But those laws were intended to be applied to criminals who had already done criminal acts or ordered others to do criminal acts. We know that 115 of the 177 arrested on 5/17 had no convictions, so in the law's eyes they are not criminals.
There is a guide from a Texas DA on when the Texas Organized Crime law may and may not be ADDED to other charges. In every example. it is an added charge. Seems to me that Waco got the cart before the horse. Charge everyone with conspiracy and no one with anything else.
Three’s the key … but you’ll need more
It is this very fact that bothered me from the very start and continues to do so.
“First, how do you prove intent, and secondly, whose intent must you prove?” from your link.
Which to me, brings us back to the point: what were the Cossacks and their affiliates DOING at Waco? What was the organized entity’s INTENT in showing up at Twin Peaks?
Not to attend the Confederation meeting at 1pm presumably, since the Cossacks are not members; and they arrived at ~11 am.
To peaceably parley with the Bandidos? Yet they are seen presumably checking their weapons on the patio as a group of Bandidos (including that Club President) rolled in. The altercation started as soon as the Bandido President and his Sgt at Arms etc. rolled in.
So apparently the Cossacks were prepared for armed conflict, if not “expecting” it. So the Cossacks can be said to have “intended” to use firearms, at a restaurant in broad day light with civilians and LE present, if “they” deemed it “necessary”. 1% ers consider it necessary to fight against “disrespect”, to a Club President, to a Prospect, to any member who is threatened. Being prepared to use a firearm in those conditions goes beyond what civilians consider self-defense. One does not lawfully kill another person for “disrespect.”
Then, what did the individuals riding with the Cossacks to Waco intend? Some of them knew of and agreed with the intention above to prepare for use of deadly force.
Some such as this Scimitar claim they knew nothing about any imminent confrontation and did not agree with or intend either to commit or support any violent act, and presumably would not have agreed with it had they known.
So why DID they ride with the Cossacks that day? Not to attend the Confederation meeting because their groups were not members.
They were riding in some force — 60 to 70 of them. Just for a Sunday ride to Twin Peaks from other places in Texas to have Sunday brunch in Waco? Why Waco? If not because the Bandidos were meeting in Waco, why? It was no coincidence.
Was it a mandatory run? If so, the individual’s “intent” was to ride with the Cossacks because they were told to. This alone could be argued to show “agreement” with the group intent. “Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die” - Charge of the Light Brigade.
Following orders of the gang leaders. One rode with the Cossacks, and it didn’t matter WHY they were called to ride to Waco in force — they would do it anyway, because as members they “agree” they can be asked / told to support the club without knowing specifically why they are called to do so.
So there you would have individual intent and agreement, aid and support (riding in numbers to support the Cossack intention). OR?
If the above passes legal scrutiny (which I don’t know), what about the rider who was innocent in his heart and conscious personal “intention” to do no harm? It seems to boil down, then, to why is he a Scimitar? Riding in support of a gang is like flying around and running into fly paper: you are stuck, along with all the other flies on the fly paper. Due to the nature of gang operation; due to the grasp of RICO-type laws.
No doubt in the individual hearings and trials, the individual’s previous record, character, etc. would be an important mitigating factor. But I don’t see how that makes the conspiracy charge itself inappropriate, nor the probable cause stated.
One does not have to “like” that —
“Seems to me that Waco got the cart before the horse. Charge everyone with conspiracy and no one with anything else.”
I hear you.
There are nine deaths ruled homicide. Homicide was committed.
Does the statute allow for someone to be charged with conspiracy to engage in organized criminal activity, without specifying who committed the homicides? Asking, hope someone knows . . .
One of the Bandidos according to Ledbetter, murdered two Cossacks. He is possibly the Bandido who was himself killed and if so, cannot be charged. Cannot his fellow Bandidos still be charged with conspiracy even though HE cannot be charged with murder because he is dead? His would be the specific criminal act to which they were conspirators . . .