YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST NOT COMMIT A crime AND WALK AWAY?
Will anyone ever make a convincing legal argument to convict JigC?
Technically him and his cronies kidnap people which could stick.
Also >In some jurisdictions, giving someone a drug without their consent is considered “infliction of bodily harm.”
Why would I be afraid of an innocent man?
It's RICO.
Yes, seriously. There is a way to convict him, convoluted though it may sound. John Kramer is guilty of racketeering.
He effectively heads the criminal enterprise "Jigsaw", and if any members or affiliates of Jigsaw can be demonstrated to have committed a combined total of two predicate activities (such as kidnapping or distribution of controlled substances), then all affiliates who knowingly facilitated these actions for their goals are guilty of the felony of racketeering.
Moving someone is not kidnapping them and not stopping someone from drugging you is consenting to being drugged. Next.
>not stopping someone from drugging you
The victims have been explicitly shown to try to stop people from drugging them, however. If your legal theory held and was applied universally, then there could be no such thing as completed crimes, only attempted crimes, since the completion would imply the victim's consent was obtained. Nonetheless, we DO charge people with completed kidnapping, murder, drugging, etc.
And regardless, Jigsaw members unambiguously used controlled substances to commit some of these kidnappings or traps. The predicates are there clear as day.
John Kramer is a racketeer.
That's just "typically". RICO need not be related to a for-profit enterprise. For example, there is a very high-profile RICO case where the goal of the RICO affiliation was to subvert an election.
I haven't seen Saw X yet but iirc Jigsaw didn't subvert any election.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Did Jigsaw make you cut some of your frontal lobe out? You're not capable of logical extension?
In the federal RICO statute, it outright does not matter the exact goal of the criminal organization, it is criminal on account of the predicate acts they are determined to have made.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>In the federal RICO statute >Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread >Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Not applicable. >Embezzlement of union funds;
Not applicable. >Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Not applicable. >Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Not applicable. >Criminal copyright infringement;
Not applicable. >Money laundering and related offenses;
Not applicable. >Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Not applicable. >Acts of terrorism.
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
Anyway jiggy walks youre moronic trying to use lawyer jargon to sound smart
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Money laundering and related offenses; >Not applicable.
Did you not see Saw X? Jigsaw stole an enormous amount of cash from another criminal syndicate in Mexico and then entrusted it to one of his associates. It wasn't legal for him to do that. >Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain); >Not applicable.
And what did we just see? He brought in operatives from Mexico and acquired their cash. >substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act); >Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
What's your definition of proof, exactly? Because there's actually a specific standard to be met by the state: "beyond reasonable doubt," and a jury can determine the truth of the facts as they see fit based on the exhibits of trial.
Heard of an autopsy? Any victim believed connected to the Jigsaw organization will test positive for these substances. All the prosecution will then need to do is convince the jury that, in fact, there is an obvious connection between all these victims (the meticulous traps + the audio tapes with the same voice found at the crime scenes + the jigsaw doll motif left behind) to tie them to the Jigsaw organization and thus tie the Jigsaw organization to the dealing in controlled substances.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Did you not see Saw X?
I haven't seen Saw X yet but iirc Jigsaw didn't subvert any election.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Ah. Well, regardless of the money charge itself, the trafficking of people from Mexico stands. Those victims are obviously tied to the Jigsaw killings and a jury will gladly accept their trafficking and drugging as the requisite two predicate acts.
That's life in prison for Jigsaw.
His followers acted independently and without instruction from Jiggy. Jiggy was also unaware of the criminal activities perpetuated by his followers. Your Honour, this is ridiculous you have to throw out this case. They've got nothing on my client!
>Jiggy was also unaware of the criminal activities perpetuated by his followers. Your Honour, this is ridiculous you have to throw out this case
Counsel, these claims are matters of fact. Though your client is presumed innocent, the point of a trial is to determine the facts at issue. One fact in dispute between the government and your client is this: was John Kramer aware of the criminal activity of his followers?
A trial will determine this fact and other relevant facts in dispute. For these reasons, I will deny your motion.
*BANG*
>he sends one of his junkie minions to drug me >the Black person's hiding in my closet >I have cameras and I already know he's there >I pretend like I don't know >when he jumps on top of me I turn around and immediately disable him >I break his arm and knock him the frick out >I find my way into Jigsaw's cuck shed and piss and shit everywhere like a Black person
You have 24 hours to beat Bloodborne without dying a single time. If you do, a bomb in the controller will explode. After the 24 hours is up, the bomb will explode regardless of game progress. Also the controller is handcuffed to your wrists.
d-does it count as dying if you intentionally die to the kidnappers to get early access to the unseen village and Paarl? I don't think you drop your blood echos so I don't think it should count!
