http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20121006/NEWS/310060052/University-South-Alabama-officer-shoots-18-year-old-Wetumpka-graduate-Gilbert-Collar-death
Quote
Authorities in Mobile, Alabama, are investigating why a University of South Alabama police officer shot and killed an 18-year-old freshman who they say was naked and acting erratically outside the campus police station early Saturday.
The campus officer heard a loud banging noise on a window at the station at 1:23 a.m. CT (2:23 a.m. ET) Saturday, the university said in a statement. When he left the station to investigate, the school said, "he was confronted by a muscular, nude man who was acting erratically."
The man, later identified as Gilbert Thomas Collar, of Wetumpka, Alabama, repeatedly rushed and verbally challenged the officer in a fighting stance, the school said.
The officer, whose name hasn't been released, drew his weapon and ordered Collar to stop, the school said. The officer retreated several times to try to calm the situation.
"When the individual continued to rush toward the officer in a threatening manner and ignored the officer's repeated commands to stop, the officer fired one shot with his police sidearm, which struck the chest of the assailant," the school statement said. "The individual fell to the ground, but he got up once more and continued to challenge the officer further before collapsing and expiring."
It scarcely seems like a situation in which someone needed to die. The fallen should be remembered for his commendable ardour, if not his good sense, and the officer involved chastised for the hastiness with which he decided to shoot a man.
QuoteHere is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 02:37:50 AM
QuoteHere is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand
OK, CdM.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2012, 02:38:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 02:37:50 AM
QuoteHere is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand, how I could just kill a man
Here is something you can't understand
OK, CdM.
Then it would be "how I could just kill a woman". :ph34r:
The late mr. Collar was, of course, heir to a proud Southern tradition.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepages.rpi.edu%2F%7Ebungah%2FStories%2Fcelts.jpg&hash=da08a9a5811e34df5743cb7dfba364216102dc22)
Seems like excessive force. Naked and unarmed?
Get the kid help, not a bullet in his chest. :(
Yeah. The chest is too much. A knee cap or two would have done the job.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 07, 2012, 03:01:23 AM
Yeah. The chest is too much. A knee cap or two would have done the job.
Or use non-lethal weapons. Baton? Taser? Pepper spray? Heck, police officers should be competent in hand-to-hand combatives.
With a continually aggressive and threatening individual of impressive physical build who was obviously well beyond the ability to reason or comprehend their situation? If he didn't have a taser or pepper spray, I wouldn't rely on solely a baton to win out. Being competent in hand to hand is a far cry from being able to take down an individual in the state described.
You need to spend more time with naked men.
You need to spend more time with people under the influence of drugs, alcohol, and/or mental health issues.
edit: Actually, you really don't want to. It isn't much fun when you have to be the one to handle them.
It may sound strange to say, but I think the assumption of as dread a risk as subduing a crazy man is something a policeman should take upon himself. A civil servant endangering himself to bring a man out of his senses into restraint is very noble. Our police should risk themselves for the the citizens they serve- their own safety should be secondary, akin to how a fireman braves flames to save the people of his local community.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 07, 2012, 03:41:11 AM
Our police should risk themselves for the the citizens they serve- their own safety should be secondary, akin to how a fireman braves flames to save the people of his local community.
Risk, yes. Sacrifice, no.
Well, trying to wrestle down a naked man is hardly throwing your life away. As was mentioned, he had a lot of tools on-hand.
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
Can a naked man simply be disabled via knock or squeeze to the balls?
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 07, 2012, 02:42:02 AM
The late mr. Collar was, of course, heir to a proud Southern tradition.
Intoxicated stupicity? Hardly unique to the south.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 07, 2012, 03:01:23 AM
Yeah. The chest is too much. A knee cap or two would have done the job.
No it wouldn't have. Once he made the decision to shoot, the chest was the only option. The cop made the decision to kill him in defence of his life. Maybe he mistook the penis for a blackjack?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 04:03:20 AM
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 04:03:20 AM
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.
Quit being a fag.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 04:03:20 AM
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.
Ok so if a drugged-out-of-his-mind guy goes berserk on you (in a bad way) and you manage to kill him while defending your life, you are a murderer? Great.
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 11:10:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 04:03:20 AM
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.
Quit being a fag.
I don't think you need to be a fag to define murder as any intentional killing of a human being except when justified.
I think we can all agree the killing was not justified in this case, and a trained professional shooting someone in the chest definitely has an intention of killing, within the meaning of "intention" as it is understood by criminal law.
