Sure he was. He was in private property without invitation.
So why have a doorbell?

Sure he was. He was in private property without invitation.

Which individual in this scenario is a thug, gangbanger, or race hater?
Of course you don't.
Pretty ironic for your kind of people who cry and screech about black on black violence.
So why have a doorbell?![]()
And your kind that don't seem to care about it in the least. Your rantings are as predictable as they are boring
To see if the homeowner wants you to stay. In this case the answer was clearly, "No".
Yes you seem to be upset.
Either he is guilty or he is not.
I think he's guilty. You don't. That's the beauty of free expression!
You think he's "guilty" of something - on your ASSUMPTION that he's white.
The homeowner could be Asian, could be Mexican, could be Arab, and possibly even the Master Race. If he does turn out to be black, the beloved master race, this thread and the story in the media will quietly fade away.
Did that hurt your feelings? Funny when you call other people Nazis, you claim it is freedom of speech. When someone calls a Neo-Nazi what she is, you demand ending of all freedom of speech.
The skin color of the criminal has no bearing on the attempted murder case. It simply does not matter.
A white man in his 80s is the individual who apparently shot and seriously wounded Ralph Yarl, a Black teen, on April 13 in Kansas City, Missouri, according to a CNN review of property records, police statements and detention records.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/us/kansas-city-teen-shot-wrong-house/index.html
Uncensored just showed his hand. He can no longer complain that I called Neo-Nazi Cunt exactly what she is.
Of course you don't.
Pretty ironic for your kind of people who cry and screech about black on black violence.
I guess that makes him guilty.
What are the details of the case? Why did police release the homeowner in less than two hours? They don't do that if they think someone just opened the door and shot someone in the head.
If this man actually is white, then thugs like Walter will riot and burn until he is prosecuted for something - whether the evidence supports it or not.
What are the details of the case? Why did police release the homeowner in less than two hours? They don't do that if they think someone just opened the door and shot someone in the head.
If this man actually is white, then thugs like Walter will riot and burn until he is prosecuted for something - whether the evidence supports it or not.
Sure he was. He was in private property without invitation.
So from the entrance up to the door, he wasn't trespassing.
Thanks for confirming.
unless there was a fence, with a gate, and a sign that said no trespassing, the 'without invitation' does not apply. The SCOTUS has said that homes with front doors available to the public does not enjoy the degree of private property that the rest of the home does, UNTIL that invitation is rescinded
I agree he wasn't trespassing.
Yet the police declined to arrest? Why? If this were like the race pimps claimed, that the old man just opened the door and shot for no reason, he'd be in jail. Especially a white person shooting a black person - no way they let that go. So why did they not arrest him? Is it possible there is more to this story than Benny Crump is saying?
unless there was a fence, with a gate, and a sign that said no trespassing, the 'without invitation' does not apply. The SCOTUS has said that homes with front doors available to the public does not enjoy the degree of private property that the rest of the home does, UNTIL that invitation is rescinded