You have 24 hours to beat Bloodborne without dying a single time. If you do, a bomb in the controller will explode. After the 24 hours is up, the bomb will explode regardless of game progress. Also the controller is handcuffed to your wrists.
oh also keys are dispensed to you upon defeating the final boss that let you get outta the handcuffs and door
Technically him and his cronies kidnap people which could stick.
Also >In some jurisdictions, giving someone a drug without their consent is considered “infliction of bodily harm.”
Kek I don't think that would hold up in court anon.Also the fact that the people are playing the games against their will and dying as result. It's not like they can say "I don't want to play" and Jiggy is like "Alright you're free to go, come back anytime."
They are free to go, just need to get the key etc. Is someone needing to use a doorknob to leave your house being forced to stay since they need to open your door to leave? No.
I gotta give you credit this shit is funny, but I know you have to be bullshitting. There's a massive difference between being strapped in a chair and forced to play a death game in a basement somewhere versus just opening a door and leaving from your friends house.
7 months ago
Anonymous
What is the fundamental difference?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Using a doorknob to leave is completely voluntary, nothing or anyone is stopping you from exiting. The door is not stopping you from exiting. If someone is stopping you from exiting that is you being held against your will which is exactly what Jiggy is doing.
7 months ago
Anonymous
No he's not. For example, the key is behind your eye. Going into your eye to grab the key is completely voluntary. Jiggy is not keeping you from cutting out your eye to get the key. He even provides the tools to do it quickly.
7 months ago
Anonymous
How does he even get the key behind their eye without their consent? Are they drugged against their will while Jiggy is performing non-licensed medical surgery on them from his basement? I don't think the person with the key behind their eye wants it there.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Prove it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I would if every single person this has happened to wasn't dead and having a closed casket funeral.
Evidence from victims homes/vehicles/electronics that suggest they weren't planning on willingly being placed in death traps, as well as statements from known associates about the victim's conversations and interactions prior to their disappearance.
Anon he knocks them out either by violent force or drug injection and takes them somewhere remote involuntarily. What is your definition of kidnapping. The only thing his missing is a black van to throw people in.
I have seen all of the movies except Spiral, the pig masks don't show up and ask permission.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Aside from saying in court "just trust me bro" you can't prove any of that at all.
7 months ago
Anonymous
There's tons of evidence though, all the weapons and knock out drugs in Jiggy's compounds are very incriminating. Why would he need tasers, batons, roofies, etc. Normal people don't have all that shit especially not people suspecting of forcing others to play death games.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So? You can use all that stuff recreationally as well. Like if I own a gun I could use it incriminatingly but that doesn't mean the only purpose is incriminating.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So what about all the tape recordings and litteral murder machines, the fact that these people are actually dying/going missing? That all of these people in some way or another come into contact with Jiggy prior to dying? There's abobawdely no eye witnesses of people saying they last spoke to him?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>tape recordings
What about them? >litteral murder machines
The one woman owned Jiggy machines in the Jigsaw movie as collectibles. You can own/make shit that could have a dubious purpose. Simply owning them doesn't throw you in jail.
7 months ago
Anonymous
At some point all of this evidence really starts to add up and can't be ignored though. You could say "I'm just a collector" all you want, but it's clear these machines are being used and people are dying, you combine that with the glowies being competent enough to tail him and his goons from a safe distance and you got him.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>At some point all of this evidence really starts to add up and can't be ignored though.
Nobody said anything about ignoring it. But without concrete proof Jiggy wins.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>tape recordings
AI generated >litteral murder machines
Engineering contraptions designed as a hobby >these people are actually dying/going missing?
They're suicidal. >come into contact with Jiggy prior to dying
Jiggy is a very social person. He speaks with lots of people.
>Hello, Anon. I want to play a game. Since 2004, you've tried to convince people that I have committed crimes I never actually perpetrated. Today, I give you a chance to redeem yourself. In front of you is a computer displaying a Saw thread on the television and film board of Cinemaphile. On said thread are people just like you trying to throw dirt on my good name. If you can convince them within the next hour that I have indeed done nothing wrong, the restrains holding you in place will unlock. Live or die Anon, the choice is yours.