Quote from: Tamas on October 07, 2012, 11:31:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2012, 04:03:20 AM
Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.
That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.
Ok so if a drugged-out-of-his-mind guy goes berserk on you (in a bad way) and you manage to kill him while defending your life, you are a murderer? Great.
If the guy does not pose a direct threat to your life and you are a trained professional that is capable of using a non-lethal method to incapacitate the attacker, then definitely yes.
This goes back to the question I posed many times. If you're an armed man confronting an aggressive unarmed man, what exactly are you supposed to do? If you go by the maxim that an armed man can never shoot an unarmed man justifiably, then the unarmed man has a carte blanche to attack you and disarm you. You're almost put in a situation where having a gun does indeed put you at an immediate disadvantage.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 12:03:43 PM
This goes back to the question I posed many times. If you're an armed man confronting an aggressive unarmed man, what exactly are you supposed to do? If you go by the maxim that an armed man can never shoot an unarmed man justifiably, then the unarmed man has a carte blanche to attack you and disarm you. You're almost put in a situation where having a gun does indeed put you at an immediate disadvantage.
I would say it varies depending on what other options you have. The standard should be higher for a trained professional, such as a cop or a security guard, than a "civilian".
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 11:59:05 AM
I think we can all agree the killing was not justified in this case,
Not necessarily.
Quoteand a trained professional shooting someone in the chest definitely has an intention of killing, within the meaning of "intention" as it is understood by criminal law.
Trained professionals are not trained to shoot anywhere else but center mass, nor are they trained to shoot with any intention other than to kill.
Really wish some of you morons wouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2012, 12:02:20 PM
If the guy does not pose a direct threat to your life and you are a trained professional that is capable of using a non-lethal method to incapacitate the attacker, then definitely yes.
You're assuming this officer had non-lethal methods available to him at the time. That may not be the case. And no, wrestling doesn't count.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 12:28:45 PMTrained professionals are not trained to shoot anywhere else but center mass, nor are they trained to shoot with any intention other than to kill.
Really wish some of you morons wouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.
I was reading elsewhere that some of the European police forces are actually trained to shoot at the legs, but I can't find any primary sources.
Quote from: ulmont on October 07, 2012, 12:32:27 PM
I was reading elsewhere that some of the European police forces are actually trained to shoot at the legs, but I can't find any primary sources.
That certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Gee, let's aim at a wildly moving and narrow target like a leg, miss, let the round ricochet off the pavement, and kill a bystander a 1/2 block away.
Yeah, that sounds European, alright.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 12:34:55 PMThat certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Gee, let's aim at a wildly moving and narrow target like a leg, miss, let the round ricochet off the pavement, and kill a bystander a 1/2 block away.
Yeah, that sounds European, alright.
"Police bullets mostly hit arms and legs; the bullet continues through the body part in approximately 50 percent of all incidents. No third party has been hit by a police bullet since the introduction of the Action 3 round."
http://www.politi.dk/NR/rdonlyres/20DE43AF-33F4-48C5-A710-6A58457E35D2/0/Engelskresum%C3%A9afendeligrapport.pdf
23 total incidents. Let's hear it for the shallow end of the sample pool for statistical analysis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 12:41:13 PM
23 total incidents. Let's hear it for the shallow end of the sample pool for statistical analysis.
Yeah, they definitely need to shoot a lot more people before they can call it safe.
Swedish cops aim at the legs, if possible.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2012, 12:45:18 PM
Swedish cops aim at the legs, if possible.
Naturally. They only need to wound the victims so that the criminals can proceed with their depredations unmolested.
Last year, Austrian police were attacked by a woman with knives. When tazering her didn't help, they put 9 bullets in her. She survived, though. A cop was moderately cut.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 12:41:13 PM
23 total incidents. Let's hear it for the shallow end of the sample pool for statistical analysis.
Yeah, they definitely need to shoot a lot more people before they can call it safe.
Weak. 100% of your post sucks ass.
Hey Neil, check this stupidity out:
QuoteBefore the police fire shots involving a risk of harm to a person, the person must be informed in so far as possible,
first by shouted warnings and then by warning shots, that the police intend to fire if police orders are not observed. It
must also be ensured, in so far as possible, that the person is able to observe the order.
Warning shots are required. Even gayer than aiming at legs.
Russian police is also required to fire warning shots, and no one ever accused them of showing mercy towards any civilian they run across. I recall that in one incident, a cop fired 8 warning shots while chasing the suspect. Unfortunately for that cop, he was armed with a Makarov.
So where exactly are these warning shots to be fired? In the air, where they can come back down someplace? In the pavement, where they can ricochet into a vehicle's gas tank? In the wall next to the suspect, where they can ricochet, or go through someone's living room?
What a brilliant policy. You don't fire a service weapon unless you have a reasonable idea where the round is going to wind up.
Warning shots. Unreal.
Eurobullets are made out of paper.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 01:06:38 PM
So where exactly are these warning shots to be fired? In the air, where they can come back down someplace? In the pavement, where they can ricochet into a vehicle's gas tank? In the wall next to the suspect, where they can ricochet, or go through someone's living room?
What a brilliant policy. You don't fire a service weapon unless you have a reasonable idea where the round is going to wind up.
Warning shots. Unreal.
Yeah, sounds dangerous, but has anyone actually been killed by warning shots falling to the ground? When the alternative is a policy of shooting to kill whenever force has to be used, you're going to need to come up with stronger objections than "what if the warning shot falls on the nuclear power plant operator, who falls on the control panel and presses the "meltdown" button?"
Wasn't there some shit a few years back about a Muslim wedding killing somebody with their airshots?
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 01:06:38 PM
So where exactly are these warning shots to be fired? In the air, where they can come back down someplace? In the pavement, where they can ricochet into a vehicle's gas tank? In the wall next to the suspect, where they can ricochet, or go through someone's living room?
What a brilliant policy. You don't fire a service weapon unless you have a reasonable idea where the round is going to wind up.
Warning shots. Unreal.
Yeah, sounds dangerous, but has anyone actually been killed by warning shots falling to the ground? When the alternative is a policy of shooting to kill whenever force has to be used, you're going to need to come up with stronger objections than "what if the warning shot falls on the nuclear power plant operator, who falls on the control panel and presses the "meltdown" button?"
The meltdown button is a myth.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 01:11:36 PM
Yeah, sounds dangerous, but has anyone actually been killed by warning shots falling to the ground?
I don't know what the percentages are of how many people have been killed or wounded by warning shots in the air--we had a fatality here just a couple of July 4ths ago, from a yahoo--shooting in the air--but I know what the percentages are when they're not.
QuoteWhen the alternative is a policy of shooting to kill whenever force has to be used, you're going to need to come up with stronger objections than "what if the warning shot falls on the nuclear power plant operator, who falls on the control panel and presses the "meltdown" button?"
I certainly wouldn't bother with a warning shot to shoot you in the fucking mouth, that's for sure.
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
Wasn't there some shit a few years back about a Muslim wedding killing somebody with their airshots?
Yes, falling bullets can kill (though I'm not sure if pistol bullets have enough of a terminal velocity and the height to do it). However, shooting a gun in general is dangerous, and bystanders can always get hurt. It's a matter of contrasting different options, you don't get to critique a certain method in isolation. When the benchmark method is shooting to kill whenever you have to shoot, the bar is fairly low to find a better alternative method, as dangerous as it would be itself.
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
Wasn't there some shit a few years back about a Muslim wedding killing somebody with their airshots?
Fun fact: 17 people died from falling rounds the day Kuwait City was liberated in '91 from all the dune monkeys firing in the air.
Interestingly enough, I always bought into the "if you have to shoot, shoot to kill" philosophy, until this thread where Seedy's lame attempts to defend me made me go back and think it over.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 01:26:14 PM
Interestingly enough, I always bought into the "if you have to shoot, shoot to kill" philosophy, until this thread where Seedy's lame attempts to defend me made me go back and think it over.
You go ahead and do that. Think it over.
This might be just urban legend but a I heard a guy claiming that his police officer friend told him he and his colleagues were told, when about to face a gypsy lynchmob, to make sure and fire their clip to the air so the civilians would not get their hand on a loaded gun when overpowering them. :huh:
I appreciate warning shots and shots to the leg, except that the latter sounds awfully tricky to pull off in a high-stress situation (ie. against anyone but angry housewifes standing still while yelling), and the former either causing too long a delay to save an innocent life, or can be pretty easily dodged by a trigger-happy cop (face the opponent, shoot two into him, one into the air, dare CSI to figure out which of the 3 happened first :P )
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
Wasn't there some shit a few years back about a Muslim wedding killing somebody with their airshots?
Yes, falling bullets can kill (though I'm not sure if pistol bullets have enough of a terminal velocity and the height to do it). However, shooting a gun in general is dangerous, and bystanders can always get hurt. It's a matter of contrasting different options, you don't get to critique a certain method in isolation. When the benchmark method is shooting to kill whenever you have to shoot, the bar is fairly low to find a better alternative method, as dangerous as it would be itself.
That's the whole point though. If somebody makes a cop use his gun, it's important that person be killed.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/bullets-fired-up-uncut.htm
Ugh, Mythbusters. Might as well give a pistol to 5 chimps in a field and see what happens.
Then blow the chimps up.
Quote from: Syt on October 07, 2012, 01:36:46 PM
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/bullets-fired-up-uncut.htm
Why are they using paintball guns with compressed air to make this point?
Quote from: Tamas on October 07, 2012, 01:28:16 PM
This might be just urban legend but a I heard a guy claiming that his police officer friend told him he and his colleagues were told, when about to face a gypsy lynchmob, to make sure and fire their clip to the air so the civilians would not get their hand on a loaded gun when overpowering them. :huh:
Magazine.
:lol:
WHATEVER!
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 01:35:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2012, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
Wasn't there some shit a few years back about a Muslim wedding killing somebody with their airshots?
Yes, falling bullets can kill (though I'm not sure if pistol bullets have enough of a terminal velocity and the height to do it). However, shooting a gun in general is dangerous, and bystanders can always get hurt. It's a matter of contrasting different options, you don't get to critique a certain method in isolation. When the benchmark method is shooting to kill whenever you have to shoot, the bar is fairly low to find a better alternative method, as dangerous as it would be itself.
That's the whole point though. If somebody makes a cop use his gun, it's important that person be killed.
Yeah because cops are never trigger happy. :rolleyes:
This actually terrifies me with Jeremy. Someone in a hypoglycemic bout looks and acts a hell of a lot like someone either drunk or on drugs. I know, I've been punched in the jaw by one while on the ambulance. <_<
My first thought when I read this was: druggie. Then it was: shit, diabetic?
I get why the cop shot the kid. He seriously worried for his life. But he was outside a police station where presumably other officers would have been able to help him, or at least bring him a tazer or pepper spray or something. Hard to know what I would do in that situation, but killing the kid seems like it was the poorer option.
The kid weighed 135 pounds and was 5-foot-7.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 04:09:57 PM
Yeah because cops are never trigger happy. :rolleyes:
When dealing with criminal racial groups, there's nothing wrong with a bit of zeal.
Disagree. All that does is encourage people to further mistrust the govt.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 07:16:38 PM
Disagree. All that does is encourage people to further mistrust the govt.
Deport them to Liberia. Problem solved.
Cost prohibitive and racist.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Cost prohibitive and racist.
Racism isn't a bad thing. The stereotypes we develop are what keep us alive.
I don't see how so.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 08:28:15 PM
I don't see how so.
They teach us to avoid bad people.
Relying on racial stereotypes is a good way to get tucked up.
Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2012, 06:52:36 PM
This actually terrifies me with Jeremy. Someone in a hypoglycemic bout looks and acts a hell of a lot like someone either drunk or on drugs. I know, I've been punched in the jaw by one while on the ambulance. <_<
My first thought when I read this was: druggie. Then it was: shit, diabetic?
I've never seen a hypoglycemic jump into crane fighting mode buck ass naked. Being naked acting crazy and combative is a red flag, and usually not because they need a Snickers bar.
QuoteBut he was outside a police station where presumably other officers would have been able to help him, or at least bring him a tazer or pepper spray or something. Hard to know what I would do in that situation, but killing the kid seems like it was the poorer option.
We don't know. Other officers may not have been immediately available. At that time of night, he may have been in the station alone at that particular moment.
Quotehe Department is led by the Chief of Police, the Deputy Chief of Police, followed by an Administrative Lieutenant, and a Patrol Lieutenant. It is further comprised of two Patrol Sergeants, four Patrol Corporals, a Detective Sergeant, two Detectives, eighteen Police Officers, eight Dispatchers, five Security Officers, five Parking Services workers, two clerks, and two Student Employees.
It's a shitty little campus police department on a shitty little campus.
QuoteMOBILE, Ala. (AP) -- Friends of a University of South Alabama student are questioning his fatal shooting by a campus police officer.
Colgan Meanor says 18-year-old Gil Collar of Wetumpka was an outgoing athlete who loved wrestling in high school. She says she's shocked over his killing by an officer outside the university police department early Saturday.
Another friend of Collar, Tyler Kendrick, says the officer shouldn't have drawn his weapon on an unarmed person.
School officials say the student ignored repeated commands to stop. The school says Collar was nude and acting erratically when he confronted the officer.
The officer is on paid leave, and an autopsy will determine if drugs or alcohol were involved.
Does Facebook have a "Shoot/Don't Shoot" feature for friends?
QuoteCampus officials say the confrontation was recorded by security cameras.
Oooh, sweet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2012, 10:22:07 PM
I've never seen a hypoglycemic jump into crane fighting mode buck ass naked. Being naked acting crazy and combative is a red flag, and usually not because they need a Snickers bar.
They do act crazy and combative, but yeah, usually they keep their clothes on. :) Regardless, my fear for Jeremy and kids like him is pretty real. Acting combative and drunk could easily end in a similar situation.
Quote
We don't know. Other officers may not have been immediately available. At that time of night, he may have been in the station alone at that particular moment.
Quotehe Department is led by the Chief of Police, the Deputy Chief of Police, followed by an Administrative Lieutenant, and a Patrol Lieutenant. It is further comprised of two Patrol Sergeants, four Patrol Corporals, a Detective Sergeant, two Detectives, eighteen Police Officers, eight Dispatchers, five Security Officers, five Parking Services workers, two clerks, and two Student Employees.
It's a shitty little campus police department on a shitty little campus.
Fair enough.
Like I said, I don't doubt the cop feared for his life. Unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous. Nonetheless, it's a sad ending. It's kind of human nature to look for how it may have been prevented. Besides, armchair policing has become a hobby since before Law & Order hit the airwaves.
Naked crazy student shot by campus cop? Solution: concealed carry!
QuoteUSA student advocates carrying concealed weapons on campus
MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - The shooting of a student on the University of South Alabama Campus by a campus police officer has raised the question of crime and campus safety for some students.
One of the people who attended the news conference by school officials Saturday afternoon is advocating a change in policy at USA and other schools to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Phillip Harding had something on his belt other students didn't have at the news conference Saturday: an empty gun holster.
Harding said, "An empty holster is kind of a symbolism that, while I'm trained, I have a permit, I can be armed. I'm not allowed to be armed here."
Harding is the state director of Students for Concealed Carry of Alabama, part of a national organization that believes trained licensed adults over 21 should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on college campuses for their own safety.
USA officials addressed the issue of student safety at Saturday's news conference.
USA Public Relations Director Keith Ayers said, "This is a very, tragic development. Statistically, I think, as you all have reported in the past, and in your comparisons, this is a very safe campus to live, work and play."
Harding isn't convinced.
He said, "Criminals can come right on campus anytime."
Harding said he's talked with USA school administrators about his concerns, but, "all I've been able to get out of them is that, no, 'campus carry' is not illegal. You can't be charged with a crime for doing so. However, anyone who is caught carrying a weapon on campus is subject to the disciplinary committee, and, employees can be terminated, [and] students can be expelled for that."
Harding believes crimes on campus, like a robbery in September and a shooting incident in April that left the campus on lockdown could bring the issue to the forefront.
"Students would be a lot safer if they were allowed to defend themselves, and they didn't have to rely on the police to come back after the fact," said Harding.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Cost prohibitive and racist.
Racist, yes. But how is it cost prohibitive?
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Cost prohibitive and racist.
Racist, yes. But how is it cost prohibitive?
It isn't going to be cheap to ship out an entire segment of the population. Lawyer fees alone should be enough of an issue.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Cost prohibitive and racist.
Racist, yes. But how is it cost prohibitive?
If it's racist to deport them to Liberia, how about Iceland instead?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 11:24:50 AM
Naked crazy student shot by campus cop? Solution: concealed carry!
That's great, but just how is the naked crazy student going to conceal his or her gun? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2012, 12:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 11:24:50 AM
Naked crazy student shot by campus cop? Solution: concealed carry!
That's great, but just how is the naked crazy student going to conceal his or her gun? :hmm:
He'll hide that uncomfortable chunk of metal in the one place that the gooks won't check: His ass.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.tarantino.info%2Fimages%2FKoons.jpg&hash=d88fa58217318e718321e33170267f20d22d37ba)