Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
I understand that you reject the hypothetical, that anybody "innocent" was arrested. But again, from the words you use, my conclusion is that you think arrest of innocent people (that is, lack of probable cause) is justified, because the innocent people have trial.
Very simple, grasshopper.
People are not stationary objects. They move around. If someone is a convicted axe murderer in Georgia, they are a convicted ax murderer wherever they go. By limiting the criminal history search to only Texas, you are only going to find criminal history in Texas. You can bet LE and courts are going to be interested in “outside” criminal history information on the bikers.
Public records databases (non-law enforcement) of the type used by individuals like reporters are notoriously incomplete, (and contain various errors that would be too time consuming to explain here).
Law enforcement databases are more complete. However, no database is complete.
There are 254 counties in Texas. As I explained on another thread, up until about 10 years ago, many law enforcement agencies/courts did not properly report arrests/convictions to Texas DPS.
Importantly, DPS is the primary source for “public” criminal history records, including and especially conviction records of the type sold by public records database vendors which are used by individuals like newspaper reporters.
Gator also mentioned the use of “aliases”. There is also a problem with searching histories on people with common names, and with people with very uncommon names - name variations.
Quick searches of public records databases will not find a lot of criminal history that is out there. That is all I am saying. I am not trying to insult the AP report.
Read this article. It will help you understand.
http://www.brbpub.com/articles/dps_criminal.pdf
Gator rubs a lot of us wrong, but he is right on this particular issue.
What is this "did nothing?" All of the arrested conspired, according to the police. Conspiracy takes place in advance. The police have a right to arrest them. The accused can claim harassment all they want, they will anyway, so that's no excuse to sit on your thumbs and wait for a shootout that endangers the public.
-- As I said before, there was clearly probable cause according to the standards of the Waco court and the reviews since by the courts. --
Not perfectly clear. The chief judge of the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals doesn't see probable cause in the affidavits. But, he was only one out of three judges on that panel. The courts have to find probable cause no matter what. Otherwise they tee up the civil rights lawsuits. By finding probable cause (even if it isn't there), the bikers who sue the state have a tougher case against the state.
-- I know that we will never see all the evidence the jury does at trial ... --
All the evidence the jury sees is public. Anybody who wants to see it, can and will see it, all of it. In fact, juries usually see LESS evidence than the general public, because evidence is often excluded from trial, for various reasons.
| How about the survivability of tyrants during the transition of low intensity conflict to open insurrection dominated by 4GW methodologies? I make the assumption that it may in some ways present challenges of both readiness and conscience. But that's the way the world works. Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. |
 |
Interesting tidbit.
A large group of Cossacks were reported at the Flying J after the shooting started.
It was reported that they were ‘ready to go’ with rifles and shotguns on their backs.
Apparently they had gotten word of the shooting and had retrieved the long guns from their ‘weapon couriers’.
I understand that you reject the hypothetical, that anybody “innocent” was arrested. But again, from the words you use, my conclusion is that you think arrest of innocent people (that is, lack of probable cause) is justified, because the innocent people have trial.
Again, without having all the facts we can only assume that the court in Waco, having been established around 1850, has had over 160 years of practice to get probable cause correct. On top of that, they are subject to oversight by the Texas Judiciary as well as the Federal courts. They said there was probable cause so I will assume there are plenty of legal minds far more experienced than ours that have agreed. I am not sure how we can dispute this - it’s public record.
Ultimately, the people of Texas made these laws through their own legislature.
I went back and read several of your posts to Cboldt.
I am not sure where he is coming from in concluding that you think arrest of innocent people with probable cause is justified.
Perhaps it would help if Cbolt would cite examples that lead him to that conclusion.
“Attendance at church is not a duty of any American and in no way demonstrative of familial care. And titties are good. What’s your point?”
Ogling titties on a Sunday morning while the ol’ lady is home with the kids is demonstrative!
“The police have a right to arrest them.”
And several had active felony warrants when they arrived.
You can bet even more had active misdemeanor warrants.
Last I heard at least one urban Texas county had 1/2 million active traffic warrants.
You can also bet DPS, ATF and others have foot-long dossiers on some of the “bad” bikers, and could probably punch their cards at will for a whole variety of offenses.
