Posted on 08/21/2015 4:42:00 PM PDT by mac_truck
“I go to my first jewelry show one Sunday. I don’t even buy a single piece. Heck, there was no chance to, the cops busted it up before the show got underway!”
You missed the part about the gunfight at the jewelry show!
“You missed the part about the gunfight at the jewelry show!”
HA! ; )
It really was a thought experiment, rather than an attempt at sarcasm.
HOWEVER (now that you mention it):
I didn’t see anything! I just ran and hid!
The waitresses said, however, they noticed people stuffing cashes of jewelry between potato chip bags on the shelves. Someone even tried to flush a bag of gems down the commode. Later, cops found bags of gems had been thrown onto the roof. There were some attempts to quickly dig holes in the grass to hide the gems.
Of course, presumably none of those were illicit gems . . . I wonder why the jewelry collectors didn’t want to have them on their persons when the cops started rounding people up for interviewing.
Sure it does.
3 days later...and right above the earlier statement, containing a slight note of correction in this newer one, and that slight note being something of a retraction of the wording you've been relying upon, leaves your own continued use of the earlier 'news release' as the lawyer called it, to have been a misrepresentation of what that organization's own view's have been.
Which makes you something of a liar. But then those of us who have been paying attention have known that about you all along, when it comes to this subject matter, because you've been misrepresenting (and making and supporting the very worst of the blanket accusations) by any way you thought you could get away with.
Whenever called out on that action, you hit the capslock, like that's going to make your b.s. stick and stay?
And all for what?
Because a few other freepers (not myself, mind you) had preliminarily likely gone too far with trying to blame all (or possibly also, just too much) of the shooting on police?
I still would like to know who supplied mr. red boots with the rifle he was seen with, and who in the hell those three people were (obviously some sort of LE) that got into the action very early on in the proceedings.
If they were Waco PD, then the rest of the Waco PD seen a little later on the security tape from Don Carlos, didn't appear to know that three of their own 'armed gang' were in the battle zone. The later arriving uniformed police (instead of dressed in camo battle rattle, like the three earlier arrivals) it can be seen on that security video, were hiding behind parked cars ---- while three of their own were obviously more in the thick of things, since they can seen to go out of view, towards Twin Peaks.
Just who were those guys, and just who did those guys shoot? Waco PD likely knows, but still ain't saying, even when trotting people out to face judges while blanket accusations are made, along with accompanying insinuations being carefully nurtured in continuing effort to make the blanket-party legal bash-down work against each and every who were accused of "conspiracy".
And the Po-Po is the biggest gang of them all.
They even have Confederations of Po-Po who come to the aid of other Po-Po, before, during, and after anything much happens.
Only if the intent was preplanned, and agreed upon intent to commit some kind of crime.
If there is proof there was any of that sort of actual conspiracy, and that it was widespread, that has yet to surface ---other than the accusation that there was, coming from the mouths of Po-Po, and Po-Po affiliates who repeat the charges (that there was actual conspiracy) while taking people to stand in front of judges.
So far, there hasn't exactly been proof of that accusation of 'conspiracy' brought to light. There has only been blanket accusation made, coupled with unproven assumptions, like the assumptions you've persisted in clinging to, no matter what.
“Only if the intent was preplanned, and agreed upon intent to commit some kind of crime.”
LOL! A ‘show of force’ IS preplanned and intentional show of force to see which side will back down. ALL parties have agreed to support their buddies with force.
In the hypothetical case, voluntarily paying part of the fees to an anonymous thief for a share of the proceeds make you a conspirator to theft. See too, hiring a hit man when the crime is murder.
Change the facts so that the jewelry association is not purely criminal, but also arranges seminars on appraisals and valuation, marketing, and fashion trends. You show up at an appraisal and valuation seminar. Some of the members of the association beat the hell out of some people who were not association members, just out of "bad blood." You are surprised that the violence took place at this swanky venue, but are not surprised at the use of violence. IOW, you are aware the association is "partly criminal," and you know about this "bad blood."
You are arrested two weeks later for gang conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. The court's logic is that you (and all members of the jewelry association who were at the seminar) are probably guilty because all are members of the criminal association (a label the state can affix on whatever criteria it chooses), all were at the seminar, and some members of the criminal association used violence at the seminar.
“So far, there hasn’t exactly been proof of that accusation of ‘conspiracy’ brought to light. “
That is for the trial.
Stupid is as Stupid does:
“The rally continued at the restaurant site where the shootings happened.”
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Bomb-Scare-Cuts-Short-Waco-Biker-Rally-322595852.html
“3 days later...and right above the earlier statement, containing a slight note of correction in this newer one, and that slight note being something of a retraction of the wording you’ve been relying upon,”
It was by a ‘pastor’. It was just a statement that he didn’t know who started the shooting.
IT IN NO WAY INVALIDATES THE ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE.
It was from the same "gang" affiliation org, wasn't it?
The notion of "preplanned" goes along with intent. The issue become the subject of the intention. Riding, even with a group of criminals, is legal. So, an intention to ride is not a crime. Generally speaking, being with a large group of people as a "show of force" is legal. We encourage our kids to "stay with a group," because there is safety is numbers. So, an intention to "show force" by numbers is also legal.
What is not legal is the unjustified use of force, which is generally the initiation of use of force. An intention to commit murder or aggravated assault is not legal.
As far as sufficiency of the evidence goes, "probable cause" can exist without proof; but it can't exist without evidence. The issue before this court was whether or not the "facts" stated in the four corners of the complaint amount to an allegation that a crime was committed by the accused. It is assumed these facts are true, although the facts are subject to rules of evidence and "proof" at trial.
The fact that there was pretrial action, including an appeal on the sufficiency of the accusation, stands as proof that the question of probable cause is not reserved for trial.
If the charges, as filed were actually solid, and there was due cause for the arrests to be made under the charges and conditions which they were, then at the hearing to examine whether or not there was due cause, was the place to begin showing actual & factual basis for claims on the part of LE that there was due cause.
If there was actual proof, instead of much of the charge of 'conspiracy' standing upon reliance of assumption and innuendo, then why was one judge of a panel of three, not willing to support those assumptions (on strength of reason and evidence he wasn't being shown)?
The two judges who approved the arrests in that examining --- do you think they shared use of the same rubber stamp? (borrowed from Waco PD and Mclennan County, no doubt).
One judge refused to being a rubber-stamper. Why would that be?
Oh! I know! Pick me, pick me!
It must be because he is a supporter of criminal biker gangs!
Yeah, that must be it -- if we were to here apply the sort of logic and explanatory "because why" which YOU have been consistent applying.
Patching over gets you killed.
“After deliberating for about six hours yesterday, a jury in Lockport, New York found Kingsmen Motorcycle Club member Andre “Li’l Bear” Jenkins guilty of murdering two of his club brothers in a parked car outside the Kingsmen’s North Tonawanda, New York clubhouse in the early morning hours of September 6, 2014.
The dead men were Paul Maue and Daniel “DJ” Szymanski and the prosecution theorized that they were killed to prevent them from patching over to the Nickel City Nomads Motorcycle Club.”
http://www.agingrebel.com/13338
In other news (not News of the Weird, but more like News of the Useless);
I can smell it.
It haz a smell.
To be useless is one thing. That could be tolerable, depending.
To be useless and have a smell, is quite another.
” then why was one judge of a panel of three, not willing to support those assumptions (on strength of reason and evidence he wasn’t being shown)? “
Do you have a link?
“As the altercation became a brawl and erupted outside Twin Peaks, SWAT teams and police were standing outside the restaurant on a tip that there would be a problem with the 1% clubs.”
This VALIDATES that the bikers started the ‘altercation’!
Her posts are usually but not always technically correct, and usually but not always misleading. Her functional limits are understood by the readers, making substantive engagement optional, and usually nothing more than diversionary noise.
“Her posts are usually but not always technically correct, and usually but not always misleading”
If they are mostly technically correct, then they CAN’T be mostly misleading.
I believe that there were some that were “unarrested”. It is my opinion that these were the undercover cops. I also believe that all those currently held and those out on bond can call home and tell whoever answers the phone that they can sell the outhouse, they won’t be needing it any longer. They just lost their ass.
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.