The family of a man killed by a truck driver while cycling on a rural road outside of Salem two years ago says they’ve been robbed of justice. The driver, 48-year-old construction company owner Robert Weeks, faced a charge of criminally negligent homicide for his role in the death of Adam Joy in June 2023. Weeks was driving his Ford F350 truck on Wallace Road NW between Salem and McMinnville when he struck Joy from behind. Joy, who was riding behind his teenage son, died on the side of the road.
The felony charge carried a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000; but Weeks worked out a plea agreement with Judge Monte Campbell and Polk County District Attorney Aaron Felton to dismiss that charge and plead “no contest” to a lesser charge of attempted assault. The agreement also includes a deferred sentence, so if Weeks stays out of legal trouble for the next two years and writes a letter to the family, the assault charge will be dismissed. Weeks, who in addition to hitting Joy, had several speeding citations on his record (including a $2,000 fine for speeding in 2021), walked out of the courtroom without admitting guilt and with no restrictions placed on his driver’s license.
According to Joy family friend and former journalist Mara Stine, who was at the hearing, Weeks was unwilling to entertain any agreement that limited his driving because he said it would interfere with his job as a contractor.
“That’s not fair! I want justice!” Adam’s mother Masako Joy cried out through sobs as she absorbed what was happening in the Polk County Courthouse in Dallas Oregon on Monday morning.
The dozen Joy family members and friends who made the trip to Dallas knew there was a chance the felony charge would be dropped, but they held out hope for a trial and some sense of closure. They got neither.
When given an opportunity to address the family in the courtroom, Stine told BikePortland, “Weeks did not say anything to them. Instead, he cleared his throat and remained silent. Adam’s mother was a ball of fury and heartache.” Stine shared.
In an email to BikePortland Monday, Joy’s ex-wife Narumi Joy wrote,
“I have no words to describe what we all felt. Where is the justice? I no longer believe in the police or the justice system. [Weeks] was basically set free with virtually no punishment. Even his record of killing someone will go away if he behaves for two years. There’s no suspension or even limitation on his driving privileges. What kind of world is this?”
Oregon State Police officers who responded to the scene of the crash made initial statements that minimized Weeks’ role (saying he slowed down prior to the collision) and said Joy had fallen over in front of the truck prior to the collision. However, that initial police statement did not match what a witness shared with BikePortland two weeks later. That witness saw the collision from the opposite lane and said Weeks was “going pretty fast” and “the truck never moved over.” She came forward after seeing the police version of events and said, “I feel like they’re protecting the driver.”
Joy’s attorney Larry Sokol and members of Joy’s family have expressed serious concerns about the quality of the investigation that followed. They are shocked that Joy’s son, who was just a few yards a way from the collision, was never interviewed. And, despite repeated request from Sokol and his legal team, the Oregon State Police never gave them a chance to examine Weeks’ truck before releasing it back to him.
Three months after the collision the Polk County District Attorney said there was insufficient evidence to charge Weeks, but then reversed course in early 2024 and agreed to move forward with the charges and a trial. Hopes of a trial and some degree of justice is why so many members of Joy’s family drove to Dallas to be in the courtroom Monday.
At the hearing, DA Felton told the family he understood they were disappointed with the outcome. “But I also don’t think going to trial was appropriate,” he added. Since the standard for a criminally negligent homicide conviction is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the DA feared an acquittal if the case went to trial. Felton said that even if Weeks would have been found guilty, his lack of a criminal record means he would not have been sentenced to jail time.
The defense attorney found a driver who was behind Weeks at the time of the collision and provided a statement saying Weeks was not speeding. DA Felton said this testimony counter-balanced the witness who saw the crash from the opposite lane who testified he was speeding. Weeks testified before the grand jury that he thought he’d safely passed the cyclist, who must have fallen off his bike and under his Ford F-350 pickup truck as he drove by.
Based on comments he made Monday, Felton believes the plea deal provides at least some measure of accountability. It also provided a chance for the Joy family to address him in court and tell him how this devastated their lives and their family. Weeks sat facing the judge with his arms folded across his chest while Joy’s 17-year-old son and ex-wife shared emotional statements about what Joy meant to them and expressed grave disappointment about what they feel is a lack of justice. (DA Felton’s legal aide declined to discuss the case yesterday when asked about it in a phone call, and DA Felton has not yet replied to an email with questions seeking more information.)
