Posted on 11/02/2017 4:57:57 AM PDT by Elderberry
The issue that has torn this city’s public safety services in two once again figured in a major felony case.
Disclosure of confidential informants is so repugnant to police and fire department officials they will sacrifice entire blocks of prosecution in order to preserve the sacrosanct status of snitches.
The policy is so ingrained it has caused a complete shakeup in the structure of upper leadership – the replacement of the Chiefs of Police and Fire Departments – and the ouster of seasoned investigators who won’t budge on the issue, one way or the other.
All that bitter history came crashing down on Wednesday during a conference in the Judge’s chambers of the 54th Criminal District Court when the Honorable Matt Johnson made a decision that rocked and shocked the law enforcement and biker communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at radiolegendary.com ...
You are not well. It’s best if I do nothing to cause any further bouts of your rage.
My former FReep name was RedlegO3. Artillerymen will understand it. Haven’t used it here in more than 10 years.
And what does that mean?. Nothing.
If you don’t understand that you need professional help for your anger management, go get it at least for your family’s sake. You are very close to the edge. We don’t need another Sutherland.
"but don’t worry, everyone here understands what they... and you... are.
And just what are you inferring that I and "everyone" else here is? Can't wait for this answer.
Answer my question please. I don't want to hear anything about "him". I want you to tell me what you were referring to when you said that "everyone here understands what they are".
What do I think you are? I think that you and anyone here are smart, loyal, freedom loving, law abiding Americans, smart enough to read his endless writings, his accusations, his admitted hate for someone who disagrees with him, his delusion that because I don’t agree with his support of drug-dealing motorcycle gang thug murderers that therefore I am some federal agent, his delusions that I am some banned FReeper, etc, realizes that he may well be a very disturbed person and a danger to others.
If you disagree, fine. I respect you opinion.
Personally, I think he is dangerous enough that I will not reply to any further messages of his, as his anger management control is hanging by a very thin thread. We just saw in Sutherland what happens when some very angry people have a total psychotic break, and I don’t want to be any part of it if he breaks.
I hope he doesn’t, but I will be no part of any further stimulus of him. I hope that explains my position for you.
Have a good week.
Respectfully
Finally, a name. It seems vaguely familiar, rustling up partial memory of it that includes some freeper (other than myself) having expressed their own loathing of the personality associated with it. I think too that at one point that account may well have been banned. Yet I must confess that it is somewhat unfair for myself to mention this, for as of right now I cannot establish it with certainty. I've not yet attempted any search using the name as search term, nor can I recall what freeper other than myself had expressed their loathing for whomever it was that had used a freeper handle like that. What dim memory of that freepname that you have now (finally!) supplied that I have, is predicted on the dim recollection of that name being mentioned in reference to being loathed and despised more than anyone that other freeper had ever encountered, on FR.
Would you recall who that other freeper is that loathed you so intensely ? I have a good memory -- although I must say it's far less than complete (not complete enough to recall who made the mention) and sometimes short. Still, in this instance, it's long enough to get a whiff of a guy who called himself a 'redleg' but not to be confused with the one who called himself something like: RedLeg Duke, and maybe yet another different account using the term "redleg" within the name.
I would have said:
but for the time being I'll accept that you once were known as Redleg03.
This, again? It's become comical, but sad, too.
From whom would I seek such [ahem] "help" as you more than suggest I must? Would it be from the likes of your unethical imaginary women friend (allegedly a psychiatrist) who -- if we were to believe what you had to say -- had ventured diagnosis of an unknown to herself 'subject' (that would me) from what had been handed to herself, printed off the internet on one sheet of paper? Should I find and consult with a 'quack' doctor such as your imaginary friend?
If it seems to you that I'm pissed off (at you) perhaps you may consider there could be other reasons myself be angry with you? yOu know, like it's because you indeed ARE many of those foul and nasty deceitful things I have identified you as being? Just maybe?
I would ask rhetorically, if there was some form of "professional help" available to be offered to pathological liars such as yourself, but as the joke goes -- the light bulb has to want to change. Maybe you would like to change?
If so, then I think it could be done without paying loads of $$$ to counselors, and advisors, and short of yourself shooting your own self in the head (which I do not recommend as 'cure' for the 'sin problem' widely suffered by many sinners across the world) there are less grievous ways to unburden one's self. In this regard it could be quite simple. Even hillbilly HeeHaw simple. "Doctor --- It hurts when I do this" [moves arm at elbow, but in your case --- falls back to the same old lies that have already been shown to be falsehood]. Doctor says, "Well, don't do that..." ".
