Waco Is Suppressing Evidence That Could Clear Innocent Bikers

The Atlantic ^ | July 21, 2015

[don-o]

Why is Waco, Texas, fighting to suppress multiple videos of the shootout that killed nine bikers at the Twin Peaks restaurant on May 17? Why are some attorneys in the case now prohibited from talking to the press? And why haven’t Waco officials revealed how many of the nine victims were killed by bullets from police officers’ guns?

snip

Here are two theories.

One is the official explanation. Authorities say that this is a complex investigation that takes lots of time and that suppressing video evidence and issuing gag orders is necessary to prevent prospective jurors from being influenced by pre-trial publicity.

I find that explanation dubious.

Authorities in Waco have actively advanced a contested narrative of what happened at the Twin Peaks restaurant from the start, sometimes getting facts wrong. They haven’t tried to preserve the impartiality of jurors, instead, they've pushed a version of events that reflects well on the Waco police and the actions they’ve taken.

Here is an alternative explanation.

If there is video or ballistics evidence suggesting that lots of innocent people were arrested without probable cause, or that police bullets killed some of the dead that day in Waco, it will be a public-relations nightmare and a huge liability for Waco and its police department. Scores of bikers could sue for six- or seven-figure sums. And prosecutors might find it much more difficult to secure indictments in the case.

But if indictments can be filed before evidence inconvenient to Waco authorities is publicly revealed, the leverage changes. A biker might be indicted for conspiracy to murder, then offered a plea deal to accept a much lesser charge, like disturbing the peace, with the understanding that time served would take care of the sentence.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I could be wrong, it’s happened once or twice. There are a lot of moving parts and Texas is more or less under siege.

However the statement “withholding evidence that could clear innocent bikers” is pure conjecture at this point.

[don-o]

Does the concept of innocent until proven guilty register...even a little????

And, what is a “concern troll brigade”?

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping. Interesting discussion. Is there any first-hand information/facts from anyone who was there?

[House Atreides]

“...However the statement “withholding evidence that could clear innocent bikers” is pure conjecture at this point.”
*****************************************************************************************************
Tru dat. Agree that “withholding evidence that could clear innocent bikers” is likely not a reasonable sole motivator for the actions (or, more to the point, inactions) I’m seeing from Waco. Withholding evidence that could point toward government malfeasance could be a VERY strong motivator for the strange happenings in this Waco fiasco.

[Finny]

"The typical observer seems broadly willing to see it all proven IN COURT. Is that bad?

In my opinion it IS bad; it is VERY bad. It is bad because a valuable and precious restraint on governmental power has been ignored. And a dangerous precedent is being set.

Do you seriously believe that 177 people came to the Twin Peaks with a criminal intent? The DA says that they did ...

BUMP. Well said.

[don-o]

Any one of the 177 who were arrested in this incident can simply go before the grand jury and state their case...and if four grand jurors believe them they will be no-billed.

That's just silly.

[RitaOK]

” Does the concept of innocent until proven guilty register...even a little???? “ ———————

Yes, of course, the concept does register. The key word here seems to be “proven”. Proven guilty or innocent occurs only at trial, does it not?

I’m just not certain that concept applies very well BEFORE trial. Arresting officers charge and book suspects and judges and juries adjudicate the charges. In between arrest and trial there is bale set, or an appeal made to the Grand Jury, in lieu of the bale.

The concern troll brigade I would apply to those who are overly concerned they might have to actually wait for a trial to see their complaints get any air time.

[Finny]

Sadly, she thinks she is already wearing her "reality hat." The "reality" being that the cops would never do such a thing, why, it's just so far-fetched!

The fact that the VAST majority of those arrested have ... er, excuse me, had no arrest record (they sure as heck have them now, though!), is a reality she holds less "real" than her touching, spectacularly naïve faith in law enforcement and the "bad biker" myth narrative.

In early days, before so much information was available, it was excusable. Now, it's just an indicator that the person who clings to such a "reality" is either a fake "conservative" OR has led a life whose limitations are exceeded only by lack of recognizing it.

[mac_truck]

Whatever...enjoy the puppet show.

[AMDG&BVMH]

“Let’s start out by finding someone actually committing an actual crime.”

Other than biker testimony, that Richie “Chain”, Diesel, and Dog were shot outright at close rang by (1) the Bandido Sgt at Arms and (2) (3) by a Bandido affiliate, etc. . . .

I guess you mean that those perps should be charged with those specific murders, and I agree. One of the murderers is himself most likely among the dead.

[DoughtyOne]

The civil servant in that poster is the kind who would say that cops had a right to shoot a homeowner who came to his own door with a gun in hand when cops showed up with his loud drunk wife, because said homeowner "may have had a attitude thinking himself to be the top dog on scene."

This is not a link to one of my posts.  It's a link to something that presents your view of what all police officers are.  

