Posted on 06/03/2015 8:48:50 AM PDT by don-o
What was initially reported as a motorcycle gang shootout that killed nine and wounded 18 to which police heroically responded last month in Waco, TX, at the Twin Peaks restaurant seems a bit more complicated, and bit worse for the cops, than that as further details have been revealed.
This week one of the people arrested at the scene, Matthew Clendennen, filed a lawsuit directly against the officers involved in the incident (Manuel Chavez by name, the others as John and Jane Does) as well as the city.
From that suit filing, in which Mr. Clendennen presents himself as a man with no criminal record, former fireman, small business owner on whom employees depend, and father of three who also depend on his ability to earn income, not to rot in jail. He insists he committed no crime and had no intention of committing any crime when he was arrested while in the Twin Peaks restaurant in the aftermath of the shooting event, and that:
Despite the fact that...Clendennen committed no criminal acts he was arrested at Twin Peaks on or about May 17, 2015 without probable cause and his motorcycle was illegally seized....On or about May 18, 2015, Chavez, aided by [unnamed other police officers], presented a criminal complaint (the “criminal complaint”) against...Clendennen to Justice of the Peace Walter H. "Pete" Peterson (Peterson)....The criminal complaint alleges that Plaintiff Matthew Alan Clendennen committed the capital offense of engaging in organized criminal activity and is attached hereto as Attachment A.
It is believed that Peterson was chosen by Chavez, Does 1-10 and Does 11-20 because he is a former Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper with no formal legal training......the identical criminal complaint used in Plaintiff Matthew Alan Clendennen’s case was used to justify the arrest of more than 100 other individuals and only the names were changed in the various criminal complaints.
The complaint alleges absolutely no individualize probable cause to establish that Plaintiff Matthew Alan Clendennen engaged in organized criminal activity. Moreover, Chavez...failed to inform Peterson that Plaintiff Matthew Alan Clendennen was not a member of the Cossacks nor the Bandidos and that he did not participate in any of the violence occurring at Twin Peaks but instead hid from the violence.
Clendennen is claiming that 170 people on the scene were just rounded up and arrested, in many cases had their motorcycles stolen by police, and were given a uniform $1 million dollar bond with no particular individual reason to believe they had committed any crime at all. He's actually trying to hit not just the city government, but the specific officers who arrested him, with liability for violating his rights. He claims to be at risk of losing both any custody of two of his children and his landscaping business while in jail.
According to this local NBC report, it will be months before those arrested at Twin Peaks get a probable cause hearing. But this week the insanely high bond was reduced for many of them, and some of them started getting out.
There are at least four reasons to wonder if the police account and actions about the motorcycle gang shootout that they allege to have pacified are above reproach:
1) As Clendennen's lawsuit notes, there is insufficient reason to believe that all the 170 arrested even committed any actual crime.
2) The police originally claimed that all those they arrested were members of the two "criminal gangs" most implicated in the deaths, the Bandidos and Cossacks; Associated Press found that not only were they not all members of those specific gangs, but whatever the criminality of the gangs, 115 of the arrested had no criminal records in Texas at least.
3) The police originally claimed over 1,000 weapons were confiscated on site, a number then downgraded to 318; but having a weapon on one's person is neither evidence of having committed nor having planned to commit a crime, but certainly can when announced to the press make some nervous people think, wow, glad the police started opening fire on that crowd!
4) Despite police reports that the fighting and shooting began inside the restaurant and spilled out, closed-circuit footage of the restaurant seen by AP and reports from the restaurateurs to the AP indicate the shooting began outside, which is where the police already were.
The police were already surrounding the restaurant in force, ready for action. Exactly how and why they began firing on the bikers and what happened before then should not necessarily be trusted merely from their mouths. They still have not officially announced how many of the dead or wounded were shot by police themselves.
I agree with you, yet concerning it,
“However, there are several aspects of what we DO know that can be argued on the merits, related to due process of law, which many of us see as being trampled on.”
I have not seen anything presented which addresses these issues other than claims.
Eg, no probable cause.
How can any of us know if there was or wasn’t?
And that applies for 170 people or so.
And reasonable people can differ on what constitutes probable cause.
Courts then decide.