Just stop lying, and the pain and swelling (of your narcissism) will subside.
Oh puh-leaze!. Even just before news broke of that horrific occurrence, had I not already pointed out to you, that if I were indeed "near to" some edge as that militant atheist tumbled over, taking with himself many other lives, your own use of the "imaginary" friend who alleged diagnosed myself as beyond hope, drug and drink addled brain-damaged, could possibly have served to make the entire matter worse?
As in -- if I actually were some kind of "close to the edge" as you say (instead of all that junk being mere internet forum posturing not unlike the juvenile type one may come across in the likes of a youtube discussion thread) than myself confronting your very own egotistical pig-headedness, and over-the-internet psychological evaluation could have pressured that hypothetical me into doing something rash.
As it is, I'm not going to do any such thing, but could be interested in kicking your lying backside (and the topside, where the lies come from) dealing out to you the sort of corporeal punishment that you so richly deserve. For that I am not "insane", just a bit wee-wee'd up -- right at you. Want to try me? I'd suggest that, if we ever meet -- don't_even_smirk in my direction. That could turn out to be a big mistake.
In this instance, what's going on here is merely disagreement and some amount of acrimony being posted on an internet forum. Yet I do tire (and admittedly have become quite angry with you, my FRiend) of having my own motivations characterized first as a "this" then a yet other "that" when all along they've been nothing of the sort -- as I have repeatedly taken pains to explain.
But then too, that's part of what you have seemed to want me to do -- to defend myself, to explain things, so that you could somehow complain that I did! You are f'n impossible. Maybe you should do the world a favor and just go ahead and blow yourself away? You've been shamed on the internet. All attempts for you to have done that to somebody else have backfired. You should just end it all. I do hope that here it is recognized that I am speaking facetiously about anyone committing suicide over some internet discussion thread. It should be understood from the context the intent was to ridicule the possibility in order to subdue rational possibility for it. somewhat interestingly here... it's come to mind that I may have just told a True Lie (while being facetious). I'm so honest -- even my lies are truthful? lol! But not Strac6's lies, oh, no -- his lies are still just little old juvenile-grade forum tactic posturings. Seriesly. :)
Will you ever get around to addressing what I'd put before you in post #86? I doubt that you would, for it would mean you may would need to make agreement with me over what more precisely our fundamental disagreements have been about. That would result in your having to admit that your repeated "attributing of motives" regarding myself have been far off the marks -- as was similarly your insistence that all those whom were indicted were equably culpable for the deaths of those who died at the Twin Peaks, in Waco.
The same subject will come up again, is my guess. And you'll play the same games of avoidance and accusation. I am certain of that for I've become well acquainted with your repertoire. It was you that began with the accusations, beginning with the same stinking garbage that Princess Puddles was dishing out, right and left. You liked that stuff, -- saw you could get a rise out of people. That much is obvious.
Careful how you words things on future threads, Strac6. I'll be watching, and waiting for opportunity to pounce. Again, you'll undoubtedly invoke some reason, some excuse for yourself not needing to deal with the fact that you're just a bit wrong about the laws. Waving around citation of code chapter number won't cut the mustard. Labeling me "jail house lawyer" and other things won't work either. Calling me "crazy" will only end up providing me further opportunity to make you look like an ass, and a fool. We've been through a long series of reasons for why you will not face facts. Whenever those crucial facts are presented to you, your replies have been always some kind of dodge. Most often it has been form of "wall of insults" that you post to me. That type of thing invoked similar to be sent back at you, but with more of a point, and more truthfully, even if it may still be you that you are associated with FedGov alphabet agency of some flavor. What's not deniable is that in the very least, you appear to be part of the GOPe that more than a few here on FR truly despise.
In your responses to me over many threads, we've gone from I'm allegedly a "jailhouse lawyer" all the way through "druggie" and "supporter of criminals!" to now -- 'he's too crazy for me to talk to!' sort of thing.
One excuse after another for avoiding questions which honest answers, for those, once said out loud would be cause for Strac6 to need retract statements he has made, admitting he'd been wrong all along on a central crucial point. That point (again I remind for I think I must -- Strac6's memory being demonstrably piss-poor as it is) being underlined in post #86.
If you do choose to form any reply to this yet additional prompting, please do use #86 as from where you would do so.
