Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/30/2003 8:04:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 8:09:22 AM EDT by thedave1164]
[url=http://www.shreveporttimes.com/video/shooting051103/index.shtml]Video[/url] I give the cops a 9 out of a possible 10. [beer] I would have given them a 10 if they were using .45's
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:12:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 8:15:20 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
CAR 138 shows it best. Is that a weapon I saw in the perps hand? [blue]NOPE - but tough to tell on video, real life would have been worse.[/blue]
SPD 138 03:10 Hudspeth can be seen pointing an object that was latter found to be a silver cell phone at the office who ducked.
View Quote
If so, I'd say it's a bad shoot. Cops should have popped him the first time he started waving the gun around. [url=http://www.shreveporttimes.com/video/shooting051103/notes.shtml]Officers Notes[/url] I say 8 out of 10
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:21:37 AM EDT
Interesting, I watched all 3 videos, and would have guessed it to be a gun. I didn't read the rest of the story. I still say good shoot.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:24:32 AM EDT
I'd say 6 out of 10. They took too many rounds to put him down. [;)] There just isn't enough information that can be determined from the video, except: 1) Man was resisting arrest. 2) Man was intermittently attacking officers. 3) Man was carrying somthing in his hand. Stuff the anti-cop folks will love to say: 1) Man was retreating, and not intending harm. 2) Man was shot in the back. I'll reserve my true judgement until I at least know some facts.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:30:19 AM EDT
Rule #596, Don't go to a gunfight armed with a cellphone...
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:36:40 AM EDT
Only problem is, the local NAACP has taken this as their new reason to exist, calling for the firing of the chief and imprisonment without a trial of the officers involved. Because "he was only shot because he's black." Even Al Sharpton's coming to town next month.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:42:40 AM EDT
He shouldn't have pointed silver cell phone like that, especially in the night when it is hard to distinguish. I think that was the straw. I would have shot the perp if he tried to point something at me. What besides a pistol would you expect from a perp that is resisting the arrest?
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:50:07 AM EDT
could they have tackled the sob (?) they like doing that on COPS!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:50:33 AM EDT
He was holding the cell phone just like a firearm....I think the second officer that comes up from the left is reacting to the first officer's shot's and the perps movement. His movement OBVIOUSLY relay that he "thinks" the item in the perp's hand is a firearm. He has NO idea if those shots were from the perp or his backup.... I am unsure of the first cop....seems like he may have had a good look at the phone, but when you see it in full speed that exchange captured in still frames is [b]maybe[/b] 1-2 seconds. 9 out of 10, but they may have fired too many times -- that may sway the board of review or jury.... I bet at least one of those cops, if they remain cops, will investigate using a larger caliber sidearm. [:D]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:56:33 AM EDT
Perp asked for it. Only bad: Too many shots by Police. He shoulda been dead in front of Unit 138. In my non-leo opinion, that is. Good shoot.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:01:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:05:02 AM EDT
Waiting for the key board Commando's.....
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:09:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe: Waiting for the key board Commando's.....
View Quote
Why? There is one, in blue, on the thread right now. [rolleyes] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:17:33 AM EDT
You think I'm calling you a key board Commando? Do you feel like one? What I'm saying is it's only a matter of time before they show up. Don't get your dick in a knot.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:20:54 AM EDT
I'm gonna get a [green]green[/green] cell phone now. CHRIS
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:27:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe: You think I'm calling you a key board Commando? Do you feel like one? What I'm saying is it's only a matter of time before they show up. Don't get your dick in a knot.
