Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
“I would like to know why DPS is issuing concealed permits to people who are known members of “designated gangs”? “
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172
Socipathic child is more like it. Void of emotion. One in 25 people, it's more common than most realize.
“even though you appear to imply that by paying the Bandidos for “protection” (my shorthand), one becomes part of a criminal gang.”
I think that was just his opinion thrown in, not his take on the legal position of the gangsters.
I am happy to reply. I married a teacher. One of the biggest bones of contention for us prior to our marriage was the fact that she paid union dues to a liberal organization that I could not disagree with more - the teachers union. I could not stomach her having wages garnished that went straight to the pocket of people who promote things I disagree with.
I won the day on that one and she now agrees with me. As much as possible, I believe I should try to vote with my wallet. It’s not possible to get it all right, but I feel better about trying.
I can’t speak directly to this, but I understand that the 1% clubs claim territory and demand payment from other “lesser” clubs to ride the roads and wear colors. Therefore, one could conclude (if that is true) that those making payment of any kind (or size)are supporting the 1% crowd. That is just the way I see it after thinking it over. I don’t see what gives any group the right to demand tribute in order to ride on public roads or wear whatever you want. The government is bad enough, but at least they built the roads and have to maintain them.
I even threatened to join legal action against a prior employer that demanded payment to the United Way because I disagree with some of what they support (not all of it). If anything, my opinion in this is something that I have practiced.
How many posts you have here, TG?
You getting paid per post?
Do I have to keep telling FReeper's you are a liar?
You know you are...I know you are.
Do I have to keep pointing that out? I can cut and paste you lying....over and over again.
Say...TG, do you give money to FR? Have you ever?
Regular?
Tell the truth now....
Several have stated that Twin Peaks will go down as a turning point in history.
I don’t see it as being that big but I think they have it backwards.
Twin Peaks marks the beginning of the public awareness of the extortion and violence related to present day ‘motorcycle clubs’.
Communities will be subject to more scrutiny when they buddy up with gangsters at toy runs or park restorations.
Restaurants will take more care about unrestricted biker meetings.
‘Colors not allowed’ may come to more communities.
“How many posts you have here, TG?”
I don’t know. Don usually posts updates but hasn’t for awhile.
“You getting paid per post?”
LOL! I answered that a few weeks ago.
Just showing up is an act in furtherance. The problem I see for the prosecution is establish advance agreement. many of the weapons were in cars. The weapons on some of the arrested were nothing more than penknives.
-- Again, damned if they do and damned if they don't. --
That's the nature of the gig. And here we are, and I'll be damned if the cops aren't given blessings and attaboys. So, they aren't damned if they don't, at least not by you.
-- Don't forget they can appeal [the finding of probable cause] to the next level before taking it to the Federal courts. --
Ummm, no, they can't. A finding of probable cause is not reviewable. Next step is up to the DA. He can press for an indictment, or not. If he does, and the grand jury agrees, the accused MUST stand trial, and that is necessarily in a Texas court.
-- ... there are plenty of cases dismissed every day for lack of [probable cause] --
I'd like a source for that, because I think it isn't true. Or at least is tends to overstate the rate of unlawful arrest. I agree that unlawful arrest is common, usually the cops just release the accused before there is ever a case before a judge.
-- it does not change what I said - that we (the public) have not seen most of the evidence that would be presented at trial. --
What you said, that I replied to, was exactly this: "I know that we will never see all the evidence the jury does at trial ..." (emphasis mine). Now you are changing your statement, while claiming to not change it. Hmm.
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 expect stuff like this to come out in the trial or aftermath. Flying J would have video of the parking lot.
You see, the question of whether those paying tribute agree with it or not, is not even asked. If they pay, they agree, that's the logic. It's actually a bit stronger in that the logic is "if they pay, then they conspire to commit mayhem."
“The problem I see for the prosecution is establish advance agreement. many of the weapons were in cars. The weapons on some of the arrested were nothing more than penknives.”
Carrying weapons in cars is common for the gangs. If they have made previous rides where long guns were carried in cars to meetings a case can be made that they should have know about weapons in the cars.
Over a hundred and fifty guns were recovered. Some may have only had pen knives but I really do not consider that to be typical but find it would be very UNtypical of those at Twin Peaks.
Do you donate to FR? Monthly? Have you ever?
One wonders why you sit at your PC...all day more than 12 hrs a day,,and post hundreds of posts related to this subject, TG. Do you not have a life?
Besides that...now and again you lie your ass off. I know it and you know..And I can prove it.
You are what you are TG....just keep on being you.
I don’t know Texas law so you may be right that it is not subject to further review, but again, 160 year old court and 2 to 1 decision to uphold probable cause by a system put in place by the voters.
We don’t have to agree on “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” I’m fine with that.
There are plenty of cases dismissed for lack of probable cause in affidavits or skimpy investigations and the cops/courts don’t always get it right. At the end of the day though there is the right to a trial and the trial results can be reviewed ad nauseum all the way to the Supreme Court so it’s very difficult to say the process (albeit not perfect) ends up with a pretty fair result.
I’m not sure what you meant on the last part as I was agreeing with you that the jury does not see everything in a trial. No beef here and I don’t feel like I changed anything, but I am not here to split hairs. There are enough split hairs on this thread to make a wig (i.e. Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd - who cares?).
Period.
“I expect stuff like this to come out in the trial or aftermath. Flying J would have video of the parking lot.”
Naw. A bunch of smart bikers would never be caught on video ...
should say it’s difficult to say the process does not result in a fair result.....
I think OO is beginning to like me!
I am the only one he posts to!
“One wonders why you sit at your PC...all day more than 12 hrs a day,,and post hundreds of posts related to this subject, TG. Do you not have a life?”
One might wonder why I am the only one you post to.
Dozens of posts, day after day.
Do you donate to FR?
Monthly?
Have you ever?
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.