The conclusion of this case has left Adam Joy’s family enraged and reeling.
In an email to BikePortland, his sister Gina Wilson wrote, “While I understand that it is not the DA’s job to find justice for a single family, it is his job to find justice for a community. He has failed miserably. He is a coward.”
“To me, it seems that they did not take Adam’s death seriously because he was an Asian man bicycling (God forbid) in a conservative, bicyclist-hating community, who caused a major inconvenience to everyone on a beautiful Saturday morning,” Narumi Joy shared on Monday after the hearing. “I’m still trying to think what else I can do or should be doing, but I believe having Adam’s story out there is the most important thing.”
“Killing Adam might be erased from Weeks’ record in two years as if Adam never existed, but he did exist. Adam left such huge footprints in everyone he met in 55 years of his life. He was a superhero to his students,” she continued. “I miss Adam so much. Please do not let them erase Adam from existence.”
— Mara Stine contributed reporting to this story. Learn more about Adam Joy at this online memorial created by his family.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I guess we can put a dollar value on income from a contracting business, but not on a human life and a devastated family … so preserving the former carries more weight in this court than recognizing the latter. Ain’t that America!
hopefully the scofflaw and criminal Weeks makes another mistake within two years and he is removed from society.
I mean, lets be real, even if he does the judge will just find a way to let him escape accountability.
Every actor in the Polk County ‘justice’ system, the cops, the judge, the DA, and the defense attorney wanted Weeks to get off with no punishment. They had to be badgered into even pretending to do their job.
It was always going to be difficult to get a conviction when law enforcement initially said Mr. Weeks did nothing wrong.
The family should definitely sue Weeks, the DA is *probably* right that there was a non-trivial chance that a jury would find that the case didn’t meet the threshold for “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but for civil cases the threshold of evidence is lower so if I were them I would try to ruin him financially at least.
Incredibly frustrating how easy it is to kill someone with a car with little to no consequence though.
If Adam’s family reads this, my condolences for your loss. If you need to crowdfund to support a civil suit, I would definitely contribute, and I suspect many here would feel the same way.
Do you really think local jurors in Polk County would convict the driver in a civil trial? Or be sympathetic towards a fellow local driver?
Hopefully they can find evidence that he was on the job at the time of the accident so they can go after his business insurance as well. My thoughts are with the family – the civil judicial system of remedies can be just as heart-rending as the criminal system.
This is a cultural failing. The handling of the case was ruined fundamentally from the very first steps, with the cops on the scene. There should obviously be standards for handling a scenario such as this, which would bypass their discretion and make their intentional fumbling of it impossible or unworkable, but good luck holding them to account in any way — we need to break the political power of police. Then the cultural biases of those involved in the prosecution of these types of cases wouldn’t be able to ruin them.
I’m outraged. In addition to the suffering caused to Adam Joy and those who loved him, allowing a reckless driver to get away incentivizes other drivers to behave carelessly around cyclists.
Is there anything we can do as non Polk County residents to protest this and put pressure on these local officials?
Incredibly frustrating. Can the family file a civil lawsuit in this circumstance?
It is kind of infuriating that a similar death prompted the passing of Oregon’s safe passing law and vulnerable user law. The safe passing law says that the driver must pass with enough distance that if the person riding the bicycle falls over towards the passing vehicle they will not make contact. It does not matter if Joy fell over or was hit while he was upright in either case the driver was closer than allowed by law when he made the pass. The Vulnerable Road User law quite intentionally has a lower bar for conviction than criminally negligent homicide and includes a one year suspension of driving privileges unless the person completes significant community service. There should not have been a possibility of any outcome that didn’t involve him taking some time off from driving or spending a couple hundred hours doing community service and it is once again frustrating to see these laws ignored by police and courts.
That always bothered me about this case. The fact the victim was run over seems like proof that passing law was broken. The initial police statement that Joy fell right when the driver was passing him doesn’t show it was the victim’s fault.