>the restrains holding you in place will unlock
So you entered my house without my consent and are holding me against my will in custody?
You are a criminal.
>In the federal RICO statute >Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread >Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Not applicable. >Embezzlement of union funds;
Not applicable. >Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Not applicable. >Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Not applicable. >Criminal copyright infringement;
Not applicable. >Money laundering and related offenses;
Not applicable. >Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Not applicable. >Acts of terrorism. >Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
>Anyway jiggy walks youre moronic trying to use lawyer jargon to sound smart
A Saw movie where it's revealed John is responsible for 9/11 and the whole WTC situation was just an elaborate setup for a trap to test people inside the towers sure would ruffle some feathers.
It does make sense why he became a killer as his life was basically destroyed and wih the realization of surviving suicide. It is cool it showed he possibly thought of giving it up if he was cured. Something odd thouh some prominent moments in the trailer I don’t think. Saw them in the movie. Like the doctor telling him he wasn’t cured and looks pissed
Why does he set up all his traps in abandoned and secluded locations? Surely an innocent man such as himself has nothing to hide from the law. Okay, he owns a lot of derelict buildings but I'm sure it'll be fine with police if he set up a trap in the middle of a busy park or something.
HIT EM
HIT EM
HIT EM
No, I enjoy MC content.
objection OVERRULED
BITCH
ENOUGH WITH THE SAW THREADS
Literally the best threads. Lawchuds are coping they can’t convict Jiggy
It's RICO.
Yes, seriously. There is a way to convict him, convoluted though it may sound. John Kramer is guilty of racketeering.
He effectively heads the criminal enterprise "Jigsaw", and if any members or affiliates of Jigsaw can be demonstrated to have committed a combined total of two predicate activities (such as kidnapping or distribution of controlled substances), then all affiliates who knowingly facilitated these actions for their goals are guilty of the felony of racketeering.
>not stopping someone from drugging you
The victims have been explicitly shown to try to stop people from drugging them, however. If your legal theory held and was applied universally, then there could be no such thing as completed crimes, only attempted crimes, since the completion would imply the victim's consent was obtained. Nonetheless, we DO charge people with completed kidnapping, murder, drugging, etc.
And regardless, Jigsaw members unambiguously used controlled substances to commit some of these kidnappings or traps. The predicates are there clear as day.
John Kramer is a racketeer.
>the sawhead is avoiding this post
What profits is Jigsaw making here?
Jiggy walks
That's just "typically". RICO need not be related to a for-profit enterprise. For example, there is a very high-profile RICO case where the goal of the RICO affiliation was to subvert an election.
I haven't seen Saw X yet but iirc Jigsaw didn't subvert any election.
Did Jigsaw make you cut some of your frontal lobe out? You're not capable of logical extension?
In the federal RICO statute, it outright does not matter the exact goal of the criminal organization, it is criminal on account of the predicate acts they are determined to have made.
>In the federal RICO statute
>Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
>Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Not applicable.
>Embezzlement of union funds;
Not applicable.
>Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Not applicable.
>Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Not applicable.
>Criminal copyright infringement;
Not applicable.
>Money laundering and related offenses;
Not applicable.
>Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Not applicable.
>Acts of terrorism.
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
Anyway jiggy walks youre moronic trying to use lawyer jargon to sound smart
>Money laundering and related offenses;
>Not applicable.
Did you not see Saw X? Jigsaw stole an enormous amount of cash from another criminal syndicate in Mexico and then entrusted it to one of his associates. It wasn't legal for him to do that.
>Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
>Not applicable.
And what did we just see? He brought in operatives from Mexico and acquired their cash.
>substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
>Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
What's your definition of proof, exactly? Because there's actually a specific standard to be met by the state: "beyond reasonable doubt," and a jury can determine the truth of the facts as they see fit based on the exhibits of trial.
Heard of an autopsy? Any victim believed connected to the Jigsaw organization will test positive for these substances. All the prosecution will then need to do is convince the jury that, in fact, there is an obvious connection between all these victims (the meticulous traps + the audio tapes with the same voice found at the crime scenes + the jigsaw doll motif left behind) to tie them to the Jigsaw organization and thus tie the Jigsaw organization to the dealing in controlled substances.
>Did you not see Saw X?
Ah. Well, regardless of the money charge itself, the trafficking of people from Mexico stands. Those victims are obviously tied to the Jigsaw killings and a jury will gladly accept their trafficking and drugging as the requisite two predicate acts.