Pole cameras, physical surveillance of the parking lot weeks before, running license plates, busting the lookout parked in another part of the parking lot ..... all indicative of a long term project. In all likelihood, some related interceptions of various types of communications.
In short, I suspect they knew who had been there, and knew who was coming. We shall see.
A couple of arrests of those with outstanding warrants as they pulled into the parking lot and the problem would have almost certainly have been avoided.
I would like to know why DPS is issuing concealed permits to people who are known members of “designated gangs”? Has DPS considered merging their gang member database with their concealed permit holder database? Perhaps they should?
“What is this “did nothing?” All of the arrested conspired, according to the police. Conspiracy takes place in advance. The police have a right to arrest them. The accused can claim harassment all they want, they will anyway, so that’s no excuse to sit on your thumbs and wait for a shootout that endangers the public.”
Mere presence is not conspiracy - there has to be an act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy such as assault or murder in this case. At that point, the presence of all those weapons may no longer be a civil right, but instead becomes problematic for the defense. If the cops had been patting everyone down who entered the parking lot wearing colors there would have been howls all over. Again, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
“Not perfectly clear (probable cause). The chief judge of the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals doesn’t see probable cause in the affidavits. But, he was only one out of three judges on that panel. The courts have to find probable cause no matter what. Otherwise they tee up the civil rights lawsuits. By finding probable cause (even if it isn’t there), the bikers who sue the state have a tougher case against the state.”
Well, it was close, but according to the law 2 Judges to 1 and the two carry the day. Don’t forget they can appeal to the next level before taking it to the Federal courts. The courts don’t have to find probable cause as you allege and there are plenty of cases dismissed every day for lack of it. I can’t speak to how Judges protect the state and while that has never been my perception, you could be right. However, the voters in Texas still have ultimate say over the state courts.
“All the evidence the jury sees is public. Anybody who wants to see it, can and will see it, all of it. In fact, juries usually see LESS evidence than the general public, because evidence is often excluded from trial, for various reasons.”
Correct on all counts. However, it does not change what I said - that we (the public) have not seen most of the evidence that would be presented at trial. Furthermore, it has been my experience that the courts in general try to hide this evidence from view prior to trial in order to protect the process from public opinion or editorials influencing a jury. You can bet there is incriminatory and exculpatory information not known to us. Will see how it washes out and it will be interesting.
Sorry to appear to be picking on you, and you don't need to reply to any of it - meaning I'm not going to take a lack of response negatively against you. But this is another thought that you haven't fleshed out - even though you appear to imply that by paying the Bandidos for "protection" (my shorthand), one becomes part of a criminal gang.
I have a general problem with that, which varies on the size of the protection racket dues. At ten bucks a month, I'd be hard pressed to see the payment as some sort of endorsement of criminality, at least without more evidence. Not that payment size makes a difference, just that sometimes the attachment to the criminal element is so tenuous that it doesn't make sense to attach criminal taint to the person paying the protection money.
I also have a more specific problem, even if they are considered part of a criminal gang by dint of paying protection money. The charge is that each of these individual people agreed ahead of time to rumble (or somehow facilitate a rumble). This is the crime that is alleged, agreement ahead of time, to rumble (murder, capital murder, aggravated assault).
In this case we possibly have both elements of doubt. Those who pay small protection money and simultaneously become so enmeshed in the criminal enterprise that they conspire to maim and kill. I put the probability of that, considering human nature, at approximately zero.
-- I have not seen anything that makes me believe that the cops grabbed up innocent citizens eating in the restaurant despite all the stories to the contrary. --
Another way of putting that is that you believe 177 people conspired to rumble - not necessarily that day, or in that place, but conspire they did.
Another fact that makes me doubt this is a conspiracy is the number of alleged conspirators! Be that as it may, I can understand your shifting the burden of proof to those arrested. That's pretty common, against individuals who can be viewed as part of a dangerous and/or unsavory group.
Attendance at church is not a duty of any American and in no way demonstrative of familial care. And titties are good. What’s your point?
I am not sure if I need to ask for forgiveness, but you sir, have won the internet. That was funny.
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.