Anything else (save for acknowledgment of the contents of #99) and I'll not hold back, but as cruelly I could manage, continue to push you towards going over an edge, continuing with serving right back at you whatever psychological head-tripping games you think you've got going on. Although narcissists such as yourself erect elaborate defense mechanisms to prevent that from happening, your own brains could end up splattered, by and under your very own hand if you keep playing games -- not only here on FR, but elsewhere across spectrum of your very life -- once realization of what you truly are sinks in. The sight of it will horrify. I've seen some of those defense mechanisms which you have made and try to keep polished demonstrated for those who eye for such things be displayed right here on the pages of FR. I am here to destroy those falsehoods.
Think about it. Repenting is easier, would be easier. Just -- stop lying. That's a good place to start.
"Repent" doesn't have to mean you have to hate yourself for being guilty as sin of sinning. It can mean -- turn around MARCH in the opposite direction. Think you could manage that, soldier?
What a dodge. Yet more wormy chicken-droppings excuse making for not taking responsibility for your own words and actions...avoidance of addressing anything and everything that could lead to yourself needing apologize, and admit you were wrong -- even on things that do not personally concern yourself.
Concern yourself, other than your own pride of "knowledge" which you like to think you possess, but others not in your 'gang' do not and/or simply could not understand as well as yourself due to yourself being ranked at high-up and moderately rarefied level? You've been on photo Safari to Africa with Ben Carson, and are a sophisticated world-traveled hot-shot DC lawyer in GOP circles. Right? Freepers -- some of them, anyhow -- the ones who may disagree with you, are just so much trailer-trash. Right? They must be )cough-cough( Bottom Line --if they disagree with you. no further discussion or examination required, and you'll insult to the death anyone who dares say otherwise, thus proving in that way that any argument you may make is unquestionably superior.
Let me ask you this -- if you came across someone who exhibited those [ahem] qualities as I've just now sketched as being your own, what would you think of them? Would you not recognize straightaway that they were an insufferable egotistical prick?
You say that you will no longer reply to me, but what of myself allegedly owing apology to Carson, and Steele (that I would need to submit to them using yourself as proxy)? -- LOL!
Have you contacted them yet? If not, then why not, unless the whole thing had been nothing but debate tactic ruse for whatever parts of the 'taking umbrage' performance where not predicated on your own lack of understanding?
Did you read any of a recent article of Steele's that I'd linked to in #99?
I doubt you could much understand what he was writing about, save only for yourself understand on shallow, superficial levels (which you would, in your own pride of self-image think grasped significance of all).
You should not have invoked that particular man's name to the effort you had made to hold up old-time tribalism now gone über-PC "shame! - shame!" charge against myself for allegedly having used racist terms.
Yourself having done so (with context of Steele's writings, though unstated, still there in the background) was the exact sort of thing I was talking about, when in usage of 'magic word' vernacular, I remarked to you regarding the forum tactic of calling me "racist" that you went for as excuse for you to deflect questions directed to yourself, then straightaway accussed me of deflecting questions! ;
I realize the above is a stylized, double-reverse kind of end-around approach to pointing out the very things you are doing to your own argumentative. Specially regarding the charge of "racism" that you tried to use against me. The stylization serves to help remind what I was conveying, was that the things you choose to in attempts to discredit myself turn out to nuke (in other words- destroy) the very arguments you keep attempting, one after another, at each next effort on your own part to somehow put what I'm trying to get across to you under quarantine.
Please get professional help. If not for yourself, for those around you.
Please get professional help. If not for yourself, for the sake of those around you.
Correction:
Please get professional help. If not for yourself, for the sake of those around you.
If it's such a dang blasted emer-gency, have you imaginary friend create a FR account, get in touch with me in that way, providing to myself some way that what you lack could be verified she had.
N'om wut'm sayn dawg?
In the meantime, since you say you're such a hot-shot lawyer, keep looking 'till you find the case law precedents that verify the understanding (which is at root of all misunderstanding and disagreement between you and I) of Texas law as I mentioned to you in post #86 but which you ran from like a scalded dog dawg.
When I drop 'em like a bomb right in the middle of one of your next performances on Twin Peaks Waco threads, I'll be aiming for maximum casualties. Your pride will suffer mightly, I do promise you that. bwaahaaHAAhaH ←[evil laugh warning notice]
Please get some professional help. If not for your own understanding, then for those around you.
BWAAHAHAAA! Too funny!
You're the one that needs professional help. You'll be needing a lot of that if gas-lighting me is now a cause of yours.