As I wrote in my comments at the time it is/would have been child’s play from looking at the bike, the truck, checking the stretches where there is a solid yellow line at that location on Wallace Rd. Not to mention interviewing known witnesses as to how much of Weeks story held up. It doesn’t appear that much of this was done.
Side note, I don’t think this community hates bicyclers. I myself used to bike on Wallace Rd daily in the late 1980s and have biked there intermittently since then. I grew up there. But law enforcement and the legal system clearly misunderstand bicycling, and has serious unacknowledged biases as we can see once again from now this case was handled.
There is no question that the truck struck the cyclist. The only question is who was at fault, and whether the driver was driving so dangerously that it amounted to criminal behavior. I think everyone here (including me) think the answer to both of those questions is clear, but the question is how would one prove that in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
It would be easy for the defense to discredit the witnesses — it’s hard to judge an oncoming vehicle’s speed (especially without practice), for example; how do you establish that the cyclist did not “fall” in front of the truck (which is clearly BS, but you have to prove that).
I’m not defending the thoroughness of the investigation, and certainly not the driver, but I can see why the prosecutor might have thought this would be a difficult case to win.
“how would one prove that in court beyond a reasonable doubt.”
All we need is the VRU law and the related statutes on safe passing distance. The fact that he killed Joy is in my interpretation proof that he was driving recklessly. If he had instead passed with enough room for Joy to fall over (which is the law) then Joy would be alive. This is not complicated.
Not for you, no. I’m just saying it might be more complicated from the prosecutor’s perspective.
I’m suggesting this is not a matter of perspective but of the law and of logic.
It’s entirely one of perspective; if the prosecutor thinks the case is too weak to win, he’s probably not going to move forward with it.
As someone who does not want to see people prosecuted based on flimsy evidence, I support this perspective.
As for “law and logic”, read my other post where I explain my understanding of what the law actually says.
“if the prosecutor thinks the case is too weak to win, he’s probably not going to move forward with it.”
But this is so circular. The prosecutor could recognize that this country/state/county has forever now had a serious problem with shrugging at vehicular homicide, and that as a prosecutor he is in a position and could take the opportunity to start gaining on this problem, right now. By tackling this head on with sincerity he could begin to undo this legacy; but what you are saying is just an excuse for the status quo, for never doing anything, for not taking any risks, or standing up for justice.
Our society is not static. We are not doomed to just keep on keeping on. Put our heads down and go with what the chamber of commerce or law enforcement or whatever other old boys club thinks is important.
I supposed he could have. But he didn’t. I’m not making a case for what the DA should have done; I’m just pointing out that there is more than one perspective (sorry, I know that’s bad form).
If the prosecutor thinks he has an unwinnable case, do you really want him to take it to trial? I know in this case you do, but in general, do you really want DAs to make a crusade of an issue and to prosecute people in weak cases just to make a point? Before answering, maybe spend a few minutes reading the news and reflect a bit.
“If the prosecutor thinks he has an unwinnable case, do you really want him to take it to trial?”
I recommend rereading your Heisenberg.
You *always* present these as black and white situations. Winnable/unwinnable. Fixed. But his actions and the actions of his predecessors are precisely what shape the probabilities of these outcomes. If they follow your advice/insist on seeing the world as static: winnable/unwinnable, as if their actions had no effect on the present and future probabilities then, well, we get what we get, no change.
You and I just fundamentally disagree on how change comes about or if change is even possible.
I am not offering advice, and no prosecutor would listen even if I did. I am trying to make sense of the DA’s decision in this case after the fact. I am not saying, and have never said, what the prosecutor should have done; I’m only looking at what he did do. Argue about what you wish had happened with someone else; I have not expressed an opinion. I wish the world were different too, but so far that hasn’t helped much.
But I will say that I get very nervous when a prosecutor uses the power of their office to push the boundaries of what is legally possible by pursuing cases against people that they know they can’t win.
Maybe that doesn’t trouble you; in that case that’s where our disagreement lies, not in whether I think change is possible (because of course it is, things change all the time).
“I am trying to make sense of the DA’s decision in this case after the fact.”
You always and predictably make the case for doing nothing, play the apologist for the status quo, defend cowardice, argue that *unwinnable*.
To some of us (certainly me) this is as frustrating as the failures to administer justice that prompted this article and all the comments.
