Another Gizmondo exec goes to jail [update 1]

by Vladimir Cole { Apr 27th 2006 at 8:18AM }

The Los Angeles Times reports that Carl Freer, co-founder and managing director of Gizmondo, was arrested yesterday for allegedly impersonating a police officer in order to obtain a .44 magnum handgun.

Police searched Freer's home and 100-foot yacht, turning up 12 rifles and four handguns.

A little advice from Joystiq to Freer and Ericksson: what with the guns, the millions wasted, the totaled Enzo Ferrari, the drunk driving, the garage full of "misappropriated" exotic cars, the swank mansions and the yacht, y'all can probably lay off building "street cred" now. We believe you. You're hard. Real hard.

Question is, will Fiddy believe you enough to make room for you in his G Unit?

[Update 1: Fixed an error in the number of rifles found on Freer's property.]

Tags: ericksson, freer, gizmondo

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Alex @ Apr 27th 2006 8:27AM

These idiots were playin GTA for real, lets hope they hang.

Game Over

ben @ Apr 27th 2006 8:27AM

12 rifles, not 21. Silly rabbit. :)

aloejuice @ Apr 27th 2006 8:30AM

you should start re-reading your articles prior to posting. you fail :(

vc @ Apr 27th 2006 8:35AM

Great advice, Aloejuice. Will consider doing that! Never thought of that before.

lollers @ Apr 27th 2006 8:36AM

I look at Freer's photo here and can't help but think someone in some LA prison is going to find his blond hair and blue eyes real purdy.

Fanguad @ Apr 27th 2006 8:45AM

My first pass through the summary I thought, "aside from the 'impersonating a police officer bit,' 12 rifles and 4 handguns? That's not much to be concerned about". That's reasonable for a hobbyist - especially one as filthy rich as this guy. But the article brings up the point that he's a foreign national - meaning that he is legally allowed to own zero guns. Furthermore, he lives in Bel-Air, which doesn't seem like a likely place to be a gun hobbyist (then again, I guess you can get out in the wilderness pretty fast driving at 162 mph [yes, I realize it's two different guys]).

Rjcc @ Apr 27th 2006 8:52AM

Weren't they still looking for two guys who showed up after Erickson's accident claiming to be homeland security, who apparently belonged to some police force for a bus company that didn't exist (no really, the story was that convoluted)?

interesting.

R @ Apr 27th 2006 9:04AM

Ah you crazy Americans and your gun laws. Only in your insane land would 12 rifle and 4 handguns be considered 'reasonable'. Quick point: the 2nd amendment enshrines the "right to bear arms" not the right to carry guns.

Any student of political philosophy would be able to tell you that the important aspect of the 2nd amendment is that it enshrines the right to challenge an illegitimate government. It is the instantiation in Law of John Locke's political philosophy. For those tha don't know, this philosophy is the idea that government does not have absolute arbitrary powers, only the powers bestowed upon it by the people and that any government that exceeds those powers forgoes its legitimacy and must be challenged by the might of the people.

The 2nd amendment therefore enshrines the right to revolt!

Stick that up your arse Charlton Heston!

Rant over. Now I can get back to laughing at Gizmondo execs.

Paul @ Apr 27th 2006 9:17AM

I just watn to say you have little understanding of the constitution or the Second Amendment. Any decent constitutional scholarship knows the second amendment grants the right to both revolt and to own and carry weapons.

How the hell are you supposed to challenge an government without weapons?

Deuce @ Apr 27th 2006 9:21AM

Quick point: the 2nd amendment enshrines the "right to bear arms" not the right to carry guns.

Jeez, I'm living in Orwell land! Seeing as how "bear" is a synonym for "carry", and seeing as how "arms" means "guns" (and other weapons), that's exactly what the 2nd amendment says! You might as well have said "the 2nd amendment enshrines the 'right to bear arms' not the right to bear arms."

You are right about why the second amendment says that though: a disarmed populace is one that can't revolt. In fact, in the countries where firearms are totally illegal to own, it's often been for that exact reason. England's Parliament outlawed the ownership of guns in the first half of last century to prevent a progressivist revolt. Japan first outlawed guns (actually, swords at the time) to keep people from being able to resist the Emperor's rule.

