Posted on 12/22/2015 7:58:49 AM PST by don-o
Maybe they were texting and lost awareness of the situation.
“Is your claim that closing off a public accommodation to a group of people is a first amendment violation?”
If the government is trying to use prior restraint to prevent a group of people from assembling, yes, that is generally a first amendment violation.
“You didn’t respond to the Mall of America v. BLM example, which prevents an assembly of BLM at Mall of America, and only at Mall of America. BLM can spout off someplace else.”
You said that Mall of America requested that, not the government, so that example doesn’t seem to be relevant at all. If the government isn’t the one trying to prevent the assembly, then it isn’t a first amendment issue.
“My contention (which you claim is a first amendment violation) is that this would have been legal before the violence started. The government claims to have probable cause of gang criminal conspiracy.”
Remember, this was a COCI sponsored event, not a Bandidos event. Even if the government had evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that wouldn’t necessarily have helped them convince a court to deny 1st amendment protected rights to an ostensibly separate organization.
Make that a collusion of eeeeeevil vest wearing bikers.
It would be interesting to see just how many 308 were fired. We’re all still, after 7 months, waiting for the full ballistics report. Talk about slow as Christmas. You’d think by now they’d have their story straight. Wonder who’s dragging it out until their retirement comes up?
Gangsters?
I thought the Boss banned you............
I found a more substantive report on the subject of "refused to cooperate."
Twin Peaks Speaks Out About Waco Shooting, Culpability - CBS Dallas - May 17, 2015
The Waco Police Department told CBS 11 on Sunday that management had remained uncooperative for the last two months."We feel like that they [Twin Peaks] did not take our advice and try to keep the bike groups from being here; they absolutely have a right to refuse service to people that may be a harm to their patrons and employees," said Swanson.
So, at least we have what appears to be the request. Refuse service to biker groups.
I have to disagree the job of the police is to prevent crime. They do come when called and when they can get there in time, which isn’t often, they can possibly stop the crime in action. They also carry guns to protect themselves for the most part.
More often than not their job is to document as much as they can and preserve the crime scene so others can come in and document it for proof later.
No one deserved to get mowed down unless they were actively attempting to kill someone else but I still think it was felony stupid to fight in front of uniformed LE there en mass. Even dumber to shoot someone in front of them.
This was not a planned fight even though potential was there. I do believe there were a few, probably Cossacks, who showed up with the intent of getting into it with the Bandidos. The Bandidos are not the type to take disrespect lying down. Testosterone, false pride, and reputations were the fuel for this fight.
The problem, as I see it, is how the police, judge, and DA handled this after a fight in the parking lot.
Sure, because “warring gangs” always have melees at high noon on Sundays in the middle of mall parking lots full of families going out to eat after church. Nope, sorry, can’t think of anything similar to that. Now, at midnight out in some back field away from spectators and the po-po, yeah, that’s more like it.
There is no attempt to keep them from assembling. You have a comprehension problem, or you are a dishonest hack. I pick dishonest hack.
-- Remember, this was a COCI sponsored event, not a Bandidos event. Even if the government had evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that wouldn't necessarily have helped them convince a court to deny 1st amendment protected rights to an ostensibly separate organization. --
The sponsor isn't relevant. The police claim to be trying to prevent Cossacks and Bandidos from interacting, and are pointing the finger because they dropped the ball.
In addition, if the government has evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that is enough, on its own, to arrest and indict. Is that a first amendment violation too? ROTFL.
“There was a brawl before shooting occurred. A brawl means multiple assault-and-battery charges.”
Most accounts seem to describe the brawl escalating INTO a gunfight in short order, so I really wouldn’t consider that some separate incident the police could have been addressing in order to prevent a gunfight...
“Why were the Waco Police at the scene before any crime was committed?”
Maybe because they knew 2 criminal gangs who were at war with each other were likely to show up there?
Too bad Sons of Anarchy finished their production run. Sounds like they cold have used the plot line.
“There is no attempt to keep them from assembling.”
You’re just talking in circles now. Just repeating the assertion you’ve been arguing does nothing to invalidate my argument.
“The sponsor isn’t relevant.”
It certainly is. Who do you think the government would have had to take legal action against in order to stop the event? Hypothetical possible attendees? Or the sponsor?
“In addition, if the government has evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that is enough, on its own, to arrest and indict.”
Perhaps, but nobody ever said the government had enough evidence, prior to the events that day, to make a case. Hell, you don’t even think they have enough evidence to make their cases now, with all the additional evidence gathered after the bloody shootout. There is a large gulf between having evidence that a crime may occur and having evidence that is of a sufficient level to prosecute.