View Quote
Nope. Nope. Agreed. You mean yours isn't? [:D] [blue][size=1]Self-fulfilling prediction....ye ask, ye shall receive...[/blue][/size=1]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:30:38 AM EDT
Damn...I don't know. He was pretty well retreating when they opened up on him. Would a civilian hang for shooting someone in the back like that? You betcha. Q(Keyboard commando, I guess)S
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:41:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:47:22 AM EDT
Well, Sukebe? Would your prosecutor not support a charge of murder for a civilian who shot another civilian on TAPE under those circumstances? Inquiring minds want to know.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:08:37 AM EDT
Wow. Can't a guy lead police on a high speed chase at 11:30 at night, cup a chrome cell-phone like a handgun and point it in a decent approximation of an isosceles stance at a uniformed police officer AND NOT GET SHOT?!?!? What's this country coming to? Those guys did nothing wrong. I feel sorry for them actually for all the bullshit they'll be going through in the future. (but quietshooter brings up an excellent point - indeed, if you or I did that, we'd be up for murder. However, we do not have a sworn duty to uphold the law and protect the innocent)
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:18:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dolomite: Wow. Can't a guy lead police on a high speed chase at 11:30 at night, cup a chrome cell-phone like a handgun and point it in a decent approximation of an isosceles stance at a uniformed police officer AND NOT GET SHOT?!?!? What's this country coming to? Those guys did nothing wrong. I feel sorry for them actually for all the bullshit they'll be going through in the future. (but quietshooter brings up an excellent point - indeed, if you or I did that, we'd be up for murder. However, we do not have a sworn duty to uphold the law and protect the innocent)
View Quote
I can buy into the first few shots, especially right after he locked up at them, but the running after him and shooting [i]might[/i] be a little much. I'd have shot the motherfucker too, there at first. I'm just pointing out that we're always taught that once the attacker has broken off and turned tail, any further shooting is usually not a good idea. Course, if he'd done it right the first time and busted his grape, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:42:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 10:44:14 AM EDT by HKocher]
How much of that is simply reflex? Thank god I've never been in a gunfight, but if I ever am, I imagine the combination of factors (adrenalin, training, instinct, etc.) will play a much bigger role in the shoot than my brain. I imagine it's not uncommon for a person to fire as many as 10 rounds at a perp. After the smoke settles, if you were to ask them how many rounds they fired, I'm guessing that most would honestly believe that the number was a lot lower. And as far as the perp 'running' away... BS, his back is to the cops, but his head is turned and he's still pointing the phone at the police. If it WAS a gun, he would have still been capable of fighting on the run.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:46:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 10:52:12 AM EDT by Dolomite]
Yep. A pill to the medula oblongata is what was called for there.* An excellent demonstration on the vital importance of precision marksmanship [I]regardless [/I] of the distance. Some people might think that just because you get that close, you can throw your sights away - WRONG! The closer you are to a bad guy, the more critical shot placement becomes. And, yes, he was running away - but as witnessed in the video he was quite willing to turn around and make lethal, furitive gestures toward the Ocifers. They were just protecting each others asses. [size=1]* Hey, how's that for a keyboard commando assessment?[/size=1]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:54:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HKocher: How much of that is simply reflex? Thank god I've never been in a gunfight, but if I ever am, I imagine the combination of factors (adrenalin, training, instinct, etc.) will play a much bigger role in the shoot than my brain. I imagine it's not uncommon for a person to fire as many as 10 rounds at a perp. After the smoke settles, if you were to ask them how many rounds they fired, I'm guessing that most would honestly believe that the number was a lot lower. [red]And as far as the perp 'running' away... BS, his back is to the cops, but his head is turned and he's still pointing the phone at the police. If it WAS a gun, he would have still been capable of fighting on the run.[/red]
View Quote
This was my thought EXACTLY, check out the cop who enters from the left.....he has hit {or at least shot at} the guy AT LEAST three times before clearing the front of his car. While closing the distance to the perp he is reflexively ducking and reacting to actions by the perp. One is a fairly obvious....perp swings around his left arm with the phone in it, cop ducks, shoots twice?, pops back up.....unloads? He thought it was a firearm simply by his actions and instincts.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:57:20 AM EDT
looks good to me
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 11:53:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 11:59:30 AM EDT by kay9]
[keyboard commando] But why were they stopping him in the first place? Damn JBT's proably trying to get that "speed tax" or something. Wound up getting a guy killed. Damn JBT's.[keyboard commando] What was the bad guy thinking? What a dumbass. [Bad guy]I'm gonna show these guys something. I'm gonna scare the crap out of em with my bling bling cell phone. That'll sure dazzle em up![Bad guy] Hmm, if I point my cell phone at them, they will go away? Too bad the officers there are gonna wind up in a trial, and some weak ass politician/police administrator wont stand up for them. Has Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson seen this yet. Those blood sucking money milkers are sure to organize a march and profit from this.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 1:44:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: Well, Sukebe? Would your prosecutor not support a charge of murder for a civilian who shot another civilian on TAPE under those circumstances? Inquiring minds want to know.