Fanguad @ Apr 27th 2006 9:24AM

#7, consider that I said "for a gun hobbyist." Were it not for that fact that guns are dangerous weapons, those numbers would be reasonable for a hobby. This is a gaming blog, so a possible analogy would be "they found 12 console games and 4 portable games" (lions and tigers and violent video games, oh my!). So really, the argument there is whether it's reasonable for the government to allow people to be gun hobbyists. In the case of guns, reasonable = safe.

I think it's clear that it's safe for some people and not for others. That's the whole point of gun laws and background checks. If someone can safely possess a dozen guns, why not let them? Case in point, my father owns at least this many guns. He knows how to keep them safe - they are always locked up, the ammo separately. When he takes them out to use them, he follows all the safety rules. Before I was allowed to use them, I knew all the safety rules and was required to demonstrate them on an unloaded gun.

The problem, of course, is that people who cannot safely possess guns inevitably circumvent the rules and end up with guns anyway - see linked article.

And finally, I'm not even talking about the 2nd Amendment. I'm just talking about gun control laws.

Fanguad @ Apr 27th 2006 9:31AM

Oops, I mean 'R' - the numbers changed on me. Guess that's the last time I'll refer to people by number.

C. Grant @ Apr 27th 2006 9:52AM

BEST post update EVER!

32_footsteps @ Apr 27th 2006 10:14AM

Man, back when I was young, legal improprieties from a video game company usually meant either an attempt at a monopoly or possible copyright infringement. Now, you get embezzlement, money laundering, gun charges, impersonating a police officer...

It was never this entertaining before to follow the video game industry. I just hope kids these days appreciate it.

idioteraser @ Apr 27th 2006 10:20AM

Why is it people keep forgetting the "well regulated" part of the second amendment?

And it mentions milities not private citizens which prior to the National Guard were state run and regulated agencies of volunteer citizens that could be called upon for national defense or emergencies?

Funny thing is Iraq under Saddam nearly every family had an AK-47 and whenever they had a weapon they fired them into the air yet revolts against Saddam were nonexistant.

Lots of countries run by dictatorships nearly everyone has a gun oftentimes you see 12 year olds on bicycles with full automatic weapons.

Japan the reason for the ban had more to do with the mere fact that the Samurai were killing themselves and non Samurai in record numbers. Prior revolts in China and Japan were often successfull because the farmers had turned plows into swords or turned any farm implement into a weapon. They often beat armies using these improvised stuff. You don't really need guns to defeat a stronger foe if you are smart.

The vietcong beat the US army for crying out loud.

The American revolution beat out the British army even though most frontal engagements wound up in disaster. Of course the French helped tremendously but it was guerrila tactics that took their toll on the British redcots. Snipers for example targeting the officers.

George @ Apr 27th 2006 10:22AM

Can someone please send me a link(s). I can't find it and it's driving me crazy.

One link has a demo for a defense company with a tank driving on a table and a plane in the air in a large lecture room. The plane's and tank appear on the screen in real time like they were in the same room.
The other link uses similiar technology but for a handheld. I think it was for gizmondo it showed a game played on a table.

Pickypants @ Apr 27th 2006 11:35AM

WTF is wrong with these Gizmondo execs? What, is the crappiness of a game system relative to the amount of shadiness displayed by its executives?

embassy @ Apr 27th 2006 11:59AM

man i actually just wanted a pair of "bear" arms...that wud be so F-ing cool...

HotShotX @ Apr 27th 2006 1:04PM

Oh noes! Videogames (or at least the horrible sales of them *cough*) has driven these men to crime!

Somebody activate the Thompson-signal!

fildo @ Apr 27th 2006 1:06PM

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg

coalhalo @ Apr 27th 2006 2:36PM

"Street Cred"? Are you kidding? These two morons are the first guys you want to shank. They are not "hard", they have the arrogance that comes with privlege. I was extremly happy to hear about Ericksson being arrested, I can't wait till they deport him. Here are two con artists who ripped off investors and the public and then split to live the high life in L.A. along with the other ego-centric materialists who only care about one thing, themselves. Karma can be a real bitch.