Posted on 07/06/2015 11:08:21 AM PDT by don-o
“Wearing of colors and being at the scene is not even a sufficient accusation.”
Yet that isn’t the extent of the accusation. The officers witnessed the accused engaging in crimes, and that is part of the accusation as well.
“I’m haven’t been talking about individuals who perpetrated violence at the scene. The deficiency I have been addressing is whether or not the state 1) states and 2) has probable cause of conspiracy.”
Yet that is part of the affidavit, so it doesn’t seem sensible to ignore that fact when evaluating whether the arrest was improper.
“But, if you abandon your previously held position that it is legal to arrest a bunch of people, without evidence, and “wait for them to turn against each other” to provide the evidence the state needs, then I’ll conceded the point. “
Again, you are misinterpreting my previous comment. For all we know, the state may already have that evidence, and may have had it before the events that day. I never said anything about “waiting for them to turn against each other”, so I don’t know why you put that in quotes.
“As I said before, the people who are viewed perpetrating violence can be arrested.”
As can any accomplices who were caught at the scene of the crime, whether they engaged in the violence directly or not.
“Many, I think most of the accused stand accused of ONLY conspiracy.”
That’s not really possible if they are all charged on a “cookie cutter” affidavit, as people have pointed out repeatedly. If it’s a “fill in the blank” form, then they must all face the same charges.
“Is it your contention that being on the scene and wearing colors establishes conspiracy?”
No, but I’ve already explained in a previous comment how it serves to establish a lot of the underlying facts needed to establish a conspiracy.
They've laid out the beginnings of that case, at least against the Bandidos members, showing that they rescheduled the COC meeting to Waco and called up members from all over the state who wouldn't normally attend that district's meeting. All they really need now is a witness to flip and connect the dots by saying that was done specifically to prepare for violence against the Cossacks.
and this is what you say now ...
I never said anything about "waiting for them to turn against each other", so I don't know why you put that in quotes.The quotes are "scare quotes," but I'll use direct quotes all the time with you.
We have a disagreement that won't be resolved via rational discussion. I believe I understand your point of view, and it amounts to "the face of the complaint contains a sufficient allegation of conspiracy against each named individual." My contention is opposite that.
As can any accomplices who were caught at the scene of the crime, whether they engaged in the violence directly or not.There is no allegation of "accomplice." The allegation is "conspiracy." It appears to me that you are asserting that the state has made a sufficient allegation of conspiracy.
I would also point out that the complaint does not make a sufficient allegation to make commission, either.
Tata.
So in your fevered little imagination you think that motorcyclists from all over Texas traveled to Waco to fight over who got to eat at Twin Peaks restaurant.
It doesn’t surprise me, as it’s in keeping with your dime novel view of motorcyclists and motorcycles.
You are loopy, however.
“So in your fevered little imagination you think that motorcyclists from all over Texas traveled to Waco to fight over who got to eat at Twin Peaks restaurant.”
No, that apparently comes from your imagination, because I never said the turf they were fighting over was the “Twin Peaks restaurant”.
Keep making stuff up though, it just makes you look crazier.
The dictionary quote you gave indicates that Twin Peaks was it.
You have never offered anything else.
Turf in your dictionary quote is exclusive occupation of geography.
That is the context, so you were pegged correctly.
Are you now going to try to imagine some other reason for your fabricated rivalry?
“The dictionary quote you gave indicates that Twin Peaks was it.”
No, the dictionary gives a definition of the word, it doesn’t say anything about Twin Peaks. You’re just pulling stuff out of your rear end, as usual.
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.