“Why must you always misrepresent things?”
I have misrepresented NOTHING. Post your ‘followup’ if you have it.
In your own words, haven't you been saying much as "bikers are even saying that Cossacks started it"? If that is not precise, then at the least you have long been saying words to that effect.
You should have went and found the correction I mentioned to you, yourself.
Or --- have you known pretty much all along about that small detail, yet decided to bury it so you could continue to play both ends against the middle?
The org you have been quoting, months ago amended the preliminary (and hasty) news release of May 18th, by way of posting on the same page, AND DIRECTLY ABOVE the breathless "news release" published on May 18th, a follow-up article posted on May 21st.
Didn't you know that? If not, why not? It's been one of your sources which you've milked -- and apparently willfully misrepresented for failing to have taken into consideration the 3 days later follow-up.
I'm spelling it out here, as I seem I must do with each interaction with you, regardless of what issue is being discussed, you do play dumb quite well. I'm not the only one who finds it to be quite tedious, of that is there has been evidence for on these Waco threads, from the get-go.
Here, where you should have looked, instead of while you were at it relying on what was at best ---second-hand & third-hand information, that likely came from some source (to the lawyer) which was not cited (but likely to be from a Bandido) but was entirely unattributed. Which makes it to be hearsay, repeated from California, as if that actually held much weight --- and even then --- had been corrected/amended by a followup note published on the very same web site.
and below, the change of tune from "Cossacks started it" to conveying more of a "we don't know" who did;
As the altercation became a brawl and erupted outside Twin Peaks, SWAT teams and police were standing outside the restaurant on a tip that there would be a problem with the 1% clubs. It is unclear who opened fire first, but when all was said and done, there were 9 people dead and 18 injured. [bold added to help your poor little parakeet eyesight]
As has been pointed out to you before, Cossacks and Scimitars (along with most every other club which had members present that day, other than Bandidos) do not ordinarily, or at all widely and regularly vaunt themselves as "1%'ers".
They were not listed on the most currently accessible official law enforcement gang assessment & discussion publication(s) either ---BUT--- Bandidos, and that club only, was (fwiw) listed on official law enforcement produced & circulated publication.
Even then, that assessment alone may not make Bandidos into being fully "criminal biker gang", or else we could be convicting people right and left from what is found written up about whoever in law enforcement 'rap sheets', and I'm talking here about the kind of rap sheet where police are doing all the talking (and unanswered accusing) above and beyond mere listing of prior arrests & convictions as for any particular individual.
There is such a thing as individual rights. Those are not forfeited simply for reason of being accused, and accused rather vaguely, at that(!)
To even charge, much less convict one or several persons for what others did, or for what these *others* may have fully intended/planned on doing, when those same relatively uninvolved persons were not part of pre-planning and/or actual commission of some crime, would be abuse of legal process on part of law enforcement and prosecutors at best, and is one of the ways that gross miscarriage of justice has a high possibility of occurring.
If you don't understand how that can be, then could we chalk that up to giving too much (seemingly blind) trust to law enforcement authority, and legal process?