CLEAT lawyers and staffers were on the scene shortly after reports of the shooting surfaced

“CLEAT lawyers and staffers were on the scene shortly after reports of the shooting surfaced,” the web story explained. “Organizer Tracy Chance was allowed access to officers at fixed positions to make sure they had access to water and sports drinks to keep them hydrated. Tracy was able to get the photos posted here.”

“they took advantage of a situation they could have prevented with the intel they claim to have known in advance.”

If there were undercover LE in the gangs who knew in advance something was going down at WACO, that does not imply that the cops could have stopped it or that they intended for murder and mayhem to break out.

Was it a “sting” operation? No matter how forcefully undercover LE could have argued for a showdown (if that indeed, as has been postulated, happened) he was not going to be high enough in the gang organization to make it happen. Bandido and Cossack leaders make the decisions about where they go and who they call to meet them there.

Was it a “sting” operation with federal involvement? I do not know enough about how the various anti-gang units operate to speculate. Reading these threads, it seems some posters know more than the general public has access to.

Is the Waco police department corrupt? Heck, I don’t know. I wouldn’t be shocked either way. There have been examples of police corruption from big eastern cities to small southern towns; as well as some bad cops in otherwise professional departments. I detest militarization of local LE, no knock SWAT forcible entry where grandpa gets shot in his bed, etc.

Even if federal or local enforcement were engaged in anti-gang action that gave intel or rise to some type of sting, they certainly would not have done so if the Bandidos and Cossacks didn’t exist at all or engage in criminal activity.

It seems clear that LE shot some of the dead and that bikers shot others of them. One Grand Jury is going to be presented with cases of LE shootings, another Grand Jury is to handle the biker cases. No doubt those cases and findings will be scrutinized by any number of FReepers.

There are multiple aspects to this tragedy, and I do not agree that LE should trample on the rights of citizens in the process of bringing down criminal gangs. Over the past three months, it has become clearer to me that the gangs are the most at fault for having these territorial disputes and bringing them to a public place where their members could be killed, wounded, stabbed, or arrested. You may or may not agree.

Cboldt wrote -

“You can bet that defendant Twin Peaks will raise that affirmative defense in the Rodriguez case.”

Yes, I think you are right. And one of the defendants has already done so in its answer to the Don Carlos lawsuit -

“b. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were proximately caused by the criminal acts of third parties. See Petition § I, p.2. The criminal acts of third parties constitute a superseding cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff.

c. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were proximately caused by the actions of law enforcement agents. See Petition § I, p. 3. The acts, orders, mandates and/or requirements of law enforcement agents, investigating authorities, and/or the government agencies/entities for whom they worked, constitute a superseding cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff.”

You are correct. There are two sub-paragraphs lettered “c” in the defenses section of the answer. Must be a typo. I only pasted one. Here is the second c which contains what appears to be the comparative part you are referring to.

I’m guessing that is sort of standard fare to claim the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for their own damages?

c. Plaintiff failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate Plaintiff’s damages, if any. Peaktastic is not responsible for damages, if any, resulting from the failure of Plaintiff to act with ordinary prudence to eliminate or reduce the effects of Plaintiff’s damages, if any.

-- I'm guessing that is sort of standard fare to claim the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for their own damages? --

It is. Another affirmative defense is voluntary and unreasonable assumption of a known risk. If the state is correct, that all bikers affiliated with Bandidos or Cossacks (directly or indirectly) are conspirators to murder and aggravated assault, then Rodriguez knew he was riding to a rumble.

The paragraph you excerpted rings of comparative negligence, "failure to act with ordinary prudence." Assumption of the risk is to voluntarily and unreasonably engage in conduct, while knowing the magnitude of injury that is in play. This is a highly "it depends" inquiry on whether riding is reasonable, but I think is a slam dunk in favor of defendant if plaintiff is riding to participate in a rumble.

“What’s the first day going to be like for his kids?”

For all I know they might well get kudos for having a “cool” biker Dad. I am not joking.

Yes, kids can be cruel.