View Quote
I was only able to see the video of the idiot with the cell phone. I suppose mistaking a wallet for a gun isn't so unbelievable after all. By "under those circumstances" I assume you mean those exact circumstances. You should be able to answer that question yourself. A Prosecutor would and should ask; Are you obligated to enforce traffic laws. Are you legally bound to enforce any laws at all? Why were you chasing him? What legal obligation do you have to apprehend him? What we are watching are sworn Police Officers with a legal obligation to apprehend persons who violate the law. They have the legal authority to use necessary force to overcome any resistance. The only real similarity between these officers and a non-police officer in these circumstances is the right to self defense. You may be culpable by putting yourself in a position where you contributed to the escalation of force. In fact, any actions these Officers took that may have contributed to the escalation of force will come under scrutiny.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 1:57:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 2:03:39 PM EDT by Balzac72]
That shoot is a 10/10 especially due to the fact that he pointed the [s]gun[/s] CELL PHONE (Darwin wins this round) at the cop once and wasn't shot by the PO, then started running away and turned, aimed the [s]gun[/s] CELL PHONE (YAAAAY DARWIN) at the cop AGAIN and then was shot dead. That mutherfucker deserved to be shot down like a rabbid dog and I hope he rots with his home boys. [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/1.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/3.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/4.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/5.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/6.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/7.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/8.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/9.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/10.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/11.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/12.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/13.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/14.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/15.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/16.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/17.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/18.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/19.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/20.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/21.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/22.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/23.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/24.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/25.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/26.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/27.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/28.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/29.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/30.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/31.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/32.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/33.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/34.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:00:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 2:02:09 PM EDT by QuietShootr]
I didn't mean the condition of a citizen pulling over another citizen, I meant the defender pursuing the attacker and shooting repeatedly. I completely would have shot the idiot every time he turned around and assumed the Shoulder Point with his cell phone. But I wouldn't have followed him across the parking lot, either. The guy was probably a shitbag and really "needed shot" as they say in Texas. The whole pointing the cell phone as if it were a firearm signifies a need for immediate removal from the gene pool, IMO. [edited to add: The whole pants falling down thing... [rofl2] ]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:05:09 PM EDT
It was an exacution, the cop knew it wasn't a gun because he was jerking on him before he shot him (and not shooting) so he knew it wasn't a gun, but who cares right, a leo went home safe that night, and only a dirtbag died, untill the next time, and it is you showing the cop ID or something and you get shot 4-5 times in the friggen back. This is something I would expect from some of the posting LEO's here.names withheld for cc reasons.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:05:56 PM EDT
i would have shot him
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:07:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Red_Beard: i would have shot him
View Quote
[img]http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/graphics/cellgun.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:30:57 PM EDT
I know LEO's gotta worry about that kinda shit, but if it was me, frame six=bang. Scott
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:34:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:42:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cyanide: It was an exacution, the cop knew it wasn't a gun because he was jerking on him before he shot him (and not shooting) so he knew it wasn't a gun, but who cares right, a leo went home safe that night, and only a dirtbag died, untill the next time, and it is you showing the cop ID or something and you get shot 4-5 times in the friggen back. This is something I would expect from some of the posting LEO's here.names withheld for cc reasons.