That's life in prison for Jigsaw.
JigC has extraterritorial rights.
His followers acted independently and without instruction from Jiggy. Jiggy was also unaware of the criminal activities perpetuated by his followers. Your Honour, this is ridiculous you have to throw out this case. They've got nothing on my client!
>Jiggy was also unaware of the criminal activities perpetuated by his followers. Your Honour, this is ridiculous you have to throw out this case
Counsel, these claims are matters of fact. Though your client is presumed innocent, the point of a trial is to determine the facts at issue. One fact in dispute between the government and your client is this: was John Kramer aware of the criminal activity of his followers?
A trial will determine this fact and other relevant facts in dispute. For these reasons, I will deny your motion.
*BANG*
He is a Hollywood product so there is no need to convict him.
YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST NOT COMMIT A CRIME AND WALK AWAY?
troony discord users
>to this day, not a single Cinemaphile user managed to stick any criminal charges on jigsaw
Really makes you think.
I saw a convincing theory that he did serial medicare fraud
it’s sort of a plot hole since he’s not supposed to be a criminal
>I saw..
Well played you cheeky c**t. Well played.
>he sends one of his junkie minions to drug me
>the Black person's hiding in my closet
>I have cameras and I already know he's there
>I pretend like I don't know
>when he jumps on top of me I turn around and immediately disable him
>I break his arm and knock him the frick out
>I find my way into Jigsaw's cuck shed and piss and shit everywhere like a Black person
I'll be honest: until this year, I had no idea he was human. I used to think the guy on the pic was Palpatine.
What sort of punishment awaits me for pirating hundreds of games?
You have 24 hours to beat Bloodborne without dying a single time. If you do, a bomb in the controller will explode. After the 24 hours is up, the bomb will explode regardless of game progress. Also the controller is handcuffed to your wrists.
d-does it count as dying if you intentionally die to the kidnappers to get early access to the unseen village and Paarl? I don't think you drop your blood echos so I don't think it should count!
oh also keys are dispensed to you upon defeating the final boss that let you get outta the handcuffs and door
He can’t get you if you never leave your room. Checkmate
>Implying Amanda or one of his other goons won't just come in your room and knock you out with a baseball bat while you're gooning.
How were they successful in getting the jump on someone and knocking them out every single time?
They practice kidnap each other in between movies.
eminem phenotype
Will anyone ever make a convincing legal argument to convict JigC?
Technically him and his cronies kidnap people which could stick.
Also
>In some jurisdictions, giving someone a drug without their consent is considered “infliction of bodily harm.”
Moving someone is not kidnapping them and not stopping someone from drugging you is consenting to being drugged. Next.
Kek I don't think that would hold up in court anon.Also the fact that the people are playing the games against their will and dying as result. It's not like they can say "I don't want to play" and Jiggy is like "Alright you're free to go, come back anytime."
They are free to go, just need to get the key etc. Is someone needing to use a doorknob to leave your house being forced to stay since they need to open your door to leave? No.
I gotta give you credit this shit is funny, but I know you have to be bullshitting. There's a massive difference between being strapped in a chair and forced to play a death game in a basement somewhere versus just opening a door and leaving from your friends house.
What is the fundamental difference?
Using a doorknob to leave is completely voluntary, nothing or anyone is stopping you from exiting. The door is not stopping you from exiting. If someone is stopping you from exiting that is you being held against your will which is exactly what Jiggy is doing.
No he's not. For example, the key is behind your eye. Going into your eye to grab the key is completely voluntary. Jiggy is not keeping you from cutting out your eye to get the key. He even provides the tools to do it quickly.
How does he even get the key behind their eye without their consent? Are they drugged against their will while Jiggy is performing non-licensed medical surgery on them from his basement? I don't think the person with the key behind their eye wants it there.
Prove it.
I would if every single person this has happened to wasn't dead and having a closed casket funeral.
That makes it harder to prove, not easier.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abduction
>the taking of a person against their will
Prove it.
Evidence from victims homes/vehicles/electronics that suggest they weren't planning on willingly being placed in death traps, as well as statements from known associates about the victim's conversations and interactions prior to their disappearance.
how can you prove he kidnapped them though?
Anon he knocks them out either by violent force or drug injection and takes them somewhere remote involuntarily. What is your definition of kidnapping. The only thing his missing is a black van to throw people in.
