Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Waco police seeking to bar information about Texas biker shooting
Yahoo News ^ | June 4, 2015 | Jason Sickles

Posted on 06/04/2015 4:39:58 AM PDT by don-o

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: don-o; mac_truck; Cboldt
Seems like this is not the 1st time

don-o, also related to Your Post #32

41 posted on 06/04/2015 7:22:04 AM PDT by mabarker1 (congress, The Opposite of Progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
-- If they were in the clear, they wouldn't need to ask the AG to come up with a way they could withhold the information, they would just tell the news that they don't have to give it out, and only go to the AG if Yahoo/others complained. --

You cover a couple points there. If the city intends to withhold information, then it is required to inform the state AG. The city isn't asking the state AG to invent a reason, the City is asserting a reason, and making the statutorily required request to the state AG to render an opinion relating to the City's decision.

Separately, there is a question of whether or not the reason the city gives, holds water. The letter is too short, and blanket asserts the same reason(s) for all sorts of information. It primarily cites fear of retaliation, which is an excuse to redact names of involved government shooters and support; but "retaliation" is not a good reason to withhold information about which persons were killed by police, and which were killed by gang-members.

This is a fairly common and deliberate stonewalling tactic of its own, to conflate issues and perpetually "play dumb." Imagine, if you will, dealing with the likes of TexasGator, etc., but on an official level. That is what is going on.

42 posted on 06/04/2015 7:26:11 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
MY unanswered question....."Just exactly WHO was on the deadly rampage>"

How many pressers have we watched in the aftermath of how many high (and not so high) profile events, wherein law enforcement, prosecutors, medical, even humanitarian personnel stand before the press?

A lot.

By the second day a timeline should be able to be shared. After a week, results of the autopsies should have been released. Someone should have been charged with murder and placed in isolation for his protection.

The Waco Silence was enough to raise suspicion. The resistance to FOIA type compliance does nothing to quash those suspicions.

43 posted on 06/04/2015 7:26:13 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
The DA's office has taken a position that some of the information requested is exempt from disclosure and as per the public records act is seeking guidance from the state attorney general's office.

That is exactly what the law requires...and your quibble about the meaning of 'seeking guidance' from a state level office is just that.

44 posted on 06/04/2015 7:33:35 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
I think the version of events as told by the motorcycle club members is probably much more accurate than that of the police.

That says a lot about how much police can be trusted nowadays.

45 posted on 06/04/2015 7:33:58 AM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

“It looks like it and I have no doubt that a fairly large percentage of those biker were pretty bad guys”

No question there are bad guys among them, but many are veterans who served in war zones and are recruited by the biker gangs. Who can think of a better target for Obama and the DOJ, who think their enemies are right wing vets?


46 posted on 06/04/2015 7:37:16 AM PDT by kenmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1

Good find. Ms Benton had already been called down in 2010 for her inability to count ten days.


47 posted on 06/04/2015 7:40:11 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Imagine, if you will, dealing with the likes of TexasGator, etc., but on an official level. That is what is going on.

Big hammer meets little nail. LOL!

48 posted on 06/04/2015 7:42:19 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Thanks

Found on Page 2 of a BING Search, now on Page 1 (guessing because I clicked on it)

Something just told Me to do a search on her...

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT Ms. …

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/50abbott/...

Ms. Judith N. Benton -Page 2 district established under section 772.318. You have marked the telephone number of a 9-1-1caller that the city seeks to withhold under ...

49 posted on 06/04/2015 7:50:31 AM PDT by mabarker1 (congress, The Opposite of Progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Do you really think there is no compelling reason to withhold confidential information in the Waco shooting?

Think again sonny.


50 posted on 06/04/2015 8:00:56 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1
Thanks for the link...it deomonstrates the 10 day deadline isn't a disqualifier if there is a compelling reason for the exemption.
51 posted on 06/04/2015 8:03:36 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

What is the compelling reason to withhold:

Number of shots fired by LE.
Number of shots fired by others.
Number of bullets removed from bodies.
Description of those bullets.


52 posted on 06/04/2015 8:05:42 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Think again sonny.

Should, I address you as "Dad"? Or maybe "Pop" would be more appropriate.

53 posted on 06/04/2015 8:07:51 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

“It looks like it and I have no doubt that a fairly large percentage of those biker were pretty bad guys

That said this looks to have been a totally illegal ambush.”


I agree. With this release of anything except what we need to see it has become painfully obvious this was nothing more than “Murder by Cop” in an entirely new way. Usually it is a sort of suicide when a reluctant officer shoots someone.

In this case it was a planned premeditated killing of American citizens. Regardless how one feels about the clothing these people wore; they were not terrorists or a threat to the American people in any way that would require this kind of heavy handed swat team with silencers type of force in broad daylight putting hundreds of innocent Americans at risk of death or injury.

If they are so eager to do this to a bunch of patriotic Americans who look different and live in a way not considered mainstream; what will they do to the rest of us down the line if this isn’t nipped in the bud right now?

Someone equated this with a canary in a coal mine. I must agree with that analogy. If all of us don’t stand up for those we might find disagreeable right now; who will stand up for us when they aim our way?

I have been supportive of the police up to now. If the police police themselves in this instance I will regain the trust I have lost. I can guarantee everyone that clubs, especially the more violent ones, would police their own if the situation was reversed. That thin blue line only works if the law is staying on the right side of that line.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. In this case there is very little grey area. /stepping off soap box...


54 posted on 06/04/2015 8:16:50 AM PDT by Boomer (America; love it or leave it. It isn't just a bumper sticker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Any updates on Texas Rangers investigations? They do internal affairs-type work on every officer licensed in TX. And they’re not corrupt, either, or haven’t been in the past.


55 posted on 06/04/2015 8:25:19 AM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Correct, but as some other posters have mentioned, there’s also the stonewalling, delays, release of records that have no pertinence, and so on. The city may be doing the one thing ‘correctly’, but add in the rest of the evidence and it makes this process simply look like a stalling tactic/distraction. As others have said, they almost definitely know their withhold request doesn’t hold water, but they did it anyway. And not within the 10day timeframe required.


56 posted on 06/04/2015 8:31:42 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Do you really think there is no compelling reason to withhold confidential information in the Waco shooting?

Of course there's a reason. It undermines the cops story.

57 posted on 06/04/2015 8:34:49 AM PDT by MileHi (Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: don-o
The time frame (and 10 day window) is unclear. Article states May 19 as request date. City response is June 3. I count that as 16 days.

It's 10 business days. Since Memorial Day (5/25) was not a business day, 6/3 was exactly the 10th business day.

58 posted on 06/04/2015 10:52:24 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

That is correct. I was wrong.

I knew that I wasn’t perfect, so I can handle this.


59 posted on 06/04/2015 10:58:51 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: don-o
That is correct. I was wrong.

NBD. :-)

However, it's interesting that the Waco DA (?) waited until the very last minute to send the query to the AG.

Up thread, someone posted a statement by the AG to the same DA, on another case back in 2010. The first thing it said: you didn't submit this within the required 10 days, so under the law, we can't grant an exception.

But, it then goes on to cite another provision of law to justify non-disclosure of at least one piece of information: the phone number used to call 911.

You would think she would have learned to not dither around and put off the request to the AG until the last minute.

60 posted on 06/04/2015 11:07:17 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson