Posted on 11/10/2015 6:51:16 PM PST by don-o
Especially if they’re White.
This is a get Whitey biker thing.
Take their bikes, jobs, homes, EVERYTHING.
Which means this is an 0bama op.
It's called a "concealed carry" permit, not a "pull it out and wave it around" permit.
Texas Penal Code 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.
Extenuating circumstance.
The man was in reasonable fear for his life.
You've been told that previously (by somebody, I do not remember who) on this same precise issue.
60-70 Cossacks MC and their affiliates from all over Texas arrived at the Twin Peaks Waco location more an hour before the Texas Coc meeting was set to begin.
Was it just some huge coincidence they all arrived an hour early and took over the reserved section of the restaurant, or is it more likely that they acted on orders and in an organized fashion?
Was it also a coincidence that these black and gold bikers suddenly decided they needed a refresher course in motorcycle safety issues that day, or is it more likely they went there in an organized show of force to disrupt or even prevent the meeting from happening?
The Bandidos MC and their affiliates, while higher up on Texas DPS radar for gang activity, can at least point to the fact that they're all dues paying members of the Texas CoC and one of their national officers was going to be speaking at the location.
Shove off mac.
Maybe you could ask a bar full of convicted criminals...
So, you're saying a Chapter 9 defense will work here? Against who? The cops? Don't hold your breath. Especially don't hold your breath for the guy who actually fired his gun in the restaurant. Maybe all the perps who went to jail for drawing down on the cops should have used your application of a chapter 9 defense. LOL!
Or, maybe you want to make the argument that they feared for their lives from being shot by other bikers. Are you sure you want to go there?
I think I'm about done with you, for now. There's no need to go chasing after the rabbit, when he's on the run.
But same time tomorrow, or next week maybe?
There are issues here which affect First Amendment Rights to associate with whom you choose, to assemble peaceably (we still do not know who fired the first shot, nor their involvement or affiliation with LEOs, or whether they were incited by a CI or UC if not a LEO--all at a meeting of an organization traditionally NOT a place for violent confrontation-COC&I.). The first Amendment Right of Freedom of Expression, to wear whatever garment without a presumption of guilt is on the line, and myriad concerns have been stated about Due Process, and 5th Amendment Rights as well.
If it can be done with these groups, then maybe the next TEA party rally in the park, the next Gun Club meeting, Boy Scout campout--who is next?
The sad part is that there are those who have been sold the whole song and dance about who is/isn't evil by the media, even here, who would ordinarily scrutinize what the media says.
Even in the face of gross irregularities, they suspend disbelief in favor of the media induced stereotypes, and back highly suspicious actions of Government Agencies as justifiable, even before all the evidence is in.
You claimed an "extenuating circumstance" defense for those bikers pulling guns in the restaurant, saying they feared for their lives. That's a Chapter 9 defense to prosecution under Texas Penal Code 46.035. OK, are they going to claim they feared for their life from being shot by the cops, or being shot by other bikers? Because, I'm willing to bet my nickel that one of these has no chance, and the other has slim to none, and will further hamper the defense of other bikers involved.
And, you can forget about the guy who actually discharged his firearm in the restaurant. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
As more evidence surfaces, we will all know more.
First, all the recognizable veteran biker club members present at Twin Peaks weren't even arrested, and in one case were released once their proper affiliation was sorted out. Members of a number of other MCs who were present that day flying colors were not arrested either.
Second, there is no indication among those who were arrested at Twin Peaks that there was any significant percentage of veterans. In fact I'm willing to bet there was a greater percentage of patriotic veterans among the law enforcement officers present at Twin Peaks than there was among the bikers who got arrested.
Given hiring preferences in the age of militarized law enforcement, you may be right.
That still doesn't justify tap dancing on the Constitution.
Bergman's indictment was filed in the 19th District Court. Broden provides the evidence that was elicited during Bergman's Examining Trial, and compares that with the legal standard as expressed in case law (the Hart and Munoz cases, primarily). He says the charge is baseless, "guilt by mere association."
Clendennen's indictment was filed in the 54th District Court. Broden's demand for speedy trial in the Clendennen case is in large part the same as for the Bergman case.
The linked file includes a Speedy Trial Demand in Luther's case, also filed in the 54th District Court.
In footnote 1 of each demand, Broden says that the indictments are "fill in the name" style, similar in style to the Complaints sworn out by Chavez. I still haven't found a source for the text of the indictments.
... if the Munoz Court reversed Engaging in Organized criminal Activity for people who were present at the scene of a drug deal and knew it was occurring, how can a person be convicted of Engaging in Organized Criminal activity when he was present at a criminal offense but had no knowledge it was going to occur?
"Mere presence alone is not going to be enough to make somebody criminally liable," said Charles Baird, a former judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals."They could have shown up and said, 'I want to watch it, I want to see the fight or whatever,'" he said, "but that doesn't make a party in any way criminally liable."
Broden gets busy quickly, doesn’t he? Interesting that he alluded to Texas counties that permit defense attorneys to be present for GJ proceedings. McClennan does not.
I had thought that secrecy, above all, ruled. I wonder how common this allowance is.
The role that Broden suggests is one of an advisory nature, a counterbalance to the prosecutor when the prosecutor misleads on the law, or doesn't follow the law and his ethical obligations. All Broden suggests in these Demands is that the grand jury should have been apprised of the case law. It's then up to the prosecutor to tell the GJ about the evidence - and Broden would NOT be allowed in the GJ room for that.
The sooner his clients' criminal cases run their course, the sooner he can proceed with civil action against the city of Waco, McLennan County, and police officers.
Too bad that Houston Chronicle article is behind a paywall. A couple other "legal experts" weigh in against Reyna's action.
Amanda Peters, a South Texas College of Law professor, as well as former Harris County prosecutor and defense lawyer, said ... "Not all of these men look equally culpable, yet the indictments treat them as if they are."Veteran defense lawyer and former prosecutor Rusty Hardin said that from what he has seen of the case, there is no way prosecutors will be able to convict everyone.
"They are going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury or appellate court that everybody who rode a motorcycle there that day was engaged in organized crime," he said. "The last time I checked, driving a motorcycle was not a crime."
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has Broden's Second Emergent Motion to vacate online. I know the court had Wednesday off, but it took all day Thursday, at least, before that filing was online. The indictments break the ice a little bit, on the gag order, because the court filings aren't gagged unless Reyna requests the court to seal them, and he needs a good secrecy reason for that (typically for the purpose of maintaining cover for undercover witnesses).
Heh. Still looking for text of the indictments. Nevermind "speedy trial," it appears to me that Texas has an issue with "speedy arraignments."
Looking at the 19th District Court Docket for the week of November 9, arraignments are scheduled for today, and some of them have a bondsman listed as time in jail. 68 days, 67 days, a couple at 61 days, 76, 77, and one at 93 days. There are others with much shorter jail time, 3, 4, 9 days.
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.