>Anon he knocks them out either by violent force or drug injection and takes them somewhere remote involuntarily.
How can you prove that though?
I have seen all of the movies except Spiral, the pig masks don't show up and ask permission.
Aside from saying in court "just trust me bro" you can't prove any of that at all.
There's tons of evidence though, all the weapons and knock out drugs in Jiggy's compounds are very incriminating. Why would he need tasers, batons, roofies, etc. Normal people don't have all that shit especially not people suspecting of forcing others to play death games.
So? You can use all that stuff recreationally as well. Like if I own a gun I could use it incriminatingly but that doesn't mean the only purpose is incriminating.
So what about all the tape recordings and litteral murder machines, the fact that these people are actually dying/going missing? That all of these people in some way or another come into contact with Jiggy prior to dying? There's abobawdely no eye witnesses of people saying they last spoke to him?
>tape recordings
What about them?
>litteral murder machines
The one woman owned Jiggy machines in the Jigsaw movie as collectibles. You can own/make shit that could have a dubious purpose. Simply owning them doesn't throw you in jail.
At some point all of this evidence really starts to add up and can't be ignored though. You could say "I'm just a collector" all you want, but it's clear these machines are being used and people are dying, you combine that with the glowies being competent enough to tail him and his goons from a safe distance and you got him.
>At some point all of this evidence really starts to add up and can't be ignored though.
Nobody said anything about ignoring it. But without concrete proof Jiggy wins.
>tape recordings
AI generated
>litteral murder machines
Engineering contraptions designed as a hobby
>these people are actually dying/going missing?
They're suicidal.
>come into contact with Jiggy prior to dying
Jiggy is a very social person. He speaks with lots of people.
Why would I be afraid of an innocent man?
He's nothing but a piece of crap.
>Hello, Anon. I want to play a game. Since 2004, you've tried to convince people that I have committed crimes I never actually perpetrated. Today, I give you a chance to redeem yourself. In front of you is a computer displaying a Saw thread on the television and film board of Cinemaphile. On said thread are people just like you trying to throw dirt on my good name. If you can convince them within the next hour that I have indeed done nothing wrong, the restrains holding you in place will unlock. Live or die Anon, the choice is yours.
>the restrains holding you in place will unlock
So you entered my house without my consent and are holding me against my will in custody?
You are a criminal.
Now I see why Detective Tapp was always so stressed out.No instagram, no twitter, not even a facebook. This guy's a fricking ghost.
Protip: start hitting em with the jigc. I started hitting em with the jigc everyday and now I have a hot gf and make 6 figures
they wouldnt prosecute him because of his age
>this is Cinemaphile though
what’s that drink he’s holding?
Sproke
JIGC AND MC LINKED UP
SNEED IT OR FEED IT
FUNDIES SEETHING
BILLIONS OF SETHS MUST BASKIN ROBERT
I would pay good money for JigCU x MC crossover content
nah he's been dead since the second or third movie
Jigsaw is such a unique case that they create laws to convict him with.
/thread
>In the federal RICO statute
>Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
>Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Not applicable.
>Embezzlement of union funds;
Not applicable.
>Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Not applicable.
>Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Not applicable.
>Criminal copyright infringement;
Not applicable.
>Money laundering and related offenses;
Not applicable.
>Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Not applicable.
>Acts of terrorism.
>Cannot be proven i.e see this thread
>Anyway jiggy walks youre moronic trying to use lawyer jargon to sound smart
>mfw watching Jigsaw get convicted
not funny
Don't drop the soap, you old homosexual
>*pinhead enters room*
>*audience cheers*
>"JigC, you GOTTA see this!"
Jigsaw 11 will be called I Saw 9/11
A Saw movie where it's revealed John is responsible for 9/11 and the whole WTC situation was just an elaborate setup for a trap to test people inside the towers sure would ruffle some feathers.
Is that JigC?
It does make sense why he became a killer as his life was basically destroyed and wih the realization of surviving suicide. It is cool it showed he possibly thought of giving it up if he was cured. Something odd thouh some prominent moments in the trailer I don’t think. Saw them in the movie. Like the doctor telling him he wasn’t cured and looks pissed
Why does he set up all his traps in abandoned and secluded locations? Surely an innocent man such as himself has nothing to hide from the law. Okay, he owns a lot of derelict buildings but I'm sure it'll be fine with police if he set up a trap in the middle of a busy park or something.
Hit em with it
Gettin JigC with it