Thank you for that which has been my main interest plus the fact that Waco PD chose not to try to defuse the escalating violence on the ground since they were sitting in their cars when the first shots were fired.
That plus the 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.
” 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. ?!?
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.