View Quote
[LOLabove]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:48:23 PM EDT
Good shoot. For those that criticize the "needless" shots to the back, I have two points: 1) Reaction time and the decision loop to decide to use dealy force is 2-4 seconds. Once started, and the decision to use force is made and force is used, it takes about another two seconds to stop. That is one of the reasons why shootings often have more rounds than "seem" necessary, and some rounds (like shots in the back" may seem "unecessary." 2) Police have a different use of force standard than other citizens in two important respects. While police and all citizens generally have the same use-of-force authority in self-defense and the defense of third persons, police also have the authority to use force to arrest (which differs from state to state and often by offense for other citizens), and police have the authority to use force, including deadly force in some cases, to prevent an offender from escaping. Tennesee v. Garner established that while police cannot shoot any fleeing felon, they CAN and SHOULD use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who poses a risk to other officers and the community at large, like bank robbers, persons who have been shooting at the police and so on. In this case, it seems that the officers clearly thought that the suspect had aweapon in his hand, and his continued attempts to point the "weapon" at them and walk off made continued use of deadly force to stop the threat and stop his escape necessary. So it turned out to be a cell phone? Well, he shouldn't have been fleeing the police, and wielded the cell phone in amanner that would make a reasonable person think that it was a weapon. In this kind of situation, you have a split second to decide, and guessing wrong sends you home in a box. These officers guessed right, and if the suspect wasn't really armed, that is HIS fault for acting like a moron and essentially forcing the police to shoot him.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:54:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 2:58:32 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:10:43 PM EDT
If you sell baby powder as cocaine=guilty of drug dealing. If you give a bank teller a note that says you have a gun=guilty of armed robbery. If you purposly act like you have a gun and act in a threatening manner= guilty of same.You no longer have a cell phone in the eyes of the law you have a gun. Same thing for any chicken shit dumb ass who does bomb threats. Homey had a GUN and not a cell phone.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:17:27 PM EDT
I'm no cop, but it seems clean to me. I'd also like to know more about the situation though. Like what led up to the chase, etc. To me it seems pretty clear that the guy was trying to give the impression that it was a gun, not a cell phone. I can't judge the cops because I wasn't there in their shoes, but the guy was asking for it IMHO.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:17:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: Damn...I don't know. He was pretty well retreating when they opened up on him. Would a civilian hang for shooting someone in the back like that? You betcha. Q(Keyboard commando, I guess)S
View Quote
I guess retreating, advancing depends on where you are standing [:D]. The police have the responsibility to arrest suspects. The driving that was shown on clips that I have seen would be Eluding in WI, a felony. The police certainly have the legal authority to arrest that person. They can continue to pursue a "retreating" person to effect that arrest. They can also use reasonable force while attempting that arrest. A "citizen" wouldn't have been involved in a high speed pursuit. Generally individuals can use force to defend themselves, but can't intitiate or continue a confrontation with a suspect that is retreating.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:32:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: He was holding the cell phone just like a firearm....
View Quote
Sure was, I thought it was a gun until I read the story, found it was a cell. I think he tried to bluff - Too Bad. If you're not going to stop when the blues go on, then resist arrest....expect to be abused. Unless you're going for suicide by cop or going militia. What's with the pants below the ass? ~ s0ulzer0
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:37:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: Shooting the turd in the back was chickenshit and it was an execution, however having something, doesn't matter what, in your hand and using it like a handgun, the cops get to execute you and get away with it. I give it a 5 of 5. I guess I'm saying I don't care for it but legal it is and I would rather have a real bad guy with a gun stopped rather than the bad guy shoot someone else. The cowboy in me still has issues with back shooting. Tj
View Quote
