Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
“Money” is Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon.
Not all did.
Not all could make the full bail (remember, initial bail was $1M), so they had to pay a non-refundable large percentage instead.
At best, still vaguely charged with serious crimes and no evidence given, and out a large pile of money just to stay out of jail.
So what’s your explanation for the government not clarifying the charges and providing, as is required, the evidence supporting it? defense needs to know what the charge is and what it’s based on.
Not quite sure how an enumerated right amounts to “usual nonsense”, please explain.
“We have documented statements by bikers that the bikers started the shooting.
We have the recorded scans of the police at the shooting.
We have Seven of the nine recovered bullets from the dead listed as medium to large caliber.”
Links?
“No doubt, you say that “all the Cossacks are criminals”?”
I said no doubt the Cossacks were criminals, as in the gang. I did not say anything about each individual member.
As I’ve explained in the past, you cannot become a member of an outlaw gang without proving yourself by committing felonies on behalf of the group. So anyone who is a full patched member of an outlaw gang is obviously a criminal. Prospects may or may not be directly guilty of criminal acts (yet), but they surely will be if they want to become full members. That does not absolve prospects of criminal liability for being members of a criminal organization in conspiracy with the other members that do commit criminal acts.
“Crimes committed by some clique within an MC...”
There is no criminal “clique” within an outlaw gang, besmirching the reputation of law-abiding members. They are criminal organizations, with the criminal operations directed from the top, just like any other criminal organization. You don’t go off on your own and do things without approval of the President, or you’d be out of the club very quickly. So, no, this apology for the outlaw gangs doesn’t fly.
“And it appears to me that a platoon of Bandidos rode down from Dallas, and had other things in mind than participating in making peace with Cossacks.”
I can agree with this 100%.
“THAT part of things is not the fault of Cossacks, as far as I can tell”
No, but the Cossacks were already at war with the Bandidos, and so showing up heavily armed at the meeting, before the Bandidos arrived, and taking over the Bandidos’ reserved section certainly doesn’t make them look like innocent victims.
“It’s no wonder Cossacks felt like they were being set up, when they saw that later arriving group of Bandidos had split up, and were approaching the Twin Peaks location from different directions.”
Perhaps they were “set up” by a fake peace offer, or perhaps they thought they could stand their ground against the Bandidos on their home turf, and overestimated the forces they were up against.
“But to hold those types out as examples for all other patch wearing ‘bikers’, even if just far enough to encompass Cossack MC in it’s entirety of membership as being “criminals” (which you just did!) while making no distinctions between the MC’s themselves — RIGHT DOWN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER too, is too much, and is even ungodly.”
I don’t say that “all other patch wearing ‘bikers’” are criminals. I’ve said over and over again on these threads that this isn’t my postion, and I’ll say it again. Most bikers are NOT criminals. However, if they are patched members in a 1% club, then they most assuredly are criminals. If they are prospects in a 1% club, they are, at the very least, conspiring with criminals.
Will the next accusation of "you support criminal outlaws" receive the same from you? Because that one is slung around on a regular bsis.
Sorry, that statute invalidates the defense you are trying to make. I don’t expect you to believe it, but that doesn’t matter, as you are not a judge and don’t have any legal authority in the adjudication of this case.
AMDGetc, I feel very sorry for gullible puppets like you, and even sorrier for those who only pretend to be puppets but who in fact harbor the goal of denigrating the Constitution.
I think you're the former, so I feel less sorry for you.
“You just claimed: “You cannot shoot a person because they shot a dog, if you do, it’s homicide.””
Yes, but it was in context of discussing a specific incident. If you want to ignore the context, then you’re just going off on irrelevant tangents.
Lol, you are the one who brought up “participated”, it has no relevance to my original comment.
“So what’s your explanation for the government not clarifying the charges and providing, as is required, the evidence supporting it?”
The government doesn’t have to cater to the individual demands of conspiracy theorists on internet message boards. The government has presented evidence to satisfy the judges who have presided over the relevant hearings thus far, which is all they are actually required to do.
“So you admit that you just pick and choose stories that fit your preconceived notion.”
Nope, I’ve admitted nothing of the sort. However, I do trust actual witness statements over ramblings of conspiracy bloggers with no direct knowledge of the events, any day of the week.
