The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 12, 2010, 03:58 PM   #51
Join Date: July 2, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 87

I thought the whole point of them was to allow customers easy egress in the event of an emergency. Perhaps an emergency such as a fire, robbery, earthquake, gas leak...

Most of the fire doors I've seen have that special bar across it where you have to push on it for 15 seconds while the alarm sounds, then it unlocks.
Xyas is offline  
Old October 12, 2010, 04:37 PM   #52
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 1,996
Everyone makes dicesions, he made one that turned bad for the little girl. I fault the BG 100%.
Yes, truly, the BG is 100% responsible. The LEO was just trying to do his job. Could it have been done better, well, it's for the eye of the beholder to decide that. I think if he was smarter, the little girl wouldn't have been shot.
Time is always an advantage and a disadvantage, but if you're smart enough, you can harness it into a very effective weapon.

But firstly, get everyone to safety, before you start shooting.

You're an idiot if you make yourself a target-with other innocents near you-by addressing yourself as a LEO. What's going to happen is what happened in this case, innocent bystanders were killed/injured because you decided to make yourself a hero.
Krav Maga/Judo
Qualified Rifleman/Marksmanship Instructor/Lic. Medic
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 8:1
thesheepdog is offline  
Old October 12, 2010, 05:04 PM   #53
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 809
Letting the bad guy go because doing otherwise would place innocent people in grave danger needs to be more “socially acceptable” amongst our ranks. I think we're starting to see more of this in the pursuit policies of most agencies and I have tried to carry this message over into my training and teaching.
A.A. +1. Without sounding trite its’ better that 1,000 suspects get away NOW than to needlessly endanger the life of 1 citizen!
I'm asking because I don't know how I feel yet. I agree that you let the car thief, pimp, purse snatcher get away if chasing him endangers lives of innocent people. A high speed chase on the LA Freeway to catch a car thief is ridiculous. However, do we let them get away without resistance if they are proven to have reckless regard for life, have a gun and have proven they aren't afraid to use it at any time?

The guy in that McDonalds committed an armed robbery in broad daylight with tens of people around. We do not know if he would have just left without hurting anybody. He could have left the back office, rounded up the people and made them hand over their valuables because the back safe wasn't full enough. He could have spotted someone who recognized him and decided to go down in a shootout. He could be an escaped prisoner who needed fast cash and a way out of town. Desperate people who are armed can't be predictable. If you're gonna hold up a busy McDonalds in the middle of the day they your thinking cap isn't on straight to begin with.

If we allow guys who are violent to walk away now, they could and probably will leave a string of dead people along the way. The little girl who died was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I feel sorry for her friends and family. It was not the cop's fault she died and armchair quarterbacking can pin the blame on him 3 out of 4 times but he did what he was trained to do at that moment. When idiots decide to break the law with violence it usually has a tragic ending. Allowing this guy to walk out would not guarantee this little girl would be alive today and if he left without any violence the next robbery could have ended up with 5 or 6 dead. Wait, maybe he would have retired from his score? Yeah, right.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old October 12, 2010, 09:09 PM   #54
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,159
Then he's going to get a Gold Dot surprise.
I get the feeling "Gold Dot surprise" isn't a fancy kind of iced-cream sundae...

Of course it doesn't. But neither does sitting in a comfy chair 13 years later and condemning a man who devoted his working life to upholding the law
You've got a point. The officer realized that his actions, even if only in part, led to the death of that little girl. He's been living with it. I'm not going to pour scorn on him as a human being, nor should any of us.

However, there's a lesson to be learned--it's just not about ammunition capacity.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 12, 2010, 09:40 PM   #55
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,515
As a joe citizen, I operate in a different manner than any LEO. I will remove myself from danger if possible and stay the heck away from anything that looks like a problem. If I must defend myself with a firearm, 5 shots will have to be enough. I could carry something different and certainly pile a bunch of speed loaders in my pocket but thats just not my style.
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 03:57 AM   #56
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Obervations and comments:
  1. I'm going to have to stop at McD's in Barstow on the way home from the SHOT show to check out this huge restaurant. I too thought he might have written "yards" instead of feet.
  2. Locked fire door. A serious no-no in California. Delay-locks are not permitted IIRC except in "security" environments (i.e. computer rooms, payroll areas, etc.). But he makes no mention any follow-up on that. After all, it seriously endangered his family.
  3. 11 rounds in 4-5 seconds I find more believeable. As others have said, however, time gets distorted during a high stress event.
  4. He did what many people might try to do. Get his family to safety, then usher others to safety whilst "watching their backs".
  5. IF a CCW permit holder had been in his shoes, it's likely he would have been detained, arrested and charged with manslaughter at the least.
A CCW holder who engages in a gunfight inside a "bystander rich" environment in which some innocent gets hit or killed stands a very good chance of facing a grand jury and/or prosecution. The .GOV will argue that any intervention, confrontation or display of a firearm against the bad guy escalated the situation into a shooting. They'll probably have the statistics to show there was over a 95% chance that the thug would simply leave with the cash.