Trying to understand someone else’s viewpoint is not the same as promoting it. I am not making any case, not defending any decisions, just sharing what I think the DA might have been thinking. If you think my explanation is lacking, I’d be happy if you offered a better one.
But please don’t take your frustration with the prosecutor out on me — I had no input on the decision, and I’m not defending it. Write him a letter if you feel so strongly about it.
“I am not making any case, not defending any decisions, just sharing what I think the DA might have been thinking.”
You always say this and I believe that you think that is what you are doing. But that is not what I think you are doing. What you are doing does all sorts of other work.
You are arguing that his decision to punt, not to pursue justice in the way our system is (or was originally) set up is reasonable, prudent, makes actuarial sense. You are not just explaining but rationalizing a stance that amounts to a shrug with respect to justice for the victim’s family, for a society that deserves to have its laws upheld and justice pursued. And all on (your) theory that he couldn’t get a jury to convict.
But how could *trying and failing* deliver a worse outcome from the perspective of justice and of society than the outcome we have now? I think giving up the race before he tied his shoes sets a worse precedent than trying and failing.
Again, I had nothing to do with this decision. Obviously, the DA was able to rationalize this decision himself, without help from me, and I think it is useful to try to understand some of the obstacles to these cases moving forward.
I am not arguing that this is the best decision for justice and society, and it is clear that your perspective is that it is not. That’s fine. I am not trying to convince you that this was the right decision, and I don’t necessarily believe that myself. I have not expressed an opinion on that matter.
I can see how this decision could make sense from the DA’s perspective. I have explained my thinking. You have not disagreed with my assessment, only attacked me for the decision itself, which I had nothing to do with and have expressed no opinion about.
Find someone else to argue about that with.
And of course if he had tried he might not have failed. We can’t rule that out.
Why do we need a witness?
Like with so many of these cases it seems to me that we have prima facie evidence that Weeks was driving too fast/in a manner that not only endangered but actually snuffed out another human being’s life. How else could Joy be dead if not for Weeks’ recklessness?
The witnesses provide the only evidence that the driver was going too fast, so the evidence on that point is hardly prima facie.
I think that would be hard to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver’s actions were criminal, and the “negative thing happened, that proves he did it” reasoning is not in itself convincing.
I don’t want to argue about it — if you think a jury would convict based on what we know, then we simply have a different assessment of the situation.
“the ‘negative thing happened, that proves he did it’ reasoning is not in itself convincing.”
I don’t think I’ll ever understand the thinking behind what you are saying above.
I am reminded of Hank Bersani and Kerri Kunsman. Both also hit and killed from behind. Negligence should be uncontroversial, self-evident. Why is there any mystery here? Isn’t the category manslaughter for exactly such situations?
Exactly…
Speed is not even an issue. If he was driving 15 mph he still ran over a person in front of him.
He would have been charged with Involuntary Manslaughter in most places at least. This is just ridiculous and it’s hard to even imagine trying to both sides this but it always happens here.
Please read what the law actually says. I provided some citations in another post.
Since the law requires safe passing clearance, there’s no need to prove he didn’t fall in front of the truck.
There’s a possibility he suddenly turned and pedaled several feet right into the truck’s path, so that he got hit even though the driver DID pass with what should have been a safe clearance. It seems like that might have even been ruled out by the driver himself, if he’d been questioned correctly, or perhaps by other witness statements or other evidence.
Or it could be that a jury would simply not believe that an experienced rider would suddenly turn and pedal directly into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
It would be interesting to hear the prosecutor’s reasoning. It does seem like the only way the driver DIDN’T break the passing law was if the rider didn’t just fall, but suddenly turned, so I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s views about that.
As I understand it, Oregon’s VRU is an enhanced penalty for a conviction of Careless Driving. Careless driving, which, while broadly defined, is a traffic violation, and the enhanced punishment is taking a traffic safety course and doing community service. No revocation of license and no jail time. Unsafe passing is a class B traffic violation.
None of this is “go to trial” level stuff.