As Natez said, there is a delay from observation to action. Action is faster than reaction. In force on force training (sims guns) we had a person standing back to 4 officers, who had their guns out, pointed at the "suspect", firing up into the air. When the suspect felt like it he got to turn and fire at the officers. Guess which side ended up getting shot before returning fire, time and time again? That's right there were 3 officers returning fire. If you watch the video there is on officer more or less directly behind the suspect, and on to the right. When the suspect rotates his body to the left, as if bringing his right hand (gun hand) to bear on the officer behind him, the officer behind him "flinches" and the other officer starts shooting as the suspect starts rotating back to his right. My guess is 2 things happened. The officer to the right saw the other officer "flinching" and thought that officer had been hit. He also recognized that by spinning the suspect could be bringing a firearm to bear on the other officer. It's takes time from action to reaction. The officer's reaction seems delayed, but he is reacting as fast as humanly possible to the threat the suspect presented. Initially when the 1st officer goes "hands on" and the suspect is shown in the stills holding the cell phone in his right hand "gunlike" some have suggested the officers should have shot him at that point. I think the officer going "hands on" has his view of the suspects right hand/arm blocked by the suspects body. The officer is behind him. The other officer from the car that stopped in front of the suspect may have his patrol car in between the suspect and the other officer blocking his view. When adrenalin kicks in, visual acuity goes down, and the ability to hear may be diminished or be totally lost.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:43:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jedi_rifleman: If you sell baby powder as cocaine=guilty of drug dealing. If you give a bank teller a note that says you have a gun=guilty of armed robbery. If you purposly act like you have a gun and act in a threatening manner= guilty of same.You no longer have a cell phone in the eyes of the law you have a gun. Same thing for any chicken shit dumb ass who does bomb threats. Homey had a GUN and not a cell phone.
View Quote
[red]Thank you![/red] HOWEVER, I'd have put one or two in him right here. [img]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/6.jpg[/img] As soon as he turned on me in a threatening manner with what looks like a gun, he's acting like it's a gun, I'd have given him a double tap to the head, right then and there. Dead perp! 7 of 10 to the cop's, because they let it go on to long. He should have been disabled with a leg shot or something LONG before he had walked all the way across the parking lot and pointed his (weapon) cell phone at 2 different officers. Somebody could have come out of the convenience store and been taken hostage. The cop's let it go on for to long.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:11:29 PM EDT
I could only do the single frame so I honestly cannot say yea or nay. BUT I have Two observations: One. Frame One. The schmuck was aiming an (at the time) unspecified device at somebody. The grip was very much like that of a firearm. Two. His pants are falling down. Last year I saw a brainless dude exposing 90%+ of his BVD’s at a gas station. I kept wondering what would happen if some Female would come along, FINISH pulling his pants to his ankles, and run away yelling, “If you can catch me you can F*#*K me!”[naughty]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:14:58 PM EDT
Shot in the back. Sorry.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:52:22 PM EDT
Another note on shooting people in the back. It is not only legitimate under many circumstances, it is necessary and needed. In sims scenarios, we force officers into situations where they have to shoot at a fleeing felon who just shot somebody elese or at the officer. Usually, the suspect can draw a weapon, shoot an innocent person, shoot the cop, and get about 15 feet away before the cop can clear leather. Action is faster than reaction, and the next and only appropriate response is to shoot the fleeing felon in the back. We do it for several reasons; to demonstrate that the bad guy can get shots off before you can, and to force officers to get past any compunctions about shooting the BG in the back, when the time is right. If you let that kind of threat get away, he is a dnager to every person and any other officer he ecounters. And we don't shoot people in the leg (at least not on purpose). Stop the threat.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 6:05:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 6:08:39 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 6:21:31 PM EDT
I didn't have the chance to read everyones posts but I can tell you that i have seen the cell phone guns and they look just like that one ,they come in black and silver also,so now what? When someone could have a gun that looks like a a cell phone and aims it like it's a gun you get shot ,period end of story,GOOD SHOOT!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 6:52:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy: I didn't have the chance to read everyones posts but I can tell you that i have seen the cell phone guns and they look just like that one ,they come in black and silver also,so now what? When someone could have a gun that looks like a a cell phone and aims it like it's a gun you get shot ,period end of story,GOOD SHOOT!
View Quote
that's what that pic i posted above is, one of the cell phone look alike guns
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:32:49 PM EDT
10/10 Good shoot
Never bring a cell phone to a gun fight...!
View Quote
[img]http://www.photohumor.com/sharpton.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:48:29 PM EDT
10/10 ! Good Job.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top