>The fact that he had tats isn't the issue. It's what are those tats saying. Then there are other small tidbits like:
>1. he ran with gangsters as a youth (could have gotten tats then)
>2. in college he ran with similar crowd
>3. he was at a known gangstah hangout
>4. he was driveby shot
>
>You put the syllogism together.
>
>John

Oh, right! Like you gun-totin' southern good ol' boys know what a 'syllogism' is. ;)

>
>
>>>http://memphiscrime.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-darrent-williams-gang-banger.html Some interesting closeup pics of possible gang tattoos.
>>
>>Anyone with a tattoo should be fair game.
>>
>>About drive by shootings, we have many in Oakland and Richmond. I guess those 3 year olds and retired folks that are killed are gang members. O
>>
>>ut here anyone is fair game for drive by shooters, not just gang members. They will shoot you on the street or in your house. It does not matter. You are just dead meat. Surely the victim is guilty or else they would not have been killed.