Posted on 07/09/2015 6:19:49 AM PDT by JJ_Folderol
I have zero concern about your impression of my response. Readers will form their own opinions, and the readers are apt to disagree with that contention of yours.
” have zero concern about your impression of my response. Readers will form their own opinions, and the readers are apt to disagree with that contention of yours.”
have zero concern about your impression of my response. Readers will form their own opinions, and the readers are apt to disagree with that contention of yours.
It doesn’t excuse arresting 170 people and setting an unreasonable bail for all. I do not associate with criminals and do not defend them.
There were not 170 people committing conspiracy or aiding and abetting. There were 21 defendants at the Nuremberg trials, for goodness sake!
“There were not 170 people committing conspiracy or aiding and abetting. “
I’ll play. Which of the 170?
I won’t. I do not think it a game to destroy people lives. Though not a criminal, I have sat on the other side with all the power of the state arrayed against me. The funny thing is, though I won, I still lost my entire net worth. Enjoy your win.
I was going to say that I hope you can play the game for real; but I truly hate no man. Have a good day—I must sleep.
“I won’t. I do not think it a game to destroy people lives”
Which is exactly the game the biker gangs play ... destroying lives and families.
” But of course, you are fine with that, because they will make us out to be outlaw scum who should not be accorded rights under your benevolent system.”
I could twist your posts, also, like by saying you support criminal behavior. I will not do that since you said you don’t support criminals. Please give me the same courtesy.
“If the 10 or 20 or even 30 who might potentially be shown to have actually engaged in overt acts had taken the hit, one piece of this mess goes away.”
Yes. That is the point. One piece of this mess goes away. Would have, should have; esp. IF those 10 to 30 were specifically known to be the actual perps.
I count 20 either released or still held on the original bond, or released at $250,000 or higher bonds.
Your estimate might be in the ballpark . . .
But still, we don’t know WHO the active 10 - 30 perps were. We can only guess. I wasn’t at the bond hearings. I don’t know that those with $250K or higher bonds are more guilty than those released on lower bonds, which included down to $0.
So let us engage in a thought experiment.
Those (who you estimate might be 10 or 20 or even 30) who actually engaged in overt acts — what should their bond have been? IF they were known as the actual perps. at the time? Would a million be too high for the Bandido alleged to have shot first, at close range, killing Richie aka “Chain”? Or the other Bandido who allegedly also shot at close range, Dog and Diesel, one with a double tap to the head? (That alleged perp might be among the dead.)
We want to distinguish those guilty of individual acts, from those who were “swept up” after the shoot-out. That is the purpose of a legitimate criminal justice system. To hold the guilty, and free the innocent.
Let us say that there were perhaps 10 to 30 who personally engaged in criminal acts of murder or attempted murder, etc.
What should THEIR bond have been, in your honest opinion??
Many readers will not remember, but you will, that I have expressed concern about RICO-type statutes. I am still wondering why the focus of forum outrage on these Waco threads does not address the statute.
Those charged with Conspiracy to Engage in Organized Criminal Activity — without personal acts — could be so charged only because of the Statute.
If the Statute is obtuse enough, to allow the DA of the county, to apply it inappropriately, why is there still no outrage at the statute??
WHAT are FReepers accomplishing here, other than remarking to each other, and calling other people trolls? If there is a problem with the criminal justice system, why are not they focused on correcting the flaw in the Statute?
FReepers are cheering as individuals ON THEIR OWN fight the system for false arrest etc. FReepers are not helping the situation by bloviating on FR and calling other people trolls. Why not attack the base problem?
A $250K bond, is $25,000 posted.
I expected the reduced bonds to occur faster than they did. I expected there would have been charges dropped by now. Are they waiting on the Grand Jury for no-bills? OR is the Statute itself that powerful?
I ALSO expect the 10 - 30 or however many, to face Justice.
“that the gangs gathered for a ‘show of force’ expecting violence then all that were summoned are part of the conspiracy.”
Indeed WHY did the Cossacks and Bandidos from across Texas show up at that place at that time? They rode because they were told to, and they were told to ride, FOR a show of force. OR??
“members of the Cossacks and Bandidos who appeared at this meeting conspired to commit a crime at this meeting”.
Or maybe were willfully ignorant, because they would ride where to and whenever called to ride, no questions asked. That is their obligation as club members. Is the fact that they did not ask the reason why, a personal defense? when they would have ridden anyway?? Because that is what they are expected to do, and do, as a member. Just asking.
Your remark contains your answer, as well as your expression of agreement. IOW, it asks nothing of me, and if it did, well, I have to watch some paint dry.
Not in the least. You apparently have some knowledge of the law, and I request an informed opinion, not a brush-off.
WERE I on the jury (which I won’t be, because I am not in TX) I would advocate for jury nullification for any accused Person I deemed unjustly charged. Some were riding to Waco with lesser affiliation with gangs than others. Such as the Weavers, and I did thank don-o for posting their personal story. For an example.
However, why would not a juror be persuaded, that a Person who rode with the Cossacks or Bandidos, sworn by their allegiance to the Club to ride for any reason, NOT be deemed to be “in agreement” with the leaders who ordered them to ride?? Even not knowing what the reason to ride was, because there is no doubt they were “in agreement” with their leaders that they would would ride no matter what the reason was, even if they did not know the reason ahead of time. The point is, their loyalty to the club precludes them caring about the reason why, theirs just to do or die.
Which orders, they followed.
Tell me how you would persuade the Jury otherwise, please. I WANT to know the actual valid application of the law.
I really truly want to know this in legal terms. IF you will ride at the behest of someone who knew more than you did about a likely show-down, that DID result in a shoot-out leading to the deaths of NINE and injury to 18, and you did not know that would happen, but you would ride No Matter What, what exactly is that culpability, in legal terms?
YES, Just Asking, and I am allowed to ask!
And if they who merely rode with Clubs, in “agreement” with the leaders of the Clubs, without knowing why, and they are innocent, then WHY are you not attacking the Statute? instead of other FReepers, for Crying Out Loud? (as Rush would say).
Based on the arguments presented thus far, why should a Juror NOT accept that, “agreeing” to ride, at the behest of the club’s leaders, in an unusual “show of force” does NOT constitute agreement with whatever conspiracy or crimes the leaders knew about? OK THAT ALSO has to be proved.
But just how is a juror to let a guy off a conspiracy charge, if he is sworn to do whatever he is told to do? And does so. And crimes are committed.
AND then, why don’t you try to change the statute?
Please, let me know how you would convince the Jury based upon the Law. And Please, let me know if and how the statute itself should be changed. I am not opposed to that.
In order for an agreement or conspiracy to be a crime in its own right, the agreement or conspiracy has to be to commit a criminal act.
Being ignorant of conspiracy of others, and you doing nothing illegal (not in on the conspiracy or others, not committing a crime that stands without conspiracy), results in no crime.
At least that's the way it works in (legal) principle. Not saying it doesn't get to a jury. Zimmerman was tried for defending himself. But the sort of case you describe should result in no trial, not even incarceration, and that based on investigation, not arrest on probable cause.
-- WHY are you not attacking the Statute? --
Because I don't have an issue with the statute.
-- But just how is a juror to let a guy off a conspiracy charge, if he is sworn to do whatever he is told to do? --
Hopefully the remarks above, which restates how plain conspiracy works, answers that question.
Now, seriously, I am weary of you. You are welcome for the response, no need to thank me, and I do feel that your expression of gratitude is or would be sincere.
“Because I don’t have an issue with the statute.”
I however do, because sincere laymen cannot interpret it on its face.
Just as tens of thousands of pages of IRS code and regulations cannot be understood by any one living person, including any one person employed by the IRS, nor any legislator who voted on any of the laws which spewed out so many tens of thousands of pages of regulation, much less an individual taxpayer.
I abhor the strangulation of our Republic by legislation the ordinary Patriot cannot grasp at face value. Such as you have to pass it to know what is in it.
I abhor the Executive Branch which uses incomprehensible legislation, in order to produce more tens of thousands of pages of regulations which no one person can grasp.
I abhor judicial opinions which override even the legitimate legislative function to pass laws supposedly in the interests of we free citizens, which in themselves are often incomprehensible.
I DO have a problem with any law that I cannot comprehend on first reading, as a Citizen, and my advanced degrees do nothing but support my contention, that all laws we are subject to, should be understandable and comprehensible by any American citizen with at least 8th grade education. After all, most of our ancestors did not exceed that level of formal education.
