Posted on 07/08/2015 11:46:00 AM PDT by don-o
On the date of the event, police attempted to enter the restaurant, but were blocked by management. State and local authorities then occupied positions outside the restaurant, including on the rooftop of a neighboring restaurant, Don Carlos, the lawsuit said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wacotrib.com ...
And does not line up with Stroman's statement that his men were SITTING IN THEIR VEHICLES.
They had better check first to see if the police were the ones who executed their loved one. Oh. That’s right. Anything that might shed light on what really happened is blocked.
Sir, step out of the car please. It appears to me that you have had way too much to think.
This suit also alleges that cops were stationed on Don Carlos roof. First I've heard that claim, too. It may have been made earlier, I haven't been paying THAT close of attention to details.
>>> On the date of the event, police attempted to enter the restaurant, but were blocked by management. State and local authorities then occupied positions outside the restaurant, including on the rooftop of a neighboring restaurant, Don Carlos, the lawsuit said. <<<
New tidbit?
If true, then we’re looking at a sniper and video position on the Don Carlos roof.
That's what jumped out at me. And since Stroman denied that his men were snipers and the Texas DPS said they didn't shoot, looks like by process of elimination we got the Feds up on the roof.
Curiouser and curiouser.
“They had better check first to see if the police were the ones who executed their loved one. Oh. That’s right. Anything that might shed light on what really happened is blocked.”
Earlier, the Whacko Cops made a statement that they had shot four of those who died. This isn’t going to end well for Whacko, and the longer they withhold the evidence, the worse it’s going to be for them.
If nothing else this may shake loose the coroner’s report. Of course, it is probably just as likely to cause these folks to have a “mysterious accident”.
The number one reason that police are NOT able to force entry is the ABSENCE of a search warrant.
That wouldn't make a difference in this suit. The suit isn't against a shooter, it is against the venue.
Negligence stands when a person act or fails to act in a way a prudent person would, in light of the reasonably foreseeable consequences. The success of this suit depends on a jury finding that the reasonably foreseeable consequence of hosting the event was a shootout.
Who said they were coming in to search? Not saying that wasn;t what they were doing, and maybe they told the proprietor they were there to disperse the patrons, and were sent away for that reason. But if they walk in to have a donut, what’s to stop them?
Gotta love lawyers. The thrust of the suit seems to be the venue was negligent in letting violent bikers like their client into the restaurant.
“the longer they withhold the evidence...”
Perhaps this accusation could make sense if we were past the deadline for discovery, but we’re not.
It is a key point from the legal viewpoint.
Police are allowed to enter a premis under the following situations:
1) they have a warrant
2) they have probable cause (knowing of or observing a violation of law)
3) they have exigent circumstances (someone in danger)
4) they have the owners permission
Given the fact that the cops attempted entry and were rebuffed, that means the cop knew that they did not have any of the above 4 conditions.
Well, that's the story that the Waco police is selling.
CORRECTION: Was selling. They have chosen to now exercise their Fifth Amendment rights.
How about a reasonable suspicion that someone underage was consuming alcohol and asking for ID?
Nope, that does not meet the standard. However, what often happens is that “reasonable suspicion” is used to bully an owner into allowing the police in. This is often combined with vague threats of retaliation or retribution should the cops be forced to go get a warrant. Once the owner caves in, and gives permission, they have obtained what they wanted.
I've been looking for a copy of the suit, to see if it has more detail. So far all I find is the AP story repeated on various propaganda outlets.
don-o raises a good point, but I don’t think it attaches here. A condition of having an alcohol license includes permission for beverage enforcement to act on your property. If you don’t let beverage enforcement in, you get shut down, pronto, and lose the license.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.