And actions have consequences.

Clendennen rode with a known Cossack affiliated gang. Ask him what he was thinking of to have done so, if he from now on wants to put his kids’ welfare first in his life and decisions.

Ask him, if that is the example he wants his kids to follow, or be proud of him for.

Ask him why he didn’t put loyalty to wife and kids and his responsibility as a business owner, to his employees and vendors, ahead of gang affiliation to begin with.

Ask him why he jeopardized his wife and family for the personal kicks of riding with a gang. He could have been killed there that day and was lucky he came out unscathed except for reputation, and a reputation he helped to “earn” by riding with a support gang.

And think about the kids of Campbell and others, who are going to school tomorrow fatherless. !!

Even if he is ultimately innocent in the eyes of the law, as a husband and father and small-business owner, he made some poor imprudent decisions. Sadly. His kids should not be made to suffer for his poor decisions; even if they were not illegal decisions, they were imprudent decisions.

I have probably said before, my husband, also a small business owner, desired to ride a motorcycle, and not even in a gang. I told him, as a small business owner, there are people depending upon you, your employees, your vendors, not to mention wife and kid. You can’t afford to be a smear on the highway. He had the sense enough to forego his testosterone-induced desires to ride a motorcycle. Clendennen did not, or did not have a wife as wise as I am. In all humility. Maybe he just wouldn’t listen.

Maybe he is young enough to learn his lesson. Maybe he is lucky to have this lesson in time to prevent his being a smear on the highway, or to be killed in a future gang encounter.

No, his kids should not be the ones to suffer for his imprudent decisions nor (if that is what it is) unlawful arrest.

Maybe he can man up, and tell his kids, and their classmates (if the school agrees) riding with gangs is a poor decision, one I am sorry I made. Don’t make the same mistake, and don’t blame my kids because I am man enough to take it on myself.

Summary of sorts. A small business owner has responsibilities to a lot of people, that have to be met — payroll, payroll taxes, paying vendor invoices. These responsibilities, once undertaken, are real compelling impediments to living a free life on a bike or anywhere else that could eliminate one’s ability to meet those responsibilities. Even the family of a small business owner comes in second place to those legal and moral responsibilities. I can testify to that, and payroll and payroll taxes and vendor invoices have priority over family expenses.

Clendennen may be a poster boy for the wrongly arrested. He is not a poster boy as a small-business owner, husband and father.

“Clendennen may be a poster boy for the wrongly arrested. He is not a poster boy as a small-business owner, husband and father.”

Thank you for the civil discussion. I agree with much of what you said.

I am willing to entertain the idea it is possible someone like Clendennen could have perceived that by joining a non-criminally designated club he was joining nothing more than a group of other guys who like to ride to the lake on the weekend and drink a few beers, and play dress up.

It is my understanding that unlike the 1% groups, these other clubs pretty much accept all comers. There is no probationary period wherein one has to prove their loyalty, criminality or whatever. Essentially one is invited, buys a “patch”, and becomes a member.

As for smears on the highway, yes, motorcycling can be dangerous. But so can a lot of activties, like Sky diving, scuba diving, or, non-activities, like obesity, and coronary artery disease. There are law enforcement motorcycle clubs. There are clubs for just lawyers and judges. So any of those judges, cops and attorneys with young children and spouses are equally guilty.

Did Clendennen join a “gang”? No.

Is it possible that in order to pump up their numbers some with ill intent or ulterior motives within these non-criminal clubs suckered in guys like Clendennen. Yes.

Did he make a bad choice in retrospect? Clearly.

The question to me is how long does the Waco justice system intend to legally keel-haul those like Clendennen (and by extension, his wife, and kids and other family members), and to what social/public/moral benefit?

“The question to me is how long does the Waco justice system intend to legally keel-haul those like Clendennen (and by extension, his wife, and kids and other family members), and to what social/public/moral benefit?”

Thank you for your thoughtful response, and as to the above question, I do not know. The Grand Jury handling their cases is not even scheduled until, what did I read, October?