Sorry to have replied. I realize that mere civil servants will apply the “full extent of the law” — they are so-to-speak duty-bound to do so. They will apply the full extent of the law, whether they or we understand it.
And why exactly shouldn’t we be able to understand the laws?
It's not that hard. People generally know that assault, bank robbery, pimping, murder, etc. are illegal, yes? All that "criminal conspiracy" adds, is that it is a crime to agree with another person, to perpetrate a crime. And for "gang conspiracy," the purpose of the crime has to be to advance a gang purpose or objective.
When a person is intent on obfuscating the law (not saying you are, but you used this example), like making "agreement to ride" part of a "criminal conspiracy," well, the obfuscation is the problem - not the law.
-- I realize that mere civil servants will apply the "full extent of the law" -- they are so-to-speak duty-bound to do so. --
Sometimes they knowingly act in contravention of the law. The system is set up to "excuse" violations made by the state. You can beat the rap, but you can;t beat the ride, etc. Judges do this (deliberate misapplication of the law) too.
As for your contention that the law is beyond the grasp of people of average intelligence, you be the judge.
15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. (a) A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:There's a bit more to the plain criminal conspiracy crime (which isn't the crime charged here), but that's the gist of it. Do you think a layperson would have trouble understanding it?(1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitu te the offense; and
(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
Texas Penal Code Chapter 71. Organized Crime
Generally, under this groups of criminal statutes, a person has to be a member of a criminal gang. But, that alone is not a crime, otherwise we could grab all of MS-13, Bandidos, etc. and convict them on the basis of membership, and no other element.
Sec. 71.02. ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.That one is considerably more complicated than 15.02 criminal conspiracy (outside of the organized crime context), but still retains the gist - to be guilty, a person has to conspire to commit a crime.(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following:
(1) murder, capital murder, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary, theft, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, continuous sexual abuse of young child or children, solicitation of a minor, forgery, deadly conduct, assault punishable as a Class A misdemeanor, burglary of a motor vehicle, or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; ...
[extended list of crimes snipped]
An overt act is not required to commit conspiracy in the 71.02 gang context, but the "intent" element is more complex in the gang context than in 15.02 criminal conspiracy, in that it includes both an intent to commit the crime, and an intent to benefit the gang.
Even though the "engaging in organized criminal activity" law is more complicated, I believe that a person below average intelligence easily knows that an earnest agreement with others, to commit a crime, is at risk of obtaining time in the graybar hotel.
“the agreement or conspiracy has to be to commit a criminal act.”
So convince the Jury, that agreeing to ride for any reason or no reason, out of loyalty to the club and its leadership, is not agreement to whatever criminal act the leadership intends, expects, or is willing to engage in. (Such criminal act by the leadership, of course, must be demonstrated.)
You do not have to convince me. I will not be a juror; I also have nullification in my back pocket, were I to be a juror.
The defense has to convince the Jury, and the members of the Jury will most likely not have even tried to interpret the statute themselves.
They will listen to the arguments of the DA and the arguments of the defense. Please put forth the best defense arguments as a Jury of normal citizens would understand.
I am not the problem. I am not saying that the statute itself is not the problem. The application of the statute, as argued by the DA and the defense, has to be understandable by a Jury of ordinary citizens.
Convince them, please, by your arguments.
And if you end up not being able to, maybe you will reassess your acceptance of the statute itself.
So, Mr. DA, please put forth the best prosecution arguments that a jury of normal citizens would understand. Convince the jury, that agreeing to ride for any reason or no reason, is agreement to perpetrate a criminal act.
"Nullification" works both ways. I take it you are going to vote "guilty," because only guilty people are arrested.
“So, Mr. DA, please put forth the best prosecution arguments that a jury of normal citizens would understand. Convince the jury, that agreeing to ride for any reason or no reason, is agreement to perpetrate a criminal act.”
The D.A. has thousands of pages of documentation. I have only a glimpse of the facts.
Given that hundreds of members of rival gangs gather in Waco as a show of force over territory when bikers and LE both feared violence gives probable cause. How many will be tried and how many will be convicted will be determined by the GJ and subsequent trials.
“I take it you are going to vote “guilty,” because only guilty people are arrested. “
I take it you would vote ‘not guilty’ because all bikers are good family men. These poor souls just happened to gather on a Sunday afternoon at a breastaurant when they were ambushed by the LE.
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.