The charge reported in this story was criminally negligent homicide; for that you need to show criminal negligence, which means that “a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”
Maybe the prosecutor could prove that, but with the evidence reported here, I think it would be a challenge.
https://www.oregonbikelawyer.com/single-post/2017/10/05/oregon-vulnerable-roadway-user-law#:~:text=Oregon's%20Vulnerable%20Roadway%20User%20(VRU,of%2C%20a%20vulnerable%20roadway%20user.
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.135
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.145
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.085
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.065
The VRU law provides for two options, 200 hours of community service or paying a 10000 dollar fine and losing your license for 1 year. There is no jail time because at the time of the VRU laws passing budgets were very tight and there was a belief that any bill that had a fiscal cost to implement it would not be successful.
Read the law again. The fine and license suspension are to be imposed as a suspended sentence to be used to ensure completion of the driver safety course and community service.
So you’re right that there are options, but the choice is left to the driver.
There is no jail time because this is a driving citation.
“It would be interesting to hear the prosecutor’s reasoning. It does seem like the only way the driver DIDN’T break the passing law was if the rider didn’t just fall, but suddenly turned, so I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s views about that.”
The way I read the witness’s description ‘he clipped him’ is that Joy neither fell over nor veered; he was just riding along, which is exactly what I would expect. She did say he turned to look as he heard the ‘big fricken truck’ approach from behind. But turning to look is neither falling over or veering.
https://bikeportland.org/2023/06/20/witness-version-of-fatal-polk-county-crash-differs-from-police-376374
What is the significance of the solid yellow line?
It is my belief that if Weeks passed/ran over/killed Joy at a point in the road where he had a solid yellow line that would compound the illegality of his maneuver. Folks here can correct me but I have always thought a solid yellow line on my side of the centerline means DO NOT PASS. I know because I checked when I drove by there that there are solid yellow lines on parts of the road where this happened. Unfortunately my efforts to get someone to specifically identify where exactly this crash took place came to naught so I couldn’t answer this question myself. In the early stories about this crash there are conflicting claims about where this was.
It’s illegal to pass a cyclist where there is a solid yellow line?
Is it not? If not, why not?
I got a ticket which I had to go to court for because I filtered forward (on my bike) at a stop light, which is kinda/sorta the reverse.
I don’t think it is, but you asserted it, not me.
I recall reading here a year or so ago about a law clarifying that itt IS legal to cross a yellow line to pass another road user in some limited cases, such as (going from memory) crossing a very slow-moving farm vehicle, and perhaps bicycle riders.
But I don’t recall more than that, and even if it’s true, whether that happened before or after this event.
Whether there was a yellow line certainly seems potentially relevant. And what that means legally would be another question I’d love to have answered by the prosecutor (and a separate, objective lawyer).
But the solid yellow line is about oncoming traffic not being adequately visible to allow crossing into the opposing lane to pass someone/anyone. From the witness’s statement we know that there was oncoming traffic (she herself). The presence of this oncoming traffic and at least the intermittent presence of a solid yellow line which indicates this has in my view all sorts of bearing on
The witness stated and of course we know that Weeks did not give Joy enough room. Case closed as far as culpability and negligence is concerned.
I agree with almost all of that. I was just pointing out that the passing law (at least as I’m recalling) does allow for crossing the yellow line to pass in some cases, related to slow-moving or non-moving vehicles or obstructions. I recall the logic was that since they’re moving so much more slowly than the passer, it can be safe to cross the line because the passer can complete the pass so quickly, so visibility may be acceptable in those cases, whereas there isn’t enough visibility to pass a faster-moving vehicle.
I totally agree the presence of a yellow line has bearing on that, although if I’m recalling the passing law correctly, it wouldn’t prove that it WASN’T safe or illegal.
This one seems potentially of great bearing. What seems most relevant to me isn’t what the law says about crossing a yellow line to pass, but what the driver THOUGHT the law was. If he thought the law prohibited crossing the yellow line to pass, that would seem to make it much more likely that he did not allow adequate passing room.
I remember NextDoor discussions where people criticized people riding bike riders for yelling at them for passing them too closely, with the drivers saying “But I couldn’t move over any more because I would have crossed the centerline!”