Through this exchange you have continually read into my comments things I didn't say.  Then you get upset about what I didn't actually say, and respond trying to shoot down what I didn't say.  That's why I asked you to link me to a specific post so I could point this out to you.  And now it's why you won't link me to a post, because you know you'd be unable to defend your premise based on what I actually said.

I have not defended the type of officer represented by what you just linked me to.  While I do think there are some officers out there that might be depicted accurately by that graphic, I don't think the vast majority are.

What I actually said was, when officers are confronted by a man with a gun, a dangerous situation exists.  If the guy acts beligerantly because he deems himself ruler of the roost, he could do things that would seem threatening, and might cause officers to shoot him.

Just because it's your home, you can't cause officer to think their lives may be in imenent danger.  That is a perfectly rational thing to say.

These officers have no intent to hurt this man or his property.  Him having a weapon and raising toward them would be a serious mistake.  And up to this point, you haven't been frank enough to admit that.

And we can't have that!! Why, such temerity on the part of citizens toward police needs to be punished! Heaven forbid cops err on the side of the citizen, and be willing to put their own lives at risk first as servants/protectors, and do everything in their power to defuse the situation without gunfire, and waiting until being fired upon before firing on citizens.

I am trying to carry on a ration discussion with you.  I'm not denigrating the home owner at all.  I am merely pointing out the obvious.  If a man comes out of a home, he could just as easily be a prowler as a home-owner.  The officers don't know.  He has a weapon in his hand.  The officers are going to tell him to put it down.  He needs to listen and do it.  If he raises it, it may be the last thing he does.  I'm not saying that because the officers are better than he is.  I'm not saying it because I hate (in this instance, Black) home owners.  I'm not saying it because I think homeowers should be harrassed.  I am simply saying it because an armed man is going to be seen as a threat, because in 1/3rd of a second that weapon can be raised and discharged at a small group of officers.  It's a very dangerous situation for them, and despite your seeming thought that they should always let a perp fire off a round first, that isn't going to happen.  If he raises the gun, he'll be shot, and they won't be shooting to wound or knock the gun out of his hand.  They'll be shooting for body mass, and he stands a very good chance of dying.

You view this as officers not respecting the guy.  I'm trying to warn you, inform you, and make you think about the dynamics here before someone gets hurt.  My, how disrespectful is that...

Officers are not hired to forfeit their lives.  I don't know where you ever picked that up, but officers have every bit as much right to go home, as this home owner has to go back inside his home.  Asking him to put the weapon down is not being disrespectful.  It's a safety measure as much for him as much as it is the officers.  They would rather not have to shoot.

But as it is now, you can always commit suicide by cop, never actually firing a shot, but only wielding a gun in the presence of "civil servants." They'll serve the citizen, alright -- those civil servants will serve up a big dish of lead to any who dare to presume the "attitude" of "top dog" on their own property when cops are present.

You're just being silly now.  As I have said serveal times before this, be the hot shot at your home.  Tell the officers to do whatever you like as you yell at them and wave your gun in their direction.  See what happens.  Just know it didn't have to, if you had listened and had a lick of sense.

[USNBandit]

One of the Cossacks said he saw his father shot point blank in the back of the head by a Bandido supporter.

[wardaddy]

In my view and several uptown and Algiers folks I know think those cops got the shaft for keeping marauders out

And some of those cops were negroes

The Waco LEO situation thus far is more ....much more.....suspicious to me as a LEO overreaction being hushed up desperately

[wardaddy]

I’m southern and have been here going on 16 orbits of the life source

I knew right away given how they react instinctively to my people here that this forum tolerated some nasty critters who boot lick the nastiest of jack boot leather and detest Americas last redoubt of majority culture war conservatives....white southerners like me

Nor is it a surprise that some of these very south haters also have no issue with murdering vile cheeseburger eating outlaw motorcyclists on principle and believe in the State

It’s the same mindset my ancestry rebelled against

Some of them may be along shortly

I’ll introduce you so you can know the enemy

Mr Edd is good company btw

[wardaddy]

The Atlantic had good writers back when your world didn’t extend beyond daddy’s testes

It was founded by some serious transcendental Yankees and was an early sponsor of a Mr Sam Clemens

Since then a who’s who of contemporary writers from Hemingway to Faulkner to Salinger and Roth and Wolf have written for the Monthly

But editorially always leftish

[Pelham]

Ouch. That left a mark!

[wastoute]

Well aware. Always left, though. If they are following Waco, though, they are still somewhat honest. The rest of the media is mum. If an “R” were president it would be Kent State all over again.

[wastoute]

Curious. The ROE you support here are more lax than those our soldiers are given overseas...

[wastoute]

I guess it is because our CINC feels soldiers are “guests” but LE are not.

[DoughtyOne]

If our troops overseas have been ordered to allow someone to level a weapon at them and not shot first, then I guess you’d be right. And that order would be wrong.