“So do homeowners.”
A “no bill” on a grand jury is not precedent setting law, buddy.
Just so you know your generic statement was bogus.
So try and be more specific when you make these foolish claims of yours in the future.
“you support criminal outlaws”
This goes back, for me, to the Statue.
IF the RICO-type statute is Constitutional (and again I am no fan of RICO-type statutes) a criminal gang is one that the Statute includes.
Therefore, one who supports a criminal gang despite the meaning and intent of the statute, does support criminal outlaws, UNLESS he also decries the unconstitutionality of the Statute — not merely its application in this case.
Anyway, I can’t be held responsible for what other posters say.
Respectfully and etc.,
I have no more idea of what Boogieman's goal is, than 117 of the so-called criminals arrested and held on million dollar bail for week after week had of prior arrests or convictions -- that is to say, ZIP, zero, nada, nein, zilch. Big fat donut hole. I admit it -- and YOU should admit it, too (the second part, not just the first part).
However, it is a FACT plain to anyone who can read and who has read the Constitution and any number of Boogieman's opinions here on this thread, that he has contempt for the Constitution and that he supports the denigration of God-given rights enumerated therein. That is a FACT.
Deal with it, AMDGetc.
“117 people with ZIP prior criminal histories or even misdemeanor arrest”
This false claim has been repeatedly debunked, but I’ll do it again, just in case any newbies are around.
The origin of this claim is that 117 of the arrested had no criminal CONVICTIONS that a journalist could find IN TEXAS, using whatever method that journalist had available.
Anyone with a brain can see this doesn’t mean they have no criminal histories, because they could very well have been arrested, but not convicted, or convicted outside of Texas, or convicted but the records were not available through whatever source the journalist used. It is also true that any one of those 117 could be guilty of any number of crimes for which they had not been caught. It’s also known to the state police that the Bandidos, who were the larger of the two gangs there that day, specifically was recruiting members without criminal histories, because people with clean records can be valuable assets to a criminal organization.
So, while Finny hyperventilates about this point quite often, she both misconstrues the original claim to suit her purposes, and leaves out details that would undermine the impression she wants to make.
Sigh. I gather that you don't grasp the application of a legal defense, vs. a finding of probable cause.
71.03 only operates to deny a defendant the right to argue innocence of conspiracy, based on absence of commission of the underlying offense. The fact that statutory law denies this defense is irrelevant to deciding whether or not there is probable cause for commission of the underlying offense, or for conspiracy to commit the underlying offense.
Again, the blockquote I provided is not from me, it is from the Texas Tenth Court of Criminal Appeals. The judges hearing that case assert that the affidavit does not recite an allegation (and therefore does not recite probable cause) that the accused committed any of the underlying offenses.
Two of three of the judges found that the affidavit did recite sufficient basis from which to infer conspiracy.
You originally said in a reply to me ...
-- When police witness you participating in a deadly gang fight, that's all the probable cause they need. --
My point is that the police have yet to produce an affidavit showing probable cause that any particular individual participated in a deadly gang fight. The police have not "named names" of the participants, using your definition "took part in the violent gang fight that day."
To your remark @509, "Lol, you are the one who brought up "participated", it has no relevance to my original comment", I refer you to your post, No. 307 in this thread, as well as the short dialog with don-o, where you, in post 321, again refer to participants.
As far as our discussion is concerned, your post 307 is your original comment, at least the first comment in the discussion we've been having.
I uphold the Constitution as my solemn oath. Where do YOU get the “authority” to call me a “puppet” or to judge my intentions othewise? That is a sign of your totalitarian bent, not of mine. I harbor no intent of denigrating our Constitution. I have spent my life in its defense. How dare YOU declare otherwise?
“Sigh. I gather that you don’t grasp the application of a legal defense, vs. a finding of probable cause.”
The police have all the probable cause they need, the judges have already determined that. They’re the authority on the matter, not you buddy, as much as you wish that you were.
“I refer you to your post, No. 307 in this thread, “
Which weren’t the comments you were replying to when you brought it up. I’m sure I could randomly grab words out of your previous posts to try to construct some kind of argument, but that wouldn’t make much sense. I guess it’s what you have to do if you’ve got nothing else.
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.