Addressing comments:
Originally Posted by larryh1108
If you want to shoot the BGs then become a cop.
Police have only a little more leeway when shooting than do civilians. Unlike Civilians, police may be obligated to remain in contact with the subject and/or continue engaging to protect the public.

Originally Posted by _Muad'dib_
Isn't he going to be slightly peeved when he notices that everyone leaves and can identify him?
Not particularly. With the prevalance of video cameras today, it seems as if most crooks don't care, are in too much of a hurry or are too stupid to think that far ahead. Some are none too bright - like the ex-employee of a liquor store that returned to hold up the 7-11 next door and even greeted the clerk by name. One nimrod robbed the liquor store and the next day returned to the 7-11 to buy lottery tickets. It seems more important to them to obtain the cash than delay in the area trying to silence witnesses.

Originally Posted by Jim March
As a CCW holder, my first plan would be to fade back, hide, watch, look like any other type of civilian, and start a gunfight ONLY! if the alternatives are worse, like if the goblin turned full-on murderer, rapist, etc. Then he's going to get a Gold Dot surprise.
Amigo, we are in violent agreement on tactics here.
Don't let your gonads write checks your body can't cash.

Had I been in the officer's shoes, the driving force would be getting my family out to safety, which is beyond the parking lot. If I could convince others to go too, great. If the thug comes out from the back and heads for a door, I'm not doing anything to keep him inside with access to hostages.

Like Jim says, if he goes full-goose bonzo and starts shooting people, he'll become a test target for the JHP's in my sidearm. In such a case, statistically anyone inside is potentially a fatal statistic, so you have little to lose by shooting.

Lastly, contrary to the OP's implication that a semi-automatic pistol is necessary for this kind of situation, it is not. Notice that regardless of whether he fired 6 times or 11 times, he had no time to determine if his hits had stopped the robber or not. Not until he stopped shooting. If his hit rate was in the 90% range as indicated, a wheelgun might have been just as effective.

In 1976, IIRC, a Washington State trooper faced 3 armed felons on a remote car stop, alone. The driver fired on him with a 1911, the forward passenger used an M1 Carbine and the 3rd used a Ruger Single Six. Three .45 rounds were fired, 7 .30 M1 rounds and 3 .22 LR rounds by all three suspects. The trooper fired just 3 rounds of W-W Super-X .357 from his 6" S&W M28. The driver died with his aortic arch shredded. The Carbine shooter was hit in the 3rd shirt button (it was found inside his chest) and the .22 shooter was hit almost at the end of his nose. It's not how many rounds you have, it is your ability to focus and make good accurate hits that counts.
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

Last edited by BillCA; October 13, 2010 at 04:09 AM.
BillCA is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 08:47 AM   #57
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,895
I notice several people have brought up how stress can distort your sense of time in arguing whether 11 rounds could be fired in 2 seconds; but the original post said "Security camera video of this incident revealed that I fired all 11 rounds from my Glock 26 in about 2 seconds."

So this isn't a case of the shooter simply getting confused as to how much time had passed. Again, I think it highlights that a trained shooter can expend a lot of ammo before he even realizes that his shots have been effective.

If we are going to train to shoot until the threat is stopped, then that is something we need to consider in our planning and onboard ammo. 5 rounds sounds like plenty for a shooter; but if you expend all 5 on the first target in under a second, Jerry-Miculek like, then 5 may not get it done, even though any one of the 5 may have been effective on its own.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 10:31 AM   #58
Senior Member
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Originally Posted by FireForged
As a joe citizen, I operate in a different manner than any LEO. I will remove myself from danger if possible and stay the heck away from anything that looks like a problem.
For me, I that's the learning point of this inicident. Now if I am in a store and the BG's want me or my wife to lie down on the floor, or go to a back room, then that's when I will defend myself.
madmag is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 12:58 PM   #59
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,164
Wow. All the comments about "the cop caused that little girl's death".

