Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
Ya think that's okay too?
“117 members of “criminal biker gangs” with zero criminal histories “
Thank you for your dishonesty.
You have been called on this over a dozen times. About time you quite the falsehood.
That is to say — I recommend SKIPPING the mass postings of the half-dozen or so jackboot lickers here. Doing so makes reading these threads MUCH more enjoyable and you get the SAME amount of info.
” I abhor criminals who assault, abuse, rob, murder, kidnap, and/or extort innocents. “
258 Bandidos arrested in Operation Hog Trap
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Bandidos-caught-in-Hog-Trap-4926531.php
Bandidos execute eight of their own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shedden_massacre
I won’t bother at this time to detail the other murders and beating by the gangs in Texas that have been document numerous times on these threads.
“What about liars. TG?”
I don’t use that term. It speaks badly for the person using it and is a personal attack which I thought was frowned upon.
I only speak to the words of the posts, whether it is true or a falsehood.
Falsehoods should not be posted.
I've read the code several times over the past few months, and the "argument" was made by the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals.
You used the word "participate." I don't know what that means, to you, in this context, so I used other words - the words from the statute.
According to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals, the affidavit plainly does NOT allege that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses, ergo, no probable cause (in the affidavit) that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses. That conclusion applies to all 177 arrested on the same affidavit, because the affidavit is identical for all 177, other than the name of the accused.
In ordinary English usage, the participants in the brawl (not necessarily counting the victims) would have committed or attempted to commit assault. The affidavit does not allege the commission of any form of assault, according to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals. Therefore, there was no probable cause for commission, attached to any particular individual.
Thank you. I pinged finny so he can see from your post the error in his post.
“Sec. 71.03. DEFENSES EXCLUDED. It is no defense to prosecution under Section 71.02 that:
(1) one or more members of the combination are not criminally responsible for the object offense;”
Derp, your argument’s invalid. That’s why the judges who actually know the law don’t agree with you that there is “no probable cause”.
Interesting.
AP does a quick database dump which has been later determined to:
1. Not be complete.
2. Not evaluated for aliases.
Additionally, five of the nine dead DID have convictions.
“In other words, you made a snotty sarcastic and grandiose comment and feel good about it.”
No. I was very sincere. As I am sincere to you.
Was my previous discussion with you?
I knew a guy like you in Prescott, AZ. He wanted to be a cop but couldn’t pass the tests needed so he went to school to work in IT. Kinda sucks settling for second best, eh.
Of course you don’t want people to read the comments that destroy your precious conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, I have no problem with people reading your inane posts. I have faith that most FReepers are wise enough to judge them for what they are.
A couple points. First, what is the distinction between "attended" and "participated?"
Second, the fact that a person is not arrested does not make them a non-criminal. Law enforcement routinely allows people freedom while it investigates, and once law enforcement has probable cause that a crime has taken place it may (but is not obliged to) make an arrest. Just saying, the 70 who were not arrested that day may be criminal bikers.
Never wanted to be a cop ever. I bristle at taking orders from anyone, so that line of work has never interested me at all.
You’re really far off base, although I do have family in Prescott, AZ. On a side note, there was a police biker club in Prescott a couple years ago that got themselves busted off the force for their antics:
“A couple points. First, what is the distinction between “attended” and “participated?””
Attended = showed up at the restaurant that day
Participated = took part in the violent gang fight that day
“Second, the fact that a person is not arrested does not make them a non-criminal.”
True, but I say they were “non-criminal bikers” because they were not members of criminal biker gangs, not because they were not arrested. It’s the other way around. The police did not arrest those who were not members of criminal biker gangs, or their support groups. The police have specifically stated that, so I don’t think there is any need to speculate as to why they weren’t arrested.
boogieman:”You cannot shoot a person because they shot a dog, if you do, it’s homicide.”
Every killing of a human is a homicide. So you are correct about that. In many states you can lawfully shoot trespassers that are harming your property. There are several cases recently where a homeowner shot a cop to death that was conducting a raid in the middle of the night and the homeowner believed it was a home invasion. The various homeowners were not charged with “murder” so you are wrong about that.
Boogieman:”The first person at Waco that day killed was law enforcement, the first person fired upon was law enforcement, there is no dispute about that.”
Nice try but that is not what you said. You said the Dividians open fired first. Which are “facts” not in evidence. Please try and stay on point.
Do you see the error in yours?
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.