Posted on 06/23/2015 6:45:47 AM PDT by don-o
The Bandidos Motorcycle Club called Monday for Waco police to share video and autopsy reports relating to a bloody melee that left nine people dead, 18 injured and 177 arrested.
In a statement, Stephen Stubbs, an attorney representing the club, accuses the Waco Police Department of repeatedly misleading the press and public with false information and withholding evidence from the deadly shooting at Twin Peaks.
“The release of the video and/or autopsy reports would simply clear up rampant misinformation,” Stubbs’ statement read. “If the Waco Police Department didn't want to interfere with the investigation or influence a potential jury pool, it should not have released its false narrative in the first place and instead should have stayed silent during the entirety of the investigation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcdfw.com ...
As I said...The insults have gone both ways...
I realized early on that it was not going to be popular to just want facts...
Patience
“If no one else picks up on this, I will devote some time to some remedial work on Constitution 101 for you.”
I didn’t ask you to devote time. I just asked you to explicitly state which clauses were violated by the events you enumerated.
>>> Is it OK for them to shoot at each other? <<<
If one person fires a gun at another and the second person responds in kind, then is that two attempted murders or one attempted murder and one self-defense?
Does a ‘natural right’ to self-defense exist or is that right negated by a choice of clothing as determined by a third party?
What if the third party then determines it has the right to shoot both the attacker and the defender because of a choice of transportation?
Upon reflection, I will not engage you any further. If your behavior on these threads improves, if you will confess toslandering me, I might reconsider.
“If one person fires a gun at another and the second person responds in kind, then is that two attempted murders or one attempted murder and one self-defense?”
Your question is not specific enough to answer. Per the Texas statutes it depends on who the instigator was.
Which person is the instigator can change during a conflict.
If one punches another, they would be the instigator. But if they back down and the other person attacks them then the second person could be deemed the instigator. Being deemed an instigator causes you to lose your self-defense right.
“Upon reflection, I will not engage you any further. If your behavior on these threads improves, if you will confess toslandering me, I might reconsider.”
Don challenged me to stop the name calling and discuss the constitutional issues on this case. I accepted the challenge. Here is his response.
It's also okay for the police to seek and arrest individuals who are breaking the law.
Defending oneself with a legally-possessed firearm is LEGAL. At Waco, the police arrested 177 individuals just for being present during the fracas.
The bottom line of what you are pushing: depriving Americans of their right to free association with people of whom you disapprove. You don't like felons (I personally know several quite well and would be one myself except for a judge who understood that the cop who arrested me was LYING), you don't like motorcyclists with a lot of tattoos, you don't like people who dress like thugs, you don't like people who smoke pot and party hard, you don't like people who don't go to church. FINE. You don't have to associate with them.
But EVERY AMERICAN has the right to associate with such people if they desire, and police are ONLY supposed to arrest and imprison people if they have engaged in breaking the law. At Waco, the vast majority of those arrested had broken ZERO laws.
The ONLY thing you are advocating is limited Americans' right to free association to people whose lifestyle you approve of.
At Waco, the vast majority of those arrested had broken ZERO laws yet because of being arrested at all, were very quickly financially and professionally ruined for years into the foreseeable future.
MEG and the rest of you people who insist on supporting the official MSM/"police" narrative, the ONLY thing you are advocating is using "police" to limit Americans' right to free association to people whose lifestyle you approve of.
Forget about the donut-hole Gator...he’s here to distract and distort that’s all.
“MEG and the rest of you people who insist on supporting the official MSM/”police” narrative’
I have mostly refrained from posting or supporting the ‘police’ narrative as have most others here. However:
Bikers on the scene commend the police for their actions.
Peter Graves, Bandidos officer and TCOC president at the Waco shooting, says they respect the police for doing their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_sCRg69TQE
(Big John Snyder, Vice president of the Boozefighters at the Waco shooting) “The police were professional, considering the situation they were in. They were professional and doing their job,” he said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-waco-biker-20150519-story.html
We have also heard from a biker family member that the police probably saved lives at Waco.
>>> The bottom line of what you are pushing: depriving Americans of their right to free association with people of whom you disapprove.<<<
I’m sorry, but you seem to be confusing me with GatorBreath.
I’ve been saying all along that the Waco deal is just plain rotten and I think I’ve been consistent about that.
We still don’t know how many firearms were legally carried, not used in the melee and that the carriers should be protected under the Second Amendment and Texas law.
We still don’t know how many people drew handguns in self-defense and were shot down by the police while defending themselves.
We still don’t know how many of the ‘weapons’ gathered by the police were legally carried yet are being used to bolster a story that doesn’t ring true.
As to the First Amendment, a back patch and a cut patch are not equal. Only the back patch denotes membership in a club, so those with cut patches and t-shirts are not ‘gang members’ but were grabbed in an overly wide sweep by police.
The CoCI meeting was a political meeting invaded by some bad actors but was open to anyone who wanted to show up, per First Amendment freedom of assembly.
The warrants used are Constitutionally suspect since that was apparently an exercise in guilt by association.
The bail appears to have been excessive and equally Constitutionally suspect especially for individuals with no previous police records.
Any other questions on where I stand?
YES, I was only copying you on the post to Gator as a courtesy!!!!!!!
Never had them in the first place because I know that you and I essentially have the SAME stand.
Any questions?
Nope! No questions. Just glad that’s sorted out and we’re pretty much on the same page.
“At Waco, the vast majority of those arrested had broken ZERO law”
I really doubt that.
AMEN, bro FREeper!! It is a good reminder to me to CLARIFY when I courtesy-ping political allies when responding to a government-supporting shill or dupe.
God bless you and yours, JJ.
“The CoCI meeting was a political meeting invaded by some bad actors but was open to anyone who wanted to show up, per First Amendment freedom of assembly.”
The Texas CoCI is run by the bad actors ... THE BANDIDOS!
“The CoCI meeting was a political meeting invaded by some bad actors”
According to Finny, you have it exactly backwards. According to finny, the Cossacks were not the bad actors but were “ filled mainly with impressionable, good, if sometimes rebellious wandering young men”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3303187/posts?page=217#217
You’re being irrelevant again.
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.