“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.
Ummm, no, go to my post (14), which you replied to at 307, and follow the "View Replies" links.
The thread goes from my 14, to your 307 to my 331, to your 360, to my 467, to your 470, to my 491, etc. There is a short concurrent thread, started by me at 476 with a question about distinguishing between "attended" and "participated." Anybody can follow that thread too.
The fact that you can't keep track of the conversation (understandable, in that you have a number going on at the same time) does not make my quoting of you "random." All of the discussion, including the subthread beginning at my 476, revolves around your remark at 307, and my rebuttal to your remark at 307.
The conversation would have been brief if you'd earlier noticed the distinction between "commit" and "conspire," and didn't craft a few straw men.
You said "When police witness you participating in a deadly gang fight, that's all the probable cause they need." My rebuttal is that according to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals, the affidavit in support of arrest does not recite probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight.
They may have probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight, but they didn't reduce it to writing in the cooking cutter affidavit. The only thing the cookie cutter affidavit is good for is an allegation of conspiracy, and it's only good for that because the Texas Courts don't want to open a big can of worms.