Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 600
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When they picked up their 2nd Amendment they thought that would protect them.  It's been my point about the gun-culture all along. For most people it's about 10x more likely to ruin their lives t

They are so fucked. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. What an absolutely idiotic argument. There's been some burglaries committed. You see someone you don't know jogging by. Said person

Posted Images

50 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

Where the hell did jogger=criminal come from? What crimes did he commit, besides being black?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Where the hell did jogger=criminal come from? What crimes did he commit, besides being black?

Right.  How was he just running through that neighborhood.  Did they have him on video breaking the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the guy with the camera do to get such a stiff sentence?  Did he have physical contact with Arbery, or was he just behind the camera, hoping he'd be the next YT folk hero for capturing a black man running through his neighborhood?

He's got to be feeling like a chump right now.  From what I read, he didn't even know the two racist, inbred, backwoods retards who killed Ahmad.  Now he gets to look forward to years of forced oral copulation with the United Blood Nation, Black Guerilla Family and Crips he's going to encounter during his "stay".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Winston29 said:

What did the guy with the camera do to get such a stiff sentence?  Did he have physical contact with Arbery, or was he just behind the camera, hoping he'd be the next YT folk hero for capturing a black man running through his neighborhood?

He's got to be feeling like a chump right now.  From what I read, he didn't even know the two racist, inbred, backwoods retards who killed Ahmad.  Now he gets to look forward to years of forced oral copulation with the United Blood Nation, Black Guerilla Family and Crips he's going to encounter during his "stay".  

What did camera guy do to get the stuff sentence?

He used his camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Seriously?  You either didn't watch the trial or are the dumbest motherfucker that ever darkened the halls in Champaign.

I didn't watch the trial.  In fact I rarely watch the news at all.  It's so totally biases and phony, and is made up of nothing but who killed (raped, beat, stole from, burned, etc.) who today.  I can get through my whole life without knowing that kind of thing.  

I don't burry my head in the sand, I can just do without the local BS the news stations dole out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Winston29 said:

I didn't watch the trial.  In fact I rarely watch the news at all.  It's so totally biases and phony, and is made up of nothing but who killed (raped, beat, stole from, burned, etc.) who today.  I can get through my whole life without knowing that kind of thing.  

I don't burry my head in the sand, I can just do without the local BS the news stations dole out.  

Is English your first language?  If not, you're doing great!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Is English your first language?  If not, you're doing great!

Oops.  I thought I proof-read it sufficiently.  

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.  Unfortunately it's too late to make the necessary changes.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:
4 hours ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

JerKZ true colours come out.

If he'd been there with his soul brothers he'd now be facing a life term

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

WAAAAA WAAAAAA WAAAAAA!

Respect the jury and it’s decision always!!!

unless they hold white boys responsible for killing blacks. 
 

Show your colors racist bullshitters. Show us what mommy and daddy raised you to be. The spitting image. 

Someone hit the Thanksgiving bourbon hard.

Unlike the reaction to the Rittenhouse decision  No one, repeat no one is criticizing the jury or their decision in this case.   
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Winston29 said:

What did the guy with the camera do to get such a stiff sentence?

I just got back from Thanksgiving dinner with my sister. She's a doc. One of her doctor friends was there and was a doctor at San Quentin among other prisons. She said life terms for being an accomplice, just hangin' with your buddy, is common.

The guy needed to say stop. He needed to call the cops. 'Just' videoing put him in accomplice territory and now he gets a cell with Bubba for the duration. Don't like it? Choose better friends. Make better decisions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I just got back from Thanksgiving dinner with my sister. She's a doc. One of her doctor friends was there and was a doctor at San Quentin among other prisons. She said life terms for being an accomplice, just hangin' with your buddy, is common.

The guy needed to say stop. He needed to call the cops. 'Just' videoing put him in accomplice territory and now he gets a cell with Bubba for the duration. Don't like it? Choose better friends. Make better decisions.

But but but, he was white!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I just got back from Thanksgiving dinner with my sister. She's a doc. One of her doctor friends was there and was a doctor at San Quentin among other prisons. She said life terms for being an accomplice, just hangin' with your buddy, is common.

The guy needed to say stop. He needed to call the cops. 'Just' videoing put him in accomplice territory and now he gets a cell with Bubba for the duration. Don't like it? Choose better friends. Make better decisions.

He tried to herd the guy with his truck.  I agree he is not in the  same guilt as the other two.  They're all going to wear Orange!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

 

51 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Someone hit the Thanksgiving bourbon hard.

Unlike the reaction to the Rittenhouse decision  No one, repeat no one is criticizing the jury or their decision in this case.   
 

Okay bullshitter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Joker said:

Did you even watch the trial?

bull pucky you liar, that vid does not come close to showing what you claim.

. . . just a few irate folks mostly R-wordista rioters 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

When they picked up their 2nd Amendment they thought that would protect them. 

No my friend, they thought that good ol' boy justice would protect them. 

And they would have been right if that vid had not been leaked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Seriously?  You either didn't watch the trial or are the dumbest motherfucker that ever darkened the halls in Champaign.

What would his sentence be if he didn't use the camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

JerKZ true colours come out.

If he'd been there with his soul brothers he'd now be facing a life term

Well if it isn't the biggest piece of shit on the forum.  The guy that hopes they make Ivermectin toxic to humans, so that it will harm people with whom he disagrees.  I believe he also said that climate change is real, but he doesn't give a fuck, so he drives a supercharged V8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Without the camera in GA?  They don't get charged.  That should scare all of us.

That original prosecutor should be disbarred, as soon as possible. 

No fucking way she should ever be allowed to be involved in legal matters except as a defendant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

bull pucky you liar, that vid does not come close to showing what you claim.

. . . just a few irate folks mostly R-wordista rioters 

It shows exactly what I claimed.    I stated that the jury in the Rittenhouse case should have been sequestered.  I stand by that.    The video shows a group of people one with a bullhorn yelling no justice no peace.  It was reported that it was loud enough to hear in the court house.   The jury was deliberating in the courthouse.   The jury left and arrived each day hearing the protestors.  They even had an MSNBC producer chase their bus trying to get their pictures.   They went home each night and ran the risk of seeing or hearing about the trial.   If sequestered none of that happens.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

That original prosecutor should be disbarred, as soon as possible. 

No fucking way she should ever be allowed to be involved in legal matters except as a defendant.

Already arrested and out.  I don’t think she can practice while under indictment.  If convicted I’m sure disbarment is automatic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Set the record straight by telling us you agree with the verdict and I will admit error. 

I actually think the verdict was a bit harsh to the 3rd guy, the cameraman.  I still believe 5-7 max but someone earlier talked about mandatories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I actually think the verdict was a bit harsh to the 3rd guy, the cameraman.  I still believe 5-7 max but someone earlier talked about mandatories.

It is harsh at first glance. Then look at the arguments and evidence from the trial to see what the jury had to work with. He was part of the hunt. They used the two trucks to get the guy trapped “like a rat”. Felony assault. Add the dead body and it’s felony murder. Don’t forget that they got away with it at first, just like the good old days…when Murica was great. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Set the record straight by telling us you agree with the verdict and I will admit error.  Include an explanation of how calling the dead guy the defendant is not disagreeing with the verdict. 

I agree with the verdict.  Remember what they were trying to do.  They were trying to arrest a "criminal suspect." I said that the suspect deserves to be a defendant in a trial vs. being killed right there and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I agree with the verdict.  Remember what they were trying to do.  They were trying to arrest a "criminal suspect." I said that the suspect deserves to be a defendant in a trial vs. being killed right there and then.

No.  You didn't say they were trying to arrest a "criminal suspect".  You called him a "criminal".

16 hours ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

I agree with the verdict.  Remember what they were trying to do.  They were trying to arrest a "criminal suspect." I said that the suspect deserves to be a defendant in a trial vs. being killed right there and then.

Do you agree with all of the verdicts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It is harsh at first glance. Then look at the arguments and evidence from the trial to see what the jury had to work with. He was part of the hunt. They used the two trucks to get the guy trapped “like a rat”. Felony assault. Add the dead body and it’s felony murder. Don’t forget that they got away with it at first, just like the good old days…when Murica was great. 

I just think he might be a decent guy who was suckered in by two neighbor racists out on a coon hunt.  Due to racial biases, how many families  have been ruined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I just think he might be a decent guy who was suckered in by two neighbor racists out on a coon hunt.  Due to racial biases, how many families  have been ruined.

That’s my take as well, especially it it was true that he didn’t know the two goobers were armed. His life is ruined because he followed the urging of someone who told 911 that his emergency was a black man running down his street. 
 

Felony murder is very broad. Once the jury determines that someone committed a felony, as this one did for assault (x 2 for trying it on the other street) and false imprisonment (seeing past the citizens arrest bullshit), they’re on that hook. 
 

The lesson is, don’t follow dumb fucks and bullshitters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That’s my take as well, especially it it was true that he didn’t know the two goobers were armed. His life is ruined because he followed the urging of someone who told 911 that his emergency was a black man running down his street. 
 

Felony murder is very broad. Once the jury determines that someone committed a felony, as this one did for assault (x 2 for trying it on the other street) and false imprisonment (seeing past the citizens arrest bullshit), they’re on that hook. 
 

The lesson is, don’t follow dumb fucks and bullshitters. 

Just very sad, but just.  A black guy runs past my place, we don't call the police, we call it Monday, Tuesday...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Just very sad, but just.  A black guy runs past my place, we don't call the police, we call it Monday, Tuesday...

I have a boat ramp at the end of my street, so I see black, white and brown folks walking past my house with their fishing or shrimping gear daily. I call it feeding their families. Mostly nice people. It is amazing how decent most folks are when one talks with them instead of chasing them with trucks. Of course there are a few assholes, just like this place. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jzk said:

Weren't you supposed to admit your error by now?

The error that you defined the victim as a criminal? That’s on you. Might work in Kenosha under a certain judge, but not when a jury sees through it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The error that you defined the victim as a criminal? That’s on you. Might work in Kenosha under a certain judge, but not when a jury sees through it.

So many morons on this forum.  How did you all find each other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I didn’t make an error. Your Bullshitter word games won’t cut it. 
 

Do you approve of all of the verdicts?

You: Set the record straight by telling us you agree with the verdict and I will admit error.

Me: I agree with the verdict.

Looks like you are going back on your word.  No surprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

You: Set the record straight by telling us you agree with the verdict and I will admit error.

Me: I agree with the verdict.

Looks like you are going back on your word.  No surprise.

I thought you would play it honestly and tell us what you really thought. 
 

I admit my error on that point. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I thought you would play it honestly and tell us what you really thought. 
 

I admit my error on that point. 

Now you are just lying.  Seems like your word is not worth much of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Yeah, that too.  Where is the factual error?

Jesus.  You identified Ahmaud Arbery not only as a criminal, but said he had a "right to....prison".

Don't ever fucking let the words "innocent until proven guilty" emanate from your lips or fingertips.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Jesus.  You identified Ahmaud Arbery not only as a criminal, but said he had a "right to....prison".

Don't ever fucking let the words "innocent until proven guilty" emanate from your lips or fingertips.

Not directed at you in particular, but in the Rittenhouse case he is still being called a murderer despite the juries decision.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Jesus.  You identified Ahmaud Arbery not only as a criminal, but said he had a "right to....prison".

Don't ever fucking let the words "innocent until proven guilty" emanate from your lips or fingertips.

Here is the point for the slow people.   Let's use a hypothetical.   Let's say that there is a criminal running down the street, and citizens want to make a citizens arrest.  Well they can't just kill that criminal.  That criminal deserves a trial and, if convicted and sentenced, jail vs. death on the spot.

How is that?  Are you able to understand that?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

It shows exactly what I claimed.

Just can't own up to your lies can you ?? 

Outside was a group of several dozen, a goodly number of which were fascists of your elk. 

https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news/2021/11/17/scene-outside-kenosha-court-jury-deliberates-rittenhouse-trial/8644982002/

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Jesus.  You identified Ahmaud Arbery not only as a criminal, but said he had a "right to....prison".

Don't ever fucking let the words "innocent until proven guilty" emanate from your lips or fingertips.

Arbery was trespassing on camera several times.  That makes him a criminal.  He has a criminal record too.  That also makes him a criminal.  He was a criminal. 

But, even as a criminal, he gets a trial before being punished.  He doesn't deserve to be killed on the side of the road by these clowns.

But be honest.  He wasn't just a "jogger."  He was a criminal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

 I stand by that.    The video shows a group of people one with a bullhorn yelling no justice no peace.  It was reported that it was loud enough to hear in the court house.   The jury was deliberating in the courthouse.  

And don't try to change what you wrote, which was this. That there were audible threats to  . .  

"Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury."  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am sure The Joker is happy you've come to his aid.

Remind me when Arbery was tried for trespassing.

He wasn't because these assholes killed him.  But he is on video.  If he is on video trespassing, then it is ok to say he is a criminal.  However, it is not ok for the government to punish him until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.  Do you see the difference?  There is no such requirement here on an internet forum.  We can just view the video and say he was trespassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

911 what is your emergency?

there’s a black man running down the street. 

This is the misrepresentation.

He wasn't just a law abiding citizen going for a jog and then 3 people killed him because he was a black person in their neighborhood.

He was seen on video trespassing, so these three decided they would "arrest" him and in doing so they killed him which is murder, and they were so convicted of such.

But why the need to misrepresent the facts of the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is the misrepresentation.

He wasn't just a law abiding citizen going for a jog and then 3 people killed him because he was a black person in their neighborhood.

He was seen on video trespassing, so these three decided they would "arrest" him and in doing so they killed him which is murder, and they were so convicted of such.

But why the need to misrepresent the facts of the case?

Perhaps if you had watched the trial you would have heard the 911 call that Greggy Reb made.  
You might not want to hear it, but the jury did  

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/582968-arbery-jury-asks-to-see-videos-hear-911-call

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

He wasn't because these assholes killed him.  But he is on video.  If he is on video trespassing, then it is ok to say he is a criminal.  However, it is not ok for the government to punish him until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.  Do you see the difference?  There is no such requirement here on an internet forum.  We can just view the video and say he was trespassing.

The police officer who was looking for him was going to give him a warning. 

He sure didn't feel the need to label Mr. Arbery a criminal, like you and The Joker do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

The police officer who was looking for him was going to give him a warning. 

He sure didn't feel the need to label Mr. Arbery a criminal, like you and The Joker do.

Do cops often give people warnings for not committing crimes?

Just because he was a criminal doesn't mean he should be hunted down and killed.  But, he wasn't just a law abiding citizen going out for a jog.  So why the need to tell that lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jzk said:

Here is the point for the slow people.   Let's use a hypothetical.   Let's say that there is a criminal running down the street, and citizens want to make a citizens arrest.  Well they can't just kill that criminal.  That criminal deserves a trial and, if convicted and sentenced, jail vs. death on the spot.

How is that?  Are you able to understand that?  

So why do you label the victim, a criminal? There was no evidence these vigilantes could point to, hence they are in jail. Why do you continue the fiction?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jzk said:

Arbery was trespassing on camera several times.  That makes him a criminal.  He has a criminal record too.  That also makes him a criminal.  He was a criminal. 

But, even as a criminal, he gets a trial before being punished.  He doesn't deserve to be killed on the side of the road by these clowns.

But be honest.  He wasn't just a "jogger."  He was a criminal.  

The jury disagrees with your racist conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:
55 minutes ago, jzk said:

Here is the point for the slow people.   Let's use a hypothetical.   Let's say that there is a criminal running down the street, and citizens want to make a citizens arrest.  Well they can't just kill that criminal.  That criminal deserves a trial and, if convicted and sentenced, jail vs. death on the spot.

How is that?  Are you able to understand that?  

So why do you label the victim, a criminal? There was no evidence these vigilantes could point to, hence they are in jail. Why do you continue the fiction?

He is either very obtuse, or very stupid, or a blatant racist, or a combination of all three. He seems to be a disgusting human being. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is the misrepresentation.

He wasn't just a law abiding citizen going for a jog and then 3 people killed him because he was a black person in their neighborhood.

He was seen on video trespassing, so these three decided they would "arrest" him and in doing so they killed him which is murder, and they were so convicted of such.

But why the need to misrepresent the facts of the case?

Another lie for the Win! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So why do you label the victim, a criminal? There was no evidence these vigilantes could point to, hence they are in jail. Why do you continue the fiction?

The jury called it false imprisonment, a felony that formed the basis of the felony murder convictions. But don’t worry, our bullshitters agree with the jury on all of the verdicts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The jury called it false imprisonment, a felony that formed the basis of the felony murder convictions. But don’t worry, our bullshitters agree with the jury on all of the verdicts. 

I think this particular bullshitter is bullshittin so hard, as this case is another example of the failure of the libertarian ideal of people being responsible for their own policing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I think this particular bullshitter is bullshittin so hard, as this case is another example of the failure of the libertarian ideal of people being responsible for their own policing.

It wasn’t long ago that this murder would not have raised an eyebrow. Hell, the original prosecutor is facing charges stemming from this case because she tried to make it go away. Had the idiots not released the video she would have succeeded. 
LBJ was spot on with his lowest white man quote. We see several of them here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So why do you label the victim, a criminal? There was no evidence these vigilantes could point to, hence they are in jail. Why do you continue the fiction?

That is not anywhere near true.  Even though he was a criminal, they cant kill him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The jury called it false imprisonment, a felony that formed the basis of the felony murder convictions. But don’t worry, our bullshitters agree with the jury on all of the verdicts. 

How is it mutually exclusive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

That is not anywhere near true.  Even though he was a criminal, they cant kill him.

Is this why you keep calling the victim a “criminal”?
Have you ever checked out a construction site out of curiosity? I certainly have. Guess I must be a criminal. So shoot me.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/ahmaud-arbery-wednesday-surveillance-video/index.html

Excerpt -


(CNN)The owner of a home under construction in the Georgia neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was killed says he had reported no crime after surveillance video seemed to show the young man on the property. 

The February 23 footage, captured moments before Arbery's death, appears to show him looking around but never touching anything -- and eventually, walking away.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

Is this why you keep calling the victim a “criminal”?
Have you ever checked out a construction site out of curiosity? I certainly have. Guess I must be a criminal. So shoot me.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/ahmaud-arbery-wednesday-surveillance-video/index.html

Excerpt -


(CNN)The owner of a home under construction in the Georgia neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was killed says he had reported no crime after surveillance video seemed to show the young man on the property. 

The February 23 footage, captured moments before Arbery's death, appears to show him looking around but never touching anything -- and eventually, walking away.

Well maybe you are.  But if so, you don't deserve to be killed either.  And maybe you have a criminal record like he does.  Still don't deserve to be killed.

I don't know why this is so hard.  Even if he wasn't just a neighborly jogger, he still doesn't deserve to get killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Well maybe you are.  But if so, you don't deserve to be killed either.  And maybe you have a criminal record like he does.  Still don't deserve to be killed.

I don't know why this is so hard.  Even if he wasn't just a neighborly jogger, he still doesn't deserve to get killed.

Do yourself a favor; stop referring to the victim as “criminal” for being curious about an inactive construction site. It’s getting old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

Do yourself a favor; stop referring to the victim as “criminal” for being curious about an inactive construction site. It’s getting old. 

The point here is that even criminals don't deserve to just get hunted down and shot.   Why did they have a camera at the construction site?

Link to post
Share on other sites