[Svartalfiar]

I'll admit I don't know anything about the legalities of the Act, I'm just going off the wording from the article. But as I said above:

If you read the last line in the article, it states that they aren't going to the AG for guidance, they are asking permission (an exemption) to not do what the law requires.

On Wednesday, the Waco City Attorney’s office asked the Texas Attorney General for permission to withhold the records from Yahoo News and other media outlets that have made similar requests.

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. The fact that they are doing this, and the wording given, imply that they are trying to get around the requirements of the law.

I don't know if you read the article or just the excerpt, but they have the Waco letter posted, and it states they are trying to have the AG give them the ok to withhold. And, if the AG disagrees, they'll release them unless they can find another way within the law to not disclose.

Further, of the 19 pages they did release, they dealt with some dispatch logs, and the rest irrelevant to the shooting, just a couple random arrest logs. Partially redacted as well. Waco also waited until the last day possible to release those, and has, apparently, been just playing games trying to delay and confuse as much as possible.

[don-o]

I do not see the letter to the AG from the City.

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.

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

Yes, Yes Yes! A thousand times (make that a million times) YES!

The stone wall is beginning to attract some MSM notice. I posted an article from The Atlantic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296775/posts

[Cboldt]

-- 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.