Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I guess my point is, if he knew these guys, and they're violent, I'd guess it was something to do with his past.

I haven't kept up with this story over the past few days, but my impression was he did not know these guys, though they had crossover in their circles of friends.

Basically, they targeted his house because they knew who he was, where he lived, and that he had money but they didn't go to his house with the intention of killing him OR because of some past beef.

It's a big difference to me. If he would have been targeted to be killed by a ghost from his past (like someone associated with the guy he pistol whipped), I would have thought not that he had it coming, but that sealed his own fate with his actions.

With the facts coming out, it seems he was simply guilty of deciding to settle down near his home town and being rich.

I just looked at it like the writers did: if you associate with bad people, bad things can happen. I wasn't thinking he had to be the target of an enemy from 10 years ago, just that this stuff can catch up with you. That's all based on how well he knows them of course, but it's defnitely not random

There's a major distinction there to me.

If the guy grew up in a bad area, he was going to have bad associates...nothing he could do about it.

If he's completely removed himself from that life and some kids who are a few years younger than him drive out to a gated community to rob his house and shoot him when they are surprised he's there, I don't consider that a case of him reaping what he sowed (so to speak).

When he would have really been running those streets, these kids were ages 11-14 years old and I don't get how his past had anything to do with it. They just knew he was rich (obviously heard there was some big cash or valuables hidden there) and didn't think he was home, so they figured they'd try to rob the place.

Right, and I'm saying if he hung out with them now at all, that makes it even less random. I don't know if he did or didn't, but I don't think it's isolated to a targeted murder by people from his past. If it's people he knew now, and was around, then I definitely don't think it's random. It's a matter of semantics, really, but this isn't some random robbery by a complete stranger.

I just looked at it like the writers did: if you associate with bad people, bad things can happen.

There's a HUGE difference from "associating" with bad people, and maybe having met somebody once in the context of socializing. I think there isn't a person alive who hasn't met some "unsavory" people in their lifetime. That doesn't indict you if in the future they happened to decide to rob you one day.

F_B, maybe you should read the rest of my post where I said it does matter on how much he hung around them. I don't know how much he did, which is why i added that disclaimer.

I was a little slow on the post

post move

There's a HUGE difference from "associating" with bad people, and maybe having met somebody once in the context of socializing. I think there isn't a person alive who hasn't met some "unsavory" people in their lifetime. That doesn't indict you if in the future they happened to decide to rob you one day.

I agree with FB here.

If things went down as it appeared they did (based on the reports out there right now), the only things he could have done differently to avoid this is move out of state and never talk to anyone from Miami again.

Maybe that was a better path in hindsight, but this would be no different than Brian Dawkins (for example) being shot and killed in his Jacksonville home because someone from his nearby old town knew he was rich, where he lived, and thought he wasn't home.

Which is why I added the qualifier

And yeah, it's probably not a good idea to stay that close, especially if he had been target before, like his former teammate said

So you're saying you tend to agree unless things change?

I think we're all kinda in that boat.

Here's the connection, by the way:

The Miami Herald reported Mitchell and Wardlow had connections to Taylor. Mitchell cut Taylor's lawn and did other chores at the house, Mitchell's twin brother, Scottie, told the paper. Taylor's sister, Sasha Johnson, dates Wardlow's older cousin Christopher, and Scottie Mitchell told the paper the couple invited Jason Mitchell to Johnson's birthday party within the past two months.

The reality is Taylors death had little to do with hip hop or his past. Whitlock is an idiot. Can we all agree on that?

Jesus, that's even worse

The reality is Taylors death had little to do with hip hop or his past. Whitlock is an idiot. Can we all agree on that?


So Hulk, you're calling "98% of white people" idiots?

That's strong voodoo, chief.

The reality is Taylors death had little to do with hip hop or his past. Whitlock is an idiot. Can we all agree on that?

Eh...I would say anyone who jumped to the conclusion that Taylor's actions came back to bite him were wrong.

I'd say Whitlock, for the most part, comes off looking terrible.

I would not let "the hip hop culture" completely off the hook, though. The kids were all thuggerific and trying to emulate their rap/hood idols.

Yeah, whether Taylor knew them or not has no bearing on where these idiots came from. They still act like they do for whatever reason, so Taylor's association with them has nothing to do with whether or not you think there is the "hip hop culture" thing

Ban Rock-n-Roll then as well

Fine with me, 99% of pop blows anyway

Ban Rock-n-Roll then as well

I don't think anyone is suggesting Rap is the whole problem OR it should be banned.

Either way, Rock and Roll is harmless. Rap just isn't.

If there were entire neighborhoods/towns full of kids in tight black leather pants with eyeshadow beating each other brains in with gothic crosses every hour on the hour, I'd say we should probably put Rock under the microscope.

Rock and Roll is harmless

Wrong. It promotes promiscuity, drug use, disintegration of moral values, and frankly- it's "Devil music".

Don't you remember the '50s?

BAN IT!

The funny part is, the original call to ban "rock-n-roll" came when it was deemed "black music" as well.

Some things never change

All "rock n roll" is now is a bunch of whiney suburban guys talking about some chick.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  15 16