As to what benefit? Hopefully, legally and if unfortunately not at least morally, just don’t support criminally associated MCs in any way at any time.

Yes. clearly the gangs want to sucker in guys like Clendennen! That is the sad situation.

Yes a lot of activities are dangerous, and I caution my hubbie all the time about non-stop work, and no sleep, and other activities that could take him to a too-early grave. : (

Some dangerous pursuits have more immediate and traumatic consequences, and those can and should be avoided by responsible persons with responsibilities to other persons.

Yes, neglect of one’s own health can just as tragically have the same result; without, however, the same level of — frivolity as to risk-taking. There is no fun in constant work and no sleep, as there is in motor cycling or sky-diving, etc. It is the risk of attention to responsibilities, rather than to taking risks to escape them.

Here’s the thing mate. If this kind of behavior is allowed to continue by the LE community; they will lose one of their biggest supporting blocks in the country.

If justice is not done in this case; it will set back LE relations with every community in the country to a time when no one trusted LE.

Does anyone really want that who is now or ever been in LE?

This screw up must be corrected and frankly; some heads must roll on the LE side. Obviously Reyna, Swanton, and anyone else directly connected must lose their jobs and possibly be looking at some prison time. Completely innocent lives were lost. Anything less will put LE on the defensive throughout the country for decades.

I sure don’t want to see that. I have extended family in LE. I don’t want to see their lives put in danger over the actions of some bad LE’s down in Texas.

Again; this must be made right or it will never be forgotten and LE in general will not be given the benefit of the doubt going forward.

Neither one of us wants that. Should two, three, or a small handful of corrupt LE people ruin it for everyone? Should honest LE stand by and support the corrupt one’s or should they stand up and say NO to this kind of behavior?

This is a very big effing deal (to quote Biden). If not handled correctly it will make things even worse for all LE across the country. Again; none of us want that. I sure don’t.

I really hope those who are at the top of the pyramid understand the ramifications of not getting this right. Once trust is lost; it is extremely difficult to get back. It can be done but it takes a very long time and then only if things go a certain way during that extended period of time.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here and stating what is most likely obvious but it can’t be said enough.

This must end in justice and not the demented TG kind of justice. His kind is obviously part of the problem and not the solution.

“Should two, three, or a small handful of corrupt LE people ruin it for everyone?”

No, corrupt cops should not be allowed to ruin it for everyone, especially not for other honest cops who do risk their lives for justice. I honestly do not know how it will all fall out in this tragic case. If there are corrupt cops they need to be taken out root and branch.

More information than needed:

I had a “boyfriend” once from Brooklyn. I met him through National Review. Not the present National Review, but back when W. F. Buckley himself was the editor. So I thought, he must be a decent conservative young man. So I met him in NY. I was impressed, he wanted to be a cop! Until I learned that the reason he wanted to be a cop, was because there was big bucks in graft and paybacks and who knows what other sources of illegal income!! NO KIDDING! He was for REAL wanting to be a cop to get ill-gotten gains in the big bucks range!!

Of course I dropped him like a hot potato! Not only the above, this was back when persons whose surname ended in a vowel, took hubris that they would be associated with the Mafia, that was anti-Italian discrimination! YET the same people, this guy for example, took great pride in any and all association they could come up with, to the Mob i.e. Mafia! They took pride in the Mafia, but decried anti-Italian “discrimination” because of mob associations with Italians. GO FIGURE! THEY were the ones taking pride in the Mafia rather than in legitimate hard working and honest Italian immigrants — not me. Let’s just say, I was appalled. Still am.

No wonder Serpico almost died. The “cop” who answered the call, later said, if he knew who it was, he would have let him die. So much for corrupt cops’ loyalty to honest cops, or to anyone else.

Sadly, nothing would surprise me. On the other hand, I have been if not surprised, at least reassured and thrilled by so many stories of honest and heroic cops and soldiers and etc. God Bless them!

” seemingly infinitely flexible nature of the RICO type law that all are charged with. And worry about what the next iteration of such will be. “

Me too. SIGH!