Since I didn’t have any confidence the police even knew about the passing clearance law, I have no confidence they asked the driver if he thought the law allowed crossing a yellow line to pass, or even if they asked him if he crossed it (if there was one there). I think a lot of valuable information was probably missed due to how the investigation was handled, which would then have hampered the prosecutor.
I want that to be true, and I made a similar comment myself. The only reason I think it may not be “case closed” is if the driver said the rider turned suddenly in front of him vs. just falling. I think that’s totally unlikely. That’s why I’d be interested in more explanation from the prosecutor.
We agree on basically all of this.
“if the driver said the rider turned suddenly in front of him vs. just falling. I think that’s totally unlikely.”
Which is why even a cursory examination of Adam Joy’s crumpled bike, not to mention asking Joy’s son, could have cleared this up in minutes.
Is there a public records law that allows someone like Jonathan or a family member to ask for the official reports in this case?
I have been biking in traffic all my life and the idea of an experienced cyclist veering into traffic on a straightaway like this at the exact moment an oversized vehicle passes seems incredibly remote. And for such veering to catapult the rider past the zone that the overtaking automobilist should have afforded the cyclist even more so.
I think the same was said or speculated about Hank Bersani on Hwy 99W just North of Monmouth. To me this sounds far more like self-exonerating and unchallenged lies from drivers who just killed someone.
The perfect crime. Just run over someone with your massive, bloated, 6,000 pound behemoth and get off with barely a slap on the wrist. This is sickening.
My blood is boiling. I’d like to do a memorial ride out there, but given the low standard of driving ability, I’d feel that I needed at least an F250 to do so safely.
I can’t say I’m surprised by the outcome. When I lived in Oregon I was regularly reminded that Portland, Eugene, and a few other cities were liberal progressive islands in an otherwise very conservative Bible-belt state that viewed bicycling as a purely recreational pursuit (i.e. should be banned on rural highways).
I agree with about all of the comments, but want to reiterate something mentioned in the article. I knew someone whose child was in Adam’s class. He was in fact a special person (unique in a positive way). What happened was tragic. I agree totally with Naomi Joy about the importance of getting Adam’s story out there. I thank BP for that.
Sounds like the police doing what the police do as usual
I remember a headline some years ago from The New York Times:
“Is it legal to kill cyclists?”
In Polk County, it is. I won’t be riding my bike there, ever.
Hoping for a better resolve. I hope the family finds the strength to sue and hold him accountable
Typical Polk County DA office. Afraid to take a case to trail that he may lose. Justice is rare these days in Polk County.
I wonder if this guy thinks about the person he killed every time he climbs into that same truck that he used on the day and had repaired – that’s parked right in front of his house in Google Street View in 2023
“ Oregon State Police officers who responded to the scene of the crash made initial statements that minimized Weeks’ role (saying he slowed down prior to the collision) and said Joy had fallen over in front of the truck prior to the collision. However, that initial police statement did not match what a witness shared with BikePortland two weeks later. That witness saw the collision from the opposite lane and said Weeks was “going pretty fast” and “the truck never moved over.” She came forward after seeing the police version of events and said, “I feel like they’re protecting the driver.”
This is extremely problematic. The state police added conjecture without any disclaimer. This is illegal. The OSP officers should face consequences, but unfortunately likely won’t.
Oregon legislators are going after E-bikes that they don’t quite understand, while they could be working on better laws to address negligent homicide.
Much of the blame rests on Polk county, but Prozanski and others should see this in part as a failure of our current laws.
The decisions of the Polk county DA should also be reviewed by the state attorney general. Why wasn’t the vulnerable roadway user law applied?
Scenarios like this are the nagging reminder that a camera on the car and a camera on the bike prevent the vast majority of legal outcomes that end up like this. Video footage could have easily exonerated Weeks, or put him in jail, but at least it isn’t accusations of a miscarriage of justice lingering due to conflicting and flimsy witness accounts of a stressful situation.
If every driver assumed that every bicyclist could be running cameras, then driver behavior around all bicyclists would improve. What percentage of bicyclists would have to run cameras before drivers assumed that all bicyclists were running cameras?
Sounds like Good Ol’ Boy politics.
If Adam’s family reads this article, I am so sorry this happened.
.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”
– John F. Kennedy
If this trend continues I foresee vigilante justice being the way of the future