Posted on 07/21/2015 7:49:03 AM PDT by don-o
Why is Waco, Texas, fighting to suppress multiple videos of the shootout that killed nine bikers at the Twin Peaks restaurant on May 17? Why are some attorneys in the case now prohibited from talking to the press? And why haven’t Waco officials revealed how many of the nine victims were killed by bullets from police officers’ guns?
snip
Here are two theories.
One is the official explanation. Authorities say that this is a complex investigation that takes lots of time and that suppressing video evidence and issuing gag orders is necessary to prevent prospective jurors from being influenced by pre-trial publicity.
I find that explanation dubious.
Authorities in Waco have actively advanced a contested narrative of what happened at the Twin Peaks restaurant from the start, sometimes getting facts wrong. They haven’t tried to preserve the impartiality of jurors, instead, they've pushed a version of events that reflects well on the Waco police and the actions they’ve taken.
Here is an alternative explanation.
If there is video or ballistics evidence suggesting that lots of innocent people were arrested without probable cause, or that police bullets killed some of the dead that day in Waco, it will be a public-relations nightmare and a huge liability for Waco and its police department. Scores of bikers could sue for six- or seven-figure sums. And prosecutors might find it much more difficult to secure indictments in the case.
But if indictments can be filed before evidence inconvenient to Waco authorities is publicly revealed, the leverage changes. A biker might be indicted for conspiracy to murder, then offered a plea deal to accept a much lesser charge, like disturbing the peace, with the understanding that time served would take care of the sentence.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
And we can't have that!! Why, such temerity on the part of citizens toward police needs to be punished! Heaven forbid cops err on the side of the citizen, and be willing to put their own lives at risk first as servants/protectors, and do everything in their power to defuse the situation without gunfire, and waiting until being fired upon before firing on citizens.
But as it is now, you can always commit suicide by cop, never actually firing a shot, but only wielding a gun in the presence of "civil servants." They'll serve the citizen, alright -- those civil servants will serve up a big dish of lead to any who dare to presume the "attitude" of "top dog" on their own property when cops are present.
Amen, don-o. BUMP.
“Could you maybe say that with different words, because I cannot understand.” -———
Ok. Sorry. Let me try again.
1. Relatively few believe there is “no probable cause”.
2. But, because these few believe it, then they seem to deem it true, and therefore it has to be true.
The typical observer does not know that to be the truth just because a few believe it and say it.
The typical observer seems broadly willing to see it all proven IN COURT.
Is that bad?
For one, witness intimidation. Witnesses and perps will be visible on video’s.
General Principal #4 of procecutors.
(iv) seek in most circumstances to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of criminal investigations.
None of that requires a prosecutor to seek a gag order on autopsy and ballistics reports or video of the crime in question. We see such evidence released to the media every single day by prosecuting attorneys. Especially when it backs up that States narrative. It’s quite easy to redact the names, addresses and other identifying information of lay witnesses for the state when such is contained in discovery information. This is done every day.
Perhaps it’s easy, perhaps not. I’d call that an opinion.
Who is “Waco”, exactly?
If the “100 innocent people” can’t make the case for no probable cause, through their attorneys, there is a problem with that case. Right?
Probably people aren’t yet following the story, until the trial. With a gag order, which is not uncommon, neither side can argue the case in the media, and therefore the rampant speculation is being generally and broadly discounted by the public, because it has not yet proven to true or accurate in court.
In my opinion it IS bad; it is VERY bad. It is bad because a valuable and precious restraint on governmental power has been ignored. And a dangerous precedent is being set. The Fourth Amendment is a restraint on arbitrary and capricious government actions.
Do you seriously believe that 177 people came to the Twin Peaks with a criminal intent? The DA says that they did, although the cookie cutter rubber stamp affidavit is bereft of any individualized evidence.
Some of the 177 are, no doubt in my mind, guilty of felony crimes, perhaps also conspiracy. But all 177? THERE is your "bridge too far."
Ping
—Waco and its police department could be liable for millions of dollars in damages if litigants can prove that they arrested bikers without probable cause, violating their civil rights; or that Waco police shot and killed innocents. Yet the grand jury that will decide whether to indict the bikers is reportedly being led by a longtime detective in the Waco police department,––an arrangement defended by a local judge, who declared, “If there is nothing that challenges his impartiality, he is qualified … Who is better qualified in criminal law than somebody who practices it all the time?”
—When one of the arrested bikers, Matthew Clendennen, sued authorities, Waco’s assistant city attorney fought to prevent him from getting access to video footage taken at the Twin Peaks restaurant, key evidence in the incident. While a judge ultimately ruled that his attorney must be allowed to see the footage, he barred its release to the public and imposed a gag order in the case.
—The gag order was requested by McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna, who is named in Clendennen’s federal civil-rights suit––and granted by District Court Judge Matt Johnson, Reyna’s former law partner, according to press reports.
—Over two months have passed since the shooting. The dead bodies have long since been examined. Yet the public still hasn’t been told how many of the gunshot victims were struck by bullets fired from police weapons. (I strongly suspect that if the answer was “zero” Waco police would’ve said so a long time ago.)
8 posted on 7/21/2015 10:59:34 AM by servo1969
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3314745/posts?page=8#8
18 USC sec. 242, 245 and 42 USC sec 1985 may apply.
(If so, the behaviour of LEOs may be not only a Felony, but actionable in Civil Court as well.)
Yep, this could cause 'career wrecking' complications for the folks in question if Brady Material isn't suppressed.
The jackbooted thugs of both the "Left" and the "Right" have a common enemy and that enemy is the free man.
That is ridiculous. Everyone recorded on video, that was close enough to the action to be a witness, was either a cop, was arrested at the scene, was killed or injured at the scene, or is associated with one of the clubs.
In fact, the video recorders are witnesses and are not subject to intimidation.
But the people in them are...
People in the video recorders? Did you read my entire comment?
Yes, the tiny little people inside the recorders, that draw the faces of the people they see out their little windows.
So, my question remains— can’t the biker attorneys make their case well enough to get an appeal to higher courts, or the Texas Attorney General, or the US Justice Department, or state Supreme Court, or the US Congress, etc.? Do they have to wait until the trial? If so, then we all have to wait. Including the bikers.
There is a reason for the existence of defense attorneys. Are they even complaining? Are any Texas attorneys on the outside of the case issuing a statement recognizing the alleged miscarriage of justice, or appealing on behalf of justice the alleged “no probable cause” on the behalf of these gagged attorneys?
Try to put on your reality hat RitaOK and see through the crap and kool-aid you've been swilling.
The Atlantic is just a notch above Rolling Stone. And a small notch, at that.
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.