars? Weren't you saying earlierthat the burglars attacked ole Joe with crowbars?



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Dig deeper. Taylor had more problems than just this story lets on.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    Dig deeper. Taylor had more problems than just this story lets on.
    You're talking about his stats right?


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    No one has been able to provide a standard for this.

    Willfull ignorance isn't exactly a good policy to have.
    I go by the standard of: if my life or the life of another is threatened, I may consider using lethal force. But whether I'm in Texas or not, there ain't no property worth killin' over, as the dispatcher said. And I would use lethal force only as a means to preserve my own life or the life of another. All I'm asking for is a standard by which my slightly more... trigger-happy brethren choose to open the possibility to using lethal force. They have stated that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's stealing a piece of candy, but it is OK to shoot two burglars (not robbers) who are endangering the lives of no one, and further that it is justified because they deserve to die because they have committed crimes. Between house burglary and a kid stealing candy is a huge grey area, and I'm looking for a little more clarity as to where the proposed line is to be drawn. For me and for pro-self-defense states, with the exception of Texas, the standard is defense of human life (and prevention of physical injury, etc). What is this standard that determines in which crimes civilians can use lethal force?

    bohdi, what other problems were affecting Taylor?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Off field problems. Die hard Redskins fans, truely die hard Redskins fans know this. I am not a truely die hard Redskins fan, one of my close friends is. Taylor had many problems off the field that almost got him passed up. That's why his teammates are saying how remarkable of a change he's made in the last two years maturity wise. Dig deeper, goto his college days....It's almost like Vick in sheeps clothing

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    1. Joe Horn shot two men who had been burglarizing his neighbor and then came to his yard where he confronted them with a shot gun. They then lunged at him and he shot them. No punishment here just stopping a threat.



    We do not know this. We do not know that theburglars lunged at Joe Horn.

    Unless you were there, of course...

    P.S. Hey, T1888, what happened to the crowbars? Weren't you saying earlierthat the burglars attacked ole Joe with crowbars?

    Already asked and answered HankTin another thread

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    After the shooting, he redialed 911.

    “I had no choice,” he said, his voice shaking. “They came in

    the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick.” 1



    ........Horn did, of course, mention that he had seen one crowbar being used to break in the neighbors house.

    So, again, T1888: How do you know that they were armed with crowbars? And how many crowbars do you think there were? Two? More than two? Why?

    1. http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori....41772f2e.html

    By your own post the crowbars become a mute point.

    They were in his front yard and there were crowbars/crowbar present; “They came in

    the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick.”


    You did leave out the part where his Lawyer stated that they both lunged for him.

    "Horn is 61 and heavyset. The suspected burglars were young and strong enough to beat him to death with their bare hands, Lambright said. So when one or both of them “made lunging movements,” Horn fired. "

    http://www.khou.com/topstories/stori....41772f2e.html

    If you see an old fatbald grandpa looking guy holding a shotgun and you move toward him into his yard and not away from him, it has to be that you feel that the two of you can take this old guy before he gets a shot off. They were wrong and paid for it with their lives.



    Joe Horn

    The fact that they were in his yard and neither one of them took it in the back, tells me that at that point in time he truly had no choice.

    Could he have stayed in his house and let them alone, yes he could.

    As far as what he said BEFORE he went out, well we all have a little bravado when we are talking about doing something, but when he picked up the phone the second time it was a very humble man on the phone.

    I truly believe that what he said the second time is the truth, and He will be troubled until the day he dies by what happened.

    "Horn “literally went to pieces” after the shooting, Lambright said. He issued a statement a few days later saying the events would weigh heavily on him for the rest of his life."

    Tarzan



    Tarzan

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    I go by the standard of: if my life or the life of another is threatened, I may consider using lethal force. But whether I'm in Texas or not, there ain't no property worth killin' over, as the dispatcher said. And I would use lethal force only as a means to preserve my own life or the life of another. All I'm asking for is a standard by which my slightly more... trigger-happy brethren choose to open the possibility to using lethal force. They have stated that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's stealing a piece of candy, but it is OK to shoot two burglars (not robbers) who are endangering the lives of no one, and further that it is justified because they deserve to die because they have committed crimes. Between house burglary and a kid stealing candy is a huge grey area, and I'm looking for a little more clarity as to where the proposed line is to be drawn. For me and for pro-self-defense states, with the exception of Texas, the standard is defense of human life (and prevention of physical injury, etc). What is this standard that determines in which crimes civilians can use lethal force?

    Well I'm not sure about anyone else, but I *think* I already answered this. Then again maybe, not, so I guess it might be my fault. Personally, I would have no problem with someone having a firearm at hand when confronting someone (or multiple someones) in the progress of commiting a crime. If the perpetrators make any threatening movements after being told to surrender, then what happens after that is on their heads, not the citizen who confronted them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Hurray, first double post!:celebrate

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •