Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You don't think that just maybe his also having a gun had something to do with the situation?
You don't think that just maybe his also having a gun had something to do with the situation?
You don't think that just maybe his also having a gun had something to do with the situation?
According to the article no weapon was found. It said that likely the person who reported him having a gun actually saw the cell phone.
It was still a bit of a disingenuous title.
They believed he was armed. They responded.
He was 'acting erratically' and was taken into custody.
That's all we know.
Don't y'all want more info before drawing conclusions?
They believed he was armed. They responded.
He was 'acting erratically' and was taken into custody.
That's all we know.
Don't y'all want more info before drawing conclusions?
The police never said he was acting erratically.
They believed he was armed. They responded.
He was 'acting erratically' and was taken into custody.
That's all we know.
Don't y'all want more info before drawing conclusions?
The police never said he was acting erratically.
Wel he was in a Wal Mart parking lot
You don't think that just maybe his also having a gun had something to do with the situation?
You don't think that just maybe his also having a gun had something to do with the situation?
According to the article no weapon was found. It said that likely the person who reported him having a gun actually saw the cell phone.
It was still a bit of a disingenuous title.
Disingenuous? I don't thing so. Had he only been detained it would have been, but he was taken into cutody. That implies more than just being detained so they could verify the complaint. When they saw there was no weapon and that the person reporting was incorrect (mistaken) they should have simply stated that they were sorry and he was free to go.
They believed he was armed. They responded.
He was 'acting erratically' and was taken into custody.
That's all we know.
Don't y'all want more info before drawing conclusions?
The police never said he was acting erratically.
A report of an armed man acting erratically in the Wal-Mart parking lot Wednesday [/QUOTE]
.
They believed he was armed. They responded.
He was 'acting erratically' and was taken into custody.
That's all we know.
Don't y'all want more info before drawing conclusions?
The police never said he was acting erratically.A report of an armed man acting erratically in the Wal-Mart parking lot Wednesday [/QUOTE].
Yes A REPORT from a PASSERBY.
After identifying the vehicle and person in question, Hughes said a decision was made on the scene for police to attempt contact. They were able to communicate with him and he voluntarily exited the vehicle. No weapon was found and the individual was taken into custody without incident less than 20 minutes after police arrived on scene.
The individual was talking on a cell phone at the time of the incident. It's likely that is the object the passerby identified as a gun.
The man complied. He voluntarily exited the vehicle. "ERATIC", Who knows. He could be one of those obnoxious loud mouths when on a cell phone, could've been arguing (which is permissable). Could have been telling jokes and using a lot of body motion (which is permssable).The police did not confirm that he was erratic and it appears he followed their requests (I didn't say demands) he also DID NOT HAVE A GUN. YES they had to check out the report, which they did. He only had a cell phone. That's what they found. I want to know why that wasn't the end of it.
The title is disingenuous because, according to the article, he was NOT taken into custody for talking on a cell. Perhaps he should not have been put in custody at all, but that's beside the point.
Was just saying that, reading the thread title, I'd expect the cell to be the only issue.