Still "praying" for me too? I'd just about bet my life there wasn't much more than five seconds of that go on, maybe 15-20 seconds max, well...up until you may have noticed you couldn't get out of your own way, and were not hearing nothin' in return but an ominous waiting silence.
Please get some professional help. If not for your own understanding, then for those around you.
But thank you for reassuring me that you don't really believe what you're saying. You may be trying to, as hard as you can, but still, I can see that you truly are struggling.
Try back tomorrow?
Well
You were just a cub
Please get some professional help. If not for your own understanding, then for those around you.
All you've got to do is read the sign.
I'm not super familiar with Texas statutes but afaik simply being a member of a gang isn't against the law. It certainly colors the way law enforcement views you though.
If fact there was testimony from the stand that known gang members were prohibited from carrying weapons in public.
I don't know how accurate that testimony is or whether Jake Carrizal has a criminal history, but it does open the door to whether or not he had a right to be carrying a gun that day.
I think you have things right, pretty much all down the line, and do thank you specifically for this;
There are logical reasons for it I do believe. And, there is some case law support for that understanding.
That came from a Waco PD officer, correct?
I wonder how that works. I assume it may be that those identified as gang members may find their way onto listings and filings that would preclude themselves be issued CCW permit? That could be one way to achieve that end. How else I do wonder.
The prosecution surely did want to plant that thought in the minds of the jurors, it seemed plain to me, assuming here that information-wise we're both going by the same Witherspoon "Tweet Machine".
From elsewhere, I know of another Bandido, who even after having been charged twice with forms of assault charges -- each of which included mention of the guy having a gun, and using, or else displaying it in threatening manner ---was no-billed-- twice --and then later, was also arrested for criminal conspiracy, and murder (the conspiracy being associated with a homicide) who ended up being not indicted for anything other than violation of possession of a weapon in a prohibited location (a bar serving alcohol) but was no-billed for that too(!) on grounds that the facility lacked adequate legal signage (to identify the location as prohibited to 'legal carry' permit holders).
According to newspaper accounts and eye witnesses, he was one of whom a county prosecutor had initially said of (but without openly mentioning his name) within a trial, was among "30" Bandidos. That number, curiously enough --and coming from the prosecutor's lips became reduced the next day to "20 Bandidos" who had arrived at a bar in Fort Worth -- and "didn't even try to buy a drink!" (as the prosecutor stressed several times that I heard with my own ears) before starting to attack bar patrons. I was left wondering -- just how many Bandidos were there, and if the prosecutor was off by one-third (or even a bit more) what else could she have been getting not quite right?
I saw with my own eyes electronic record of the three (count 'em -- three) no-bills for firearm related offenses, for this one individual -- who as I understand it, was indeed 'a Bandido' and was in fact (according to a witness whom I heard with my own ears mention when testifying in court) among the 30 20 (or so? maybe less? at least a dozen? can I hear fifteen? lol) non-drinkers who attacked drinkers who belonged to clubs called Ghost Riders, Winos (or Wino Crew?) and one lone Cossack (who was "acting weird" according to eyewitness accounts -- maybe he was tweaking? I dunno). The Fort Worth chapter president got something like 46 years in the pen for just being there, or something like that. Interestingly enough in that case, in comparison to the Carrizal case, one part of the prosecutor's theory (that they plainly inferred to the jury) was that the Fort Worth president-guy was the biker who had come into the bar still wearing his motorcycle helmet. Sound familiar?
You know who was also there in that courtroom? I saw her with my own eyes (she's quite the gal, in person). None other than Amanda Dillon. Ten to 12 days later (after the Tarrant County prosecution had finished up securing conviction of Howard Wayne Baker) the "news" from McLennan County that a trial date ---that had already been set for one of the Twin Peaks defendants other than Carrizal --- had been -- with no notice(?) taken from that other defendant, and assigned to Carrizal. And that's the way the cow ate that particular bit of cabbage. No offense to Amanda, I did not mean to infer here, that she was "a cow".
Please get some professional help. If not for your own understanding, then for those around you.
The governing law is Texas Penal Code, Chapter 71. It covers “Criminal Street Gangs.”
It is very specific.
Please be very careful of people here supporting the drug dealing, murdering motorcycle gang thugs. They usually simply repeat rumors, the defense lawyer’s claims, and their own prejudices, and re-broadcast them all as facts.
People died in Waco, and the people of Texas will have their justice, despite all the foolish claims here.
Have a good day.
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.