I have read commentary from those with more legal expertise than I have.

This is what I conclude.

The statute is clear and understandable and constitutional.

Learned judges and attorneys however apply it without adequate proof of individual complicity.

Which is is?!?

I want criminal gangs to just go away. Are these statutes the best means? No, in my opinion, moral approbation by good citizens would achieve better results. Is THAT going to happen? Apparently not. : (

RICO-type laws arouse my suspicions, because they are not predicated on an individual crime of commission, but more of a “thought” crime, of agreement. Well two guys rob a convenience store, one of them pulls the trigger . . . OK I get that . . .

It was morally repugnant for pro-lifers to be charged under RICO. Thankfully they ultimately prevailed, based upon their own innocence of wrongdoing under the Statute as written. They did not need the precedent of a criminal biker case to help them prevail. This was not a case of — first the bikers, then the pro-lifers. It was a case in which the pro-lifers came to the bench earlier, and prevailed on their own merits. They did not need a precedent of Bikers. So that distraction can be set aside.

I do not agree with “thought crime” so I have no problem with getting rid of RICO type laws. At the least, they need to be legislatively clarified so at least learned judges and lawyers can agree on what they mean!!

I have struggled with what conspiracy means in this case. Apparently it can mean whatever a DA or judge thinks it means. OK just get rid of conspiracy and charge people with crimes they actually commit. That is OK with me. Or OK leave it to a Grand Jury or trial jury of peers. It is not up to me how this (constitutional, understandable, but yet still incomprehensible in effect) law is applied. But decent citizens also have to abhor and not support in any way, criminals or criminal gangs. That is the problem now in the cities. They would apparently rather suffer school kids being shot in their bedrooms doing homework, that to “rat out” a perp. ?!?

-- That plus the seemingly infinitely flexible nature of the RICO type law that all are charged with. --

By the time the statutes play out, they aren't all that flexible. I see the problem in this case as one of prosecutorial over-reach, which can happen in light of the simplest of statutes. See Duke rape hoax, for example.

The other issue in the Twin Peaks case(s) is the apparent buy-in by supposedly independent and learned judges. I figure they expect the errors to sort out as the process goes down the line, and do not want to be fingered as finding error by the police or DA. The judges are willing to allow innocents to go through the wringer, on the rationalization that if they aren't convicted, no real harm has been done. That's the judge's view, all they see is people in court, and if a defendant is not convicted, the judge generally sees that as "the system works."

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. Abuse of legal process is common, usually against individuals or small groups of accused. Many cops and DA's and judges are on power trips, and merely disrespecting authority is enough to trigger punishment by process.

“punishment by process”

Good quote!! That applies to civil torts as well, because the claws are out to tear up the wronged in order to forestall any and all acknowledgment of liability.

As I have said before, anyone suffering injustice, has to suffer more, to obtain a modicum of justice, no matter how small.

HA! An apology after three more years of turmoil, only because we found an understanding attorney who was not in it for the money, was worth it!!

Is it worth it? Yes, but that is up to each person’s situation as to what they can individually bear in terms of time, suffering, and the financial costs associated.

EVERYONE is apparently, to one extent or another, willing to let the innocents go through the wringer. Doctors, lawyers, OK maybe not Indian Chiefs, at least not in my personal experience.

SO which laws are suspect? In the Duke case, in the Zimmerman case, they ultimately prevailed — but only because they were willing to undertake the fight.

So those laws, under which the accused ultimately prevailed, are still valid laws . . . ? “Merely” wrongly applied? Laws clear enough so that the innocent could be vindicated?

Now AACH again, what about the RICO-type laws?!? And why should laws be valid or invalid, depending upon the willingness and ability of those wrongly accused under said law, to somehow have the means and ability to challenge and prevail?

And why in all this complexity of law under which innocents suffer, should anyone defend criminal gangs?? Who are those among the many who are willing to put innocents through the wringer. Bystanders, even their own members.

Had Zimmerman, the Duke defendants not prevailed? would the law itself be more distorted for future cases?

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.