Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boogieman
-- 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. --

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.

89 posted on 12/22/2015 1:24:56 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

“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.


92 posted on 12/22/2015 1:38:38 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
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?

Not IF they have evidence. In fact, such evidence of conspiracy is sufficient to charge people without a brawl, shootout, or anything else. Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony all by itself.

So, unless the gathered police entities were looking for a shootout to participate in, they should have arrested anyone they had conspiracy evidence on, on sight, and they would have been 'just doing their job'.

Oops. They didn't. They made no apparent attempt to do so.

That tells me they didn't have evidence of a conspiracy in the first place, and were hoping for an incident, one which their very presence may have helped precipitate.

Anyone pulling (and there are a lot of veterans who are bikers) in would take one look at police deployed in an 'L' shaped ambush formation and have a WTF? moment.

That abnormal assemblage of LEOs might have brought about questions of whether someone had 'informed' on someone else, and generally created distrust among the other people present.

Inaction with evidence, Action without evidence, either way...

110 posted on 12/23/2015 12:31:27 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson