Posted on 07/09/2015 6:19:49 AM PDT by JJ_Folderol
“170 people did not shoot. Those who did should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The rest should not have been arrested and held on excessive bail.”
http://www.shouselaw.com/aiding-abetting.html
“No, the point is some say that anyone who the government declares an outlaw has no rights.”
No one here has said that. OTOH, pointing out that biker gangs are evil and decent riders should not associate with them gets one labeled as a boot-licker.
“The presence of generalized bad blood between two gangs doesn’t even support an accusation that any particular individual agreed with another, to rumble. It’s utter absence of evidence, so the “weight” of it is a nonsense inquiry. “
There was SPECIFIC bad blood between them. Previous acts of violence.
“Care to share specifically what your issue with motorcycle clubs is?”
Care to share specifically why the decent motorcycle clubs cannot refer to themselves as motorcycle clubs?
Who is "them?" Rumbles between two gangs does not translate to "particular individual agreed with another, to rumble," and "particular individual agreed with another, to rumble" is what has to exist in order to find conspiracy.
“Who is “them?”
Bandidos and Cossacks.
“Rumbles between two gangs does not translate to “particular individual agreed with another, to rumble,” and “particular individual agreed with another, to rumble” is what has to exist in order to find conspiracy.”
I don’t know all that the police are going to use but some key points I suspect they will use:
1. Document previous violent acts between Bandidos and Cossacks.
2. Bandido meeting was changed from Austin (Bandido stronghold) to Waco (Cossack territory).
3. This was a regional meeting which is normally attended only by bikers in the region but bikers from both sides were called upon to ride from the far corners of the state to this meeting as a show of force.
Your list is void of any content that speaks to INDIVIDUAL (person) prior agreement to rumble. So is the complaint.
The Weight The Band [studio recording, youtube]
Last verse & chorus
Take a load off, Fanny
Take a load for free
Take a load off, Fanny
And (and) (and) you put the load right on me
(You put the load right on me)
“and “particular individual agreed with another, to rumble” is what has to exist in order to find conspiracy.”
Actually not. Associating for the cause of criminal activities establishes a conspiracy. If one of the associating commits a crime for the furtherance of the association, then others may also be charged even if they had not conspired to that specific crime.
“Your list is void of any content that speaks to INDIVIDUAL (person) prior agreement to rumble. So is the complaint. “
Already addressed.
Indeed. Some defendants have raised the point to a judge, that the complaint is deficient.
You assume the conclusion there. Your statement is a truism, "if they conspired, that establishes a conspiracy." Association with nothing more does not establish conspiracy.
-- If one of the associating commits a crime for the furtherance of the association, then others may also be charged even if they had not conspired to that specific crime. --
True in the abstract, but a legally sufficient accusation against the others requires more than an association with the criminal actor.
“True in the abstract, but a legally sufficient accusation against the others requires more than an association with the criminal actor. “
If you go back and carefully read my post you will see that I said more than merely association.
“You assume the conclusion there. Your statement is a truism, “if they conspired, that establishes a conspiracy.” Association with nothing more does not establish conspiracy.”
If you go back and read my post I said more than ‘mere association’.
Indeed.
The items you added, previous fights (between gangs), meeting location changed, and bikers came from farther away than nornal don't establish a prior agreement between any two individuals.
The poistion you are taking, and denying at the same time, is that all members of the Cossacks and Bandidos who appeared at this meeting conspired to commit a crime at this meeting.
“The items you added, previous fights (between gangs), meeting location changed, and bikers came from farther away than nornal don’t establish a prior agreement between any two individuals.”
As I posted, there does NOT have to be a prior agreement to commit the act.
“The poistion you are taking, and denying at the same time, is that all members of the Cossacks and Bandidos who appeared at this meeting conspired to commit a crime at this meeting.”
I don’t believe that I have expressed that position.
For conspiracy, there has to be prior agreement to commit an illegal act. The complaint accuses the actors of either agreement to commit murder, capital murder, or aggravated assault; or actually committing one of those crimes.
I agree that IF there was agreement to commit aggravated assault, and what actually occurred was murder, that the agreement or conspiracy still exists.
But the fact of an act doesn't establish conspiracy.
Based on your posting history, I believe that you are just playing word games, and doing that in bad faith. So, for now, I've exhausted my willingness to act in good faith toward you, so will stifle further comment to you.
“But the fact of an act doesn’t establish conspiracy.”
I have posted several times that it takes more than an ‘act’ to establish conspiracy.
“I agree that IF there was agreement to commit aggravated assault, and what actually occurred was murder, that the agreement or conspiracy still exists.”
As I posted, there are several items that the state would use to show conspiracy. Citing just one, if the state can show that the gangs gathered for a ‘show of force’ expecting violence then all that were summoned are part of the conspiracy.
“Based on your posting history, I believe that you are just playing word games, and doing that in bad faith. So, for now, I’ve exhausted my willingness to act in good faith toward you, so will stifle further comment to you. “
Seeing as how you have not directly addressed my points ....
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.