No, folks.

It was the guy who made the choice to do an armed robbery of a McDonalds that caused the little girl's death.

So, a lot of you are jumping on the cop's actions. What exactly did he do?

He told his family to get the heck out of there. They tried, but were prevented from doing so by a LOCKED FIRE DOOR. (Isn't that against the fire code?)

Did anyone miss this next part:

I began quietly telling employees and patrons to leave. My thinking was to remove as many innocent bystanders as possible and then leave myself.
Probably not. Most of you are so busy going into the armchair quarterback mode that you didn't see this part.

So, now comes the bad guy. Here's the equation---Armed violent criminal, in the process of committing a felony, with lethal weapon visible, running toward people.

Here stands a sworn officer, also armed. He does not have time to think about it. He reacts in accordance to his training.

He draws his weapon and challenges the felon. THE FELON CHOSE AT THAT POINT TO OPEN FIRE IN A CROWDED ENVIRONMENT.

The officer responded, and he shot to stop. It took 11 rounds, yes--caliber doesn't count. He fired 11 rounds, hit the perp 10 times, UNDER FIRE.

Now, the big one...the little girl.

Everyone is mentioning how the little girl should not have died. I agree 100%. She should not have died.

Now here is the question. I think you all MISSED this part...

I immediately noticed a small child lying behind me.
Here's the important phrase..lying BEHIND him.

The child was BEHIND the officer.

Consider how close that bullet had to pass the officer to hit the child.

Also, it is a conditioned reflex for most cops to put themselves between the people they are trying to protect and the danger that threatens them. I believe that there is a possibility that the officer did EXACTLY that.

So, here is the officer who walks into an armed robbery; who initially tells his family to leave and has a stated intention to get others to safety; who finds himself in mortal danger, from a armed felon with a gun.

Who tries to resolve the situation by ID'ing himself as an officer, in the hope that the BG will surrender peacefully.

Instead, the officer finds himself under fire at close range. His life can now be measured in microseconds--he's on borrowed time for every breath he draws.

He responds to the immediate and lethal threat by shooting with remarkable accuracy under heavy stress--10 hits from 11 shots.

It is not his fault that the little girl was killed by the bullet of an armed felon.

He did his job. He stopped a lethal threat.

And some of you armchair quarterbacks are condeming this man? Trying to second guess his actions, even though by some of your own admissions YOU HAVE NEVER HAD TO DRAW YOUR WEAPONS TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE?

Some of you are saying that if confronted by the same situation that you would run. If you're not a cop, I guess that's OK.

But DON'T condemn this man who stood in the face of violent death and roared back. You don't have the right to do it. NONE of us do.
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 01:31 PM   #60
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 608
I really feel for the officer in this situation. He was in the heat of the moment trying to get his family, and as many of the other people in the McDonald's to safety, doing what he felt was right, when the bad guy comes along and interrupts his plan. He then identified himself as a police officer, and the bad guy still chose to draw his weapon and fire.

The little girl's blood rests solely on the hands of the bad guy, though I am sure the officer feels that he is responsible. If the bad guy had not chose to fire his weapon, the little girl would still be alive.
Let not a man guard his dignity, but let his dignity guard him. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
pacerdude is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 02:51 PM   #61
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 27
As I understand it

So I know this is a hot one and it's my first post here so I'm going to try and remain noninflammatory, lest I make a bad first impression.

As I understand it the cop was caught off guard and decided to pull. I don't quite see how he escalated elevated or "started" the firefight. That said I do get that as CCW holders we have no responsibility to act in a situation like this, hell my friends and I have had this discussion countless times and I refuse to back down off of my stance.

My first point is getting the hell out of where-ever something was going down, as a first responder I will call police officers but refuse to put my own or any bystanders life in danger. The second point I refuse to switch on is pretending to be a cop, too me the very notion is far more irresponsible than doing nothing.

However this guy was a cop and felt, rightfully so in my opinion, that he needed to do what he could to clear the restaurant. The officer had every intention of letting the BG leave with the money but the situation changed and he intercepted the robber.