Etc...
The courts have ruled on what is and what is not probable cause. I'll have to continue with this later - errands to accomplish.
BINGO! We have a Winner!
The "official" BATF Twitter account, at one point in the past 2 weeks. stated that they were at the site in Waco. Now that twitter account is vanished. And I sent an article to @WacoPolice about militarization of the police and that article disappeared from the original source website within hours. (it is still on the web elsewhere and in Google Cache). Yep there is an outside agenda, hope the Texas Rangers helping in Waco now expose all the bastards.
It is certainly an idea we need to keep in the back of our minds when contemplating exactly what happened in Waco.
What the Cops may have taught them with this incident, is to bring their own snipers for the next one.
By abusing their authority, I think they just made future law enforcement harder. Now people who might have otherwise trusted the cops, will wonder if an encounter with them will be fatal.
No part of this is good.
When you have to invent a strawman like that, you have an extremely weak position.
I don’t recall seeing anyone post that there were no gang members involved in any fight at all. So you are arguing against a position that nobody here has put forth.
What has been stated is that there was at most ten or twenty people out of over a hundred and seventy involved in any brawl that occurred and that the undercover officer seen in the photographs may have incited said brawl...which if incited by wearing false colors would still be illegal activity on the part of whatever gang members may have joined in.
In no way does said brawl justify shooting or arresting any non-participants.
If one biker pulled a weapon, and I am confident one did, what if he was threatened for his life by another biker and he had a concealed weapons permit? Not saying that is what happened, but it is possible.
I believe the rumour that an undercover agent was called on colors he was wearing by ones who knew he was phoney. A scuffle and name calling began, he pulled his weapon and badge and commotion to the front door began. In the open officers see an undercover agent in danger and shoot. End of discussion. But is it? What about innocent bystanders?
Headshake.
This is not a “clean” operation. I do not believe 9 deaths and 18 gunshot injuries are warranted by what was going on that day.
Will the full extent of the lies be exposed? That depends. I think we should put pressure on public officials to see to it that happens. The TRUTH is powerful and not always on the side of Law Enforcement. Especially Fed Agencies. I trust them NOT.
This is incoherent and illiterate. It also wants us to accept prima facie statements made concerning innocence which is what is otherwise objected to if the argument is prima facie acceptance of guilt.
I can't tell if it's illiterate but it's definitely incoherent. It seems like ifinnegan is trying to Dazzle us with brilliance.
The core question is: Why is the bail set so high?
I agree. All killed by police bullets.
Very likely fact.
CNN has put the release of William and Morgan English in their cycle.
Do you know that an armed man and an unarmed man were dispached? I don’t know that.
Two armed men with innocent bystanders? No time for questions, they both put themselves into a bad situation. The unarmed bystanders must take priority.
Discussion of JP who set the one million buck bonds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296340/posts
Two of the bad actors are Sgt. Swanton who can’t keep his story straight and Judge Peterson who issued million dollar bonds merely “to send a message.”
Here’s another parallel.
“While in Special Operations Swanton was also involved in the aftermath at Mount Carmel and was awarded the Police Commendation bar along with his other teammates for their involvement.”
http://www.nicp.net/?page_id=45
4. Two plus weeks later and they haven't released the ballistics report. It's way too late in the game if many or any were killed by bikers. We'll never know if any guns were dropped by LE as cover. No, I don't hate LEOs. I have Texas LEOs in the family and even they are questioning this.
That was from a couple years ago when SWAT, with those vehicles, drones and helicopters raided a small organic country farm, The Garden of Eden, outside Dallas, TX. It is owned by some hippy type folk. Eight were manhandled and handcuffed over some supposed marijuana that turned out to be okra plants and firewood not stacked according to code. The only arrest was one guy over traffic violations. Dallas taxpayers were out a boatload of $$$$$$$ over nothing. LE is getting way out of control.
http://www.intothegardenofeden.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&Itemid=382
Rolling Stone and BuzzFeed reporter, Michael Hastings, who thought the FBI was targeting him.
Thanks for keeping this topic alive.
“In no way does said brawl justify shooting or arresting any non-participants”
Of course not.
I do not see how your post relates to anything I posted.
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.