Posted on 05/29/2015 4:51:25 AM PDT by don-o
As unanswered questions and controversy mount over the shooting outside a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas, there is a growing movement by motorcycle riders to protest what they see as troubling overreach by the authorities.
Breitbart Texas has previously reported on a number of inconsistencies in the story that Waco Police have told about the deadly incident. There’s a growing awareness that there seems to be much more to the story than originally reported, and bikers are taking action.
The Confederation of Clubs and Independents (CoC&I) — a political group focused on biker rights — has issued a Call To Action, urging citizens to contact law enforcement and politicians. The CoC&I has a direct connection to the Waco events, because the shooting happened outside their scheduled meeting at Twin Peaks. As the group says on its webpage:
This was a Confederation of Clubs and Independents meeting solely intended to discuss legal and political issues. It was not, as has been reported, a gang meeting to discuss turf. COC meetings have been occurring in Texas and nationwide for decades without a single violent incident. The myth being purported is simply false.
Video from inside the restaurant clearly shows the vast majority of bikers running away from the shooting and even helping civilians get to safety. Remember, law enforcement was on the scene and should have a clear picture of aggressors and victims. This should not be a guessing game. But it appears that the Waco PD arrested the majority of eyewitnesses and rights activists present at a publicly promoted political event.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Well, we should encourage cops who are given rotten orders like in Baltimore to sue the DAs and the Feds giving illegal unconstitutional orders
SLPC? Are these communists actually contracted by government through fed funding?
A lot of liberal nonprofit “religious” outfits out there seem to be consulting to Law Enforcement as to who they should investigate.
Thanks don-o.
I’m just looking for facts —> evidence —> truth.
In this case, I find the hypothesis to be, after due thought and further research, to not be particularly helpful in the above.
As you, he, and I have said, we don’t have all the information yet.
I bumped one of Travis’ posts on one of the Baltimore threads. I am sure we agree on any number of things.
The SPLC comes out with all of these reports claiming this group or that group is a hate group or white racist and all of these law enforcement agencies adopt the report as fact.
The SPLC has a knack of seeing into the future.
They will come out with a report proclaiming some group is an ultra violent racist hate group and shazzam several months later there will be an incident and the SPLC will be praised as being so accurate in their reporting on the racist hate group.
Problem is more than once the incident which the left tried to blame on the hate group the SPLC targeted had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.
Perfect example is the 2010 attempted car bombing in NYC which the left tried to blame on the TEA Party partially because the SPLC had proclaimed the TEA Party was violent right wing racist extremist.
Isn't that the standard police position that allows them to get away with shooting just about anyone.
I try to avoid the extremes on this general matter. There are too many good men out there laying it on the line.
I seem to have just recently read that the number of police shooting and being shot is trending down. Can that possibly be true? (I know how to look that up - just rambling here.)
I also try to keep in mind how the volume of information that I am exposed to may have an effect on my perception of reality. To say nothing of agendas and biases.
There is going to be payback if this does not resolve soon. Somebody is going to get pissed off and get tired of waiting for the Legal system to get off it’s butt. After that it is going to be open season down there on everybody.
Biker protests still tend to be peaceful. There might be biker parades by the area, not a shot fired though.
In the meantime I am wondering what is happening with the rest of the “gangs” that got into the feud. This could end up pushing “gangs” together. When they get it through their thick heads that one double cross can result in mega hurt placed upon a large group of them, whether or not they technically deserve it.
It looks like possibly a double cross happened between two “gangs.” That might best explain the scene. If it wasn’t for that burst of evil getting its head, they would have probably gone their way in peace.
Interesting theory. Sounds reasonable to me. We shall see.
Could it have been a Kent State kind of thing, where troops were misled as to who was shooting.
It has been claimed that there were a number of C’s in B colors thinking they had been invited by the B gang. But with all the he said she said going around and propaganda meisters like the Gator pushing their story tirelessly wherever they can, maybe that wasn’t true.
In which case the only double cross... was the gummit.
HA’s are lily white, but not the Bandidos. White like Zimmerman was white!
There are spiritual problems at the bottom of this trouble.
Don’t blame a mama, so much as a small-f father in hell.
Still no coroner’s report...
OK
photos are a source
of information
from which facts and conjectures can be obtained
Such as: the TP sign is here, the white pick-up is there, etc. which, when consistent with what we see with our own eyes, can become accepted as facts. There are bodies here, for example.
Facts in themselves are not evidence . . . e.g not evidence that the LE shot the persons who became the bodies on the parking lot. Not evidence, that the Bandidos shot the Cossacks that became the bodies in the parking lot. Just objective images, subject to interpretation, but not evidence in themselves. The pictures, however valuable, are not evidence . . They allow us to elucidate facts . . .
they at most provide merely facts, or conjectures rising from the information in the photos.
There exists more than one “hypothetical” explanation for the facts derived from the photos and other raw information.
One does not develop an hypothesis from whole cloth. One develops an hypothesis BECAUSE there ARE indeed facts, which support evidence, that an hypothesis is true. The information —> from which are deduced facts —> which therefore might construe evidence to support the development of an hypothesis WHICH could if substantiated —> truth.
One does not create an hypothesis out of whole cloth, which as constructed, of course agrees with the photos as again mere information and not evidence; which of course, it is precisely constructed to do. NO! It has to be the other way around! No one has any business creating an hypothetical scenario out of whole cloth. NO ONE.
On the contrary, the other explanatory scenario, has testimony which agrees with the facts derived from the same photos, in addition, the independent testimony of two or three actual persons (IOW not an entirely hypothetical construct as the other hypothesis requires). IOW the alternative explanation is based upon external support — which one might question as some have. But it is NOT a merely invented proposed hypothetical.
** My summary: An hypothesis has to be surmised from evolving evidence based upon facts obtained from source information. Not the other way around. **
ANYONE can construct an a priori hypothesis that agrees with information obtained post hoc. That is not the way it works.
I apologize for the lack of clarity but I was trying not to name any specific poster. We are all after the Truth, after all, aren’t we?
Truth has fallen in the Streets
When I first heard that the Justice Dept. and BATF were involved in the Waco incident, I told myself, Don’t believe a thing they say. It is all lies and agiprop.
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.