On topic I believe the point trying to be made by the OP was that the cop felt revealed that he had a second magazine seeing as if there had been multiple assailants he would have been dry on the first. Personally I have always agreed with this point but can concede that it's not altogether necessary to shoot someone ten times. I guess shooting a BG that many times is merely assurance that they go down.
Archer-1911 is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 03:02 PM   #62
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,066
Armchair quarterbacks.

We have the right to “armchair quarterback”. Persons elect to do a job because they believe they are qualified. Others do not elect to do those jobs because they know they are not qualified and leave those jobs to those who claim to be.

You want controls for your chemical plant? Call me; I can do it. I’m qualified for that and know so.
You want electrical power for that plant? Call an electrical engineer. I'm not qualified for that and I know so.
If my controls don’t work then the electrical engineer can fault me, even though it’s not his discipline.
If the substation blows up I may fault the electrical engineer, even though it’s not my discipline.

This logic applies to any job.
ClayInTx is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 03:19 PM   #63
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,800
The idea of responsibility is an interesting one. So if person X starts a bad action, person X is responsible. However, you can take actions which have different consequences.

1. You can let Person X's action occur with a high probability of limited harm but some property loss.

2. You can take an action which may stop Person X but has a reasonable possible of person X or yourself causing more and significant harm.

In both cases, Person X is to blame for starting the action but do you have responsibility for initiating a path with a greater probability of a reasonable bad outcome?

The issue is blame sharing. The officer should know and is usually trained that the damage generated by his action is a reasonable likelihood. Person X has already done his action - you are responsible for the choice you make that leads to various outcomes. X being the instigator doesn't remove the need for you not to make bad choices.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 03:44 PM   #64
Charles Ellis
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Location: conroe,texas
Posts: 200
This shootout took place in June 1997,and I suspect that the officer that was involved is still wondering what he could have done(should have done?)different,that would have resulted in the child not being killed.I in no way judge his actions,as without a doubt he acted in the way that seemed best to him at the time.His actions seem to me to be consistient with a well trained and brave LEO.In his position,I would like to think I would do as well,but I very much doubt it.The 2 main things that I got from this,(1) No matter how much you train and plan,bad things can still happen.Swat officers train far more than regular LEO's much less an average concealed carry license holder.He had preplanned with his wife to get his family out of the building if such a situitation ever happened,and was trying to get others to leave as well.Circumstances that he could not forsee prevented them from being sucessful.Murphy is everywhere,24/7,365.(2) In the excitement of a gunfight,you will shoot until you run out of ammo and then think about reloading and additional threats.Always carry at least 1 reload.
Charles Ellis is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 10:27 PM   #65
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128

+1, agree with you on all points.

Officer didn't choose to start a confrontation in a crowded restaurant, but was unable to get everybody out of harm's way.

I suspect several of the posters who've found fault with him didn't really read the entire account, but picked and chose a few phrases here and there, and glossed over the rest.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 10:35 PM   #66
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 2,090
Different strokes for different folks. I am not LEO, on duty, or off duty, I would have simply taken my wife and kids and exited stage left. I have no need, desire, or duty to engage anyone in a gun fight, unless me, or mine, are actually under assault. Sticking around for that to happen strikes me as not the wise thing to do.

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

Last edited by Hook686; October 15, 2010 at 01:35 AM.
Hook686 is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 10:39 PM   #67
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 953
Now i know if i hit a guy 9 times in the chest with my .45 its game over
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag
Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded
XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag
Smith M&P 40
kgpcr is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 10:43 PM   #68
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Apples and oranges comparisons

Faulting a LEO for not acting like a civilian doesn't make sense.

As Powderman pointed out, the LEO didn't deliberately escalate anything. He placed himself between the threat axis, and the soft targets, while trying to get the soft targets out of the danger zone. Sounds like exactly what he should have done.

As Powderman also pointed out, the soft targets had difficulties evacuating, and were not all clear when the BG emerged, with gun in hand. That wasn't the LEO's fault, either. McDonald's definitely should have been both cited and sued over the locked fire doors, though.

At that point, the LEO could have chosen to just step aside and remain incognito, but if the BG had done anything violent, then everybody would be asking why the LEO had done nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Even then, the LEO physically put his body between the BG and the fleeing patrons - again, as one would hope a LEO would perform.