One more report ...
For months, police say they tried to thwart danger by boosting security inside or having the restaurant deny service to the gangs. But police say that local managers at the restaurant refused to cooperate.Waco Twin Peaks' managers dispute police claim they wouldn't help with security | Dallas Morning News | 18 May 2015
Fat lot of good "boosting security inside" would have done. But, that does fit with Swanton's claim that the fight broke out in the bathroom.
No, I started out noting that refusing to allow a group to assemble in one particular place is not the same as banning them from assembling. It's a stark and relevant factor that you consistently blow off.
-- Who do you think the government would have had to take legal action against in order to stop the event? Hypothetical possible attendees? Or the sponsor? --
Action is always against the problem. Who is the problem, the hypothetical possible attendees or the sponsor?
Name the persons or groups to be restricted, all else goes on freely. COCI is free to have its meeting.
-- ... but nobody ever said the government had enough evidence, prior to the events that day, to make a case. --
Uhhhh, yeah, that is implied by the arrest of 180+ on probable cause of committing conspiracy.
-- Hell, you don't even think they have enough evidence to make their cases now ... --
That's true. But you, on the other hand, think the evidence is adequate, and that 180+ are guilty of conspiracy.
-- There is a large gulf between having evidence that a crime may occur and having evidence that is of a sufficient level to prosecute. --
You mean like the difference between probable cause (which justifies arrest), and "beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction? For purposes of this disagreement between us, the standard is the lower, probable cause.
“refusing to allow a group to assemble in one particular place is not the same as banning them from assembling”
I’m quite certain that the defense lawyers would not agree with your sentiment if that case came up in court, so it’s not an issue you can’t simply wave away.
“Action is always against the problem.”
No it isn’t. Did you just make that up?
“Uhhhh, yeah, that is implied by the arrest of 180+ on probable cause of committing conspiracy.”
Since they weren’t arrested PRIOR to the events that day, no, it is not implied.
“That’s true.”
Good. So you admit that you on the one hand, blame the cops for not arresting them prior to the bloody massacre, but also blame the cops for arresting them after the bloody massacre. Seems like no matter what the cops would have done, you would find some way to find fault in it.
“For purposes of this disagreement between us, the standard is the lower, probable cause.”
Why should that be the standard? Are you advocating now that police should arrest people even if they know they won’t have enough evidence to prosecute, in a complex case like a criminal conspiracy case?
Of course not. Defense lawyers job is to argue their take on the case. My point is that restricting certain groups or persons from certain locations is not a first amendment violation. It happens all the time, in many different forms.
Me: Action is always against the problem.
You: No it isn't. Did you just make that up?
No, I didn't just make it up. It's a legal principle. You claim that the police would have to act against the COCI (relative to the scheduled Twin Peaks meting), therefore they can't or shouldn't act. I said the police could act against the people who cause the problem, which separates the COCI into two parts, those who are problem (and get acted against) and those who are not a problem (who are free to carry on). I take it you find such discrimination is not possible, since you are arguing a point rather than agreeing with my previous suggestion that it is possible to discriminate against Bandidos and Cossacks (relative to the scheduled Twin Peaks meeting), independent of the COCI.
-- Since they weren't arrested PRIOR to the events that day, no, it is not implied. --
Conspiracy is PRIOR agreement. That the police didn't arrest them for prior agreement to commit violence, even though the police had evidence of prior agreement to commit violence (why else would the police be on scene in force?), is an error in judgment, not absence of probable cause (using YOUR standard that probable cause exists for conspiracy).
-- So you admit that you on the one hand, blame the cops for not arresting them prior to the bloody massacre, but also blame the cops for arresting them after the bloody massacre. --
No, that's you being a dishonest hack. My point of view is that the police didn't have probable cause for conspiracy for 180+ people.
-- Why should that [probable cause] be the standard? --
Because probable cause is the legal standard to justify arrest, and we are talking about arrest.
-- Are you advocating now that police should arrest people even if they know they won't have enough evidence to prosecute, in a complex case like a criminal conspiracy case? --
Just stating a legal standard. If probable cause exists, the police are justified in making an arrest.
A strong proponent of policing is prevention. Intelligence gathering, presence, and probably other activities associated with policing has a preventative effect.
“TP’s are family restaurants?”
I guess you are not fully informed. The Don Carlos restaurant was across the parking lot from Twin Peaks. Within easy pistol range.
I guess...you are an idget.
I personally prefer to spell it “idjit”. Gets that down home feel across better I think. :D
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.