Replies

Last time I checked, it was okay to have an opinion on here.

Yep.

While I think the prosecution will have to make their case and the defendants deserve due process...

Yep.

... I would personally choose NOT to participate in an activity set up by the Bandido’s.

Who said the Bandidos set this up? This was supposed to be a COC&I meeting. While some clubs will be more heavily represented in an organization like COC&I, that doesn't mean the COC&I "belongs" to any particular club. The purpose of organizations like the COC&I is to deal with legislative issues, coordinate schedules for runs to help prevent scheduling conflicts, and the like.

This is not an occasion for violence, but rather one to set aside differences, should such exist, for the purpose of addressing problems which are common to all members of the motorcycling community, patch holders and independents alike.

If you wish to avoid any place a member of the Bandidos shows up, you may well end up avoiding most bike shops, bars, etc., at least in areas where they are abundant. By all means, avoid Sturgis and Daytona.

The more clubs you deem to be "criminal gangs" as some here characterize them, the more places you will avoid, and at some point you might as well stay home and polish it.

The people of Waco and the courts there set the rules for their own community - not us (unless you are a citizen there)...

We aren't talking about how tall your grass is, or which side of the street has parking, there, but fundamental rights of the accused.

Waco can set its rules, but there is a common framework within which those rules must fall, namely the US Constitution, as amended.

...unless there is a violation of civil rights at which point a good attorney will get a payday for his/her client and the Fed courts become involved.

Provided the client isn't dead, provided the Grand Jury isn't stacked, and provided that things are, indeed, conducted squarely.

All too often, if they have not been, that big "payday" (not to mention the loss of employment for some people) is reason enough to attempt to cover up any misdeeds.

Presidents have tried this with mixed success, culminating in results so disparate as "I am not a crook" to "There is no evidence which exists" and "I did not have sex with that woman".

Compared to that arena, Waco is a small pond, and pumping it out even a little will leave a lot of fish high and dry.

I have never maintained that all the bikers arrested are innocent.

I have maintained that there are some serious irregularities in the way things have proceeded down there:

That video which justifies police action seldom sits for more than 24 hours before being released to the public. Yet virtually all video from any source of the incident has been sequestered (assuming it has not been wiped or altered), whether it be from cell phones, business cameras, or the ones the police set up to record the proceedings, whether dash cams, body cams, or those mounted on poles in anticipation of the event.

I find it odd that the forces (yes, plural City, county, Texas, and Federal agencies including the BATFE) present even brought their lawyers with them, even though no violence had ocurred.

I find it odd that though dozens of COC&I meetings have been held where there were no problems, this particular one was singled out for intensive LEO treatment, that the police arrived and even put up cameras in advance, including Feds, which take some planning and coordination (or if a criminal event, a conspiracy), something which is not necessary if someone sees a poster and decides to take in the meeting as an excuse to take a ride (and maybe grab a bite to eat served by well-endowed waitresses). Yet the chance rider is more likely to have spent their summer sitting in jail on $1,000,000.00 bond than any of the former, charged with 'conspiracy'.

If the only proof required for conspiracy is the results, and not evidence of malice and forethought, then the US Congress should be so summarily sequestered. The proportion of honest people is likely much higher among those arrested at Waco.

This is America - if you want to wear leather and ride a Harley you should be able to do so without fear no matter where you are.

Everywhere I have ridden (in 40 years, US and Canada), the only things I have feared were idiot drivers and heavy handed police. I am no "outlaw", and am an independent (no club affiliation).

If you ride (whatever marque) I recommend leather.

It is protective clothing, far more than a 'fashion statement'. No other fabric will resist abrasion sliding down pavement as well. Denim has pathetic performance, giving out in 4 feet or less, and only some Kevlar weaves come anywhere close to leather.

Black is the basic color such protective equipment comes in, although you can get any color you want if you want to spend enough. Considering a decent jacket, pair of leather pants or chaps, boots, and gloves and goggles can set you back the better part of $1000.00 in basic black, most people don't bother to double that as a fashion statement (though some do).

But I reiterate, that the only people I have had to fear have been idiot drivers (which abound), and overzealous LEOs pumped up on stories of "evil bikers" dealing with the adrenaline letdown of having pulled over someone who doesn't even drink and hasn't had so much as a speeding ticket in over 20 years. Oddly enough, that convinces some that you 'must be up to something', because you are so well behaved.

Granted, there are some nasty fellows who ride motorcycles, but Ted Bundy drove a car. Maybe that justifies treating car drivers as heinous serial killers.

Which takes us back to Waco, where 177 people were arrested, many with no previous criminal record in Texas, from all sorts of backgrounds, and all charged with identical charges related to an incident which appeared to be spontaneous, even if it happened at a scheduled event which was open to all.

Take high tensions between a couple of groups of people who have had problems in the past, stir in a heavy LEO presence including likely informants and perhaps agents provocateur, and what could possibly go wrong?

Even so, those were not the only groups there, and there were individuals as well. Using the phrase 'associated with' just means they were in the same area and maybe spoke to each other.

Over one hundred days later, there are no ballistics results? How long does it take to weigh and caliper bullets/fragments, determine jacket material, core material, and determine at least in some cases the type of firearm the projectile was expelled from (if not the maker and source of the ammo)?

After all, supposedly all the weapons are available, and all the cartridge cases (unless someone is holding out).

There may be a lot of pieces in the puzzle, but unless someone is tampering with evidence, they should all be in the box.

Autopsy reports are somewhat vague on who hit who with what weapon, and those are just the deceased. (In all fairness, the ME doesn't do ballistics, just documents the results and recovers available evidence).

Why is the Grand Jury headed up by someone who is in a likely conflict of interest?

Recusal cures that, but in the system in use in Waco, by then the cronies will have been picked and seated. Selection of the remaining members of the Grand Jury is not a random process.

There are too many irregularities for me to deal with in one sitting.

While there are those who conveniently gloss those irregularities over with oft repeated posts of what amounts to "They're all evil criminals, so who cares?", I would maintain that all Americans should care whether there is corruption in the judicial process, and particularly whether the presumption of innocence is maintained.

Especially when there have been deaths by unknown hands, and some of those who fired their weapons have every reason to wish to appear justified--a situation which causes conflict of interest when the Grand Jury has a member of the Law Enforcement community selected as the head.

In their wisdom, the Founders sought a legal system which guarded the Rights of the accused, which held those charged with enforcing the law to a higher standard of proof beyond unreasonable doubt, but which also safeguarded the People (whomever they were) from being harassed out of house and home and all they possess with frivolous charges. The idea was to prevent the abuse of power for which opportunity abounds in a legal system.

In this instance, without prejudice, it appears that power may be being abused.