If the LEO had gone in with the intention of making an arrest, in a crowded place, this would be an entirely different thing. He didn't. He attempted an evacuation, and it didn't work out.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 04:10 AM   #69
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,196
While very interesting, the debate about what the off-duty officer should have done is off topic.

The title (topic?) of this thread is, "A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo."

It also makes clear why you need plenty of ammo. You listening revolver people?
I have no idea why the OP used that story to argue his case. It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what a CCL holder should carry or how he should respond.
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 06:26 AM   #70
Join Date: April 29, 2010
Posts: 67
I agree with what Powderman said.

The only thing I think I would have done differently would have been to make sure my family was outside before I started doing anything else.

Michael Grace
Baryngyl is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 07:04 AM   #71
Mr Dish
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2009
Location: Shepherd, MI
Posts: 128
Seems to me that this may be a very educational post if it is completely true....LEO admitting that he should've simply left with his family? It is presents itself as pure proof that the Police are not there to protect us. That is why we must maintain the right to protect ourselves. I was always under the impression that is was the duty of LEOs to do what he did, get as many people to safety then attempt to stop the BG.
Monday morning Quarterbacking is the only reason he has doubted his reactions. He had no way of knowing if the BG killed the employees in the back office or what his next intention was. The death of the innocent girl is very unfortunate but could not have been prevented unless you look back after the dust has settled.

I do agree that this story does nothing to prove we need to carry enormous amounts of extra ammo. The BG opened fire and only hit the girl by accident...he was shooting at the guy with the gun. TRAINING...TRAINING...TRAINING is what we should carry with us.
Vote Libertarian or QUIT COMPLAINING!
Mr Dish is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 08:58 AM   #72
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
It's possible for an event to offer more than one lesson

And this one does.

Its teaching points involve decision making in crowded environments; things that can go wrong with seemingly sound plans; differences in responsibilities between CWP holder and off-duty LEO, and off-duty vs on-duty LEO.

But it also does offer a lesson about carrying spare ammo, which has been brought up but which keeps getting lost in the focus on the death of the little girl.

The lesson about carrying reloads was that, under stress, the LEO emptied his gun without noting if there were any other BG's. Because there weren't, in this case, a lot of people are pooh-poohing the idea that more ammo could have been useful.

But as the officer pointed out, if the guy had NOT been alone, and if an accomplice or two had suddenly sprung out of the woodwork, then it would have been a very good thing that he had a spare mag.

I find it ironic that many of the people saying there's nothing here to reinforce the idea of carrying a reload, seem to be the same folks who talk about one of the risks of interfering in a convenience store (or other) robbery - the presence or arrival of accomplice(s).

Unless those same folks think that they'll do a better job of conserving their ammo than did the SWAT instructor in the story, the probability is that more rounds will get expended under duress than we may have intended. It's nice to think that won't happen, and to train toward not letting it happen, but...
MLeake is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 09:25 AM   #73
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 7,489

Beautiful post.

Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 01:05 PM   #74
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,862
Lots of things strike me as odd.

First OP- This story is 15 years old, not "recent" on my time line.

Second Powderman- My thoughts exactly. Sometimes no matter what you do you are not going to have a good outcome, sometimes the angels smile on you.

Third- I am pretty sure that in this case, as in most shootings, the weapons had a lot less to do with anything than the training and mind set of the officer involved. Having extra rounds was not necessary. Being able to reload is a lot better than standing there with your slide locked back looking helpless. But here it made no difference. So this is an oddly titled thread.

The bad guy was down in two seconds, which is about as fast as you can hope for with a pistol round, or even a lot of pistol rounds. A larger gun, more rounds could not have changed the outcome of the bad guy shooting first. A rifle round might have put him down a hair faster but it still would not have changed the end result.

I am not against carrying a spare mag, a speed loader, whatever. Just saying it made no difference here.
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 03:53 PM   #75
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
All the comments about "the cop caused that little girl's death".

No, folks.

It was the guy who made the choice to do an armed robbery of a McDonalds that caused the little girl's death.
Yep, like I told that kid ran a red light got his car totaled by my truck "if you hadnt run that light I wouldnt be here talking to ya". plain and simple.

BG = 100% at fault, if he hadnt been there nothing bad would have happened to that girl. Cop was doing his job above and beyond the call of duty.
markj is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15153 seconds with 7 queries