Posted on 08/29/2015 6:17:21 PM PDT by Elderberry
The Texas Court of Appeals has determined over the last week that officials had probable cause in only five of the 177 arrests following a shootout between two rival biker gangs and local, state and federal authorities outside of a Waco restaurant in May, with just over a dozen more cases set to be reviewed over the next two weeks.
Among those still facing charges are a Bandidos chaplain and a husband and wife. Officials also found probable cause against Bandidos members Marcus Pilkington, 36, and Reginald Weathers, 43, who ascertain they are “being illegally confined” and authorities lack sufficient evidence to prove they engaged in organized criminal activity the day of the shootout, the Waco Tribune-Herald reported.
Nine men were killed during the exchange of gunfire that day and another 20 were injured. Authorities confiscated more than 475 weapons, including 151 firearms. No innocent civilians or law enforcement were injured during the shootout.
The incident remains under investigation, which is headed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, but a great deal of questions still remain, including who fired the fatal shots, which authorities have yet to disclose. However, Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman confirmed in June that a total of 12 rounds were fired by three Waco officers that day, leaving the remaining rounds at the hands of either the bikers or state and federal authorities.
At last count, 44 shell casings were recovered from the scene, including multiple .223 rounds, but ballistics evidence has not been made public at this time, despite the fact that autopsy reports were already released earlier this month, including vague descriptions of the injury-causing projectiles.
Weathers said the whole incident unfolded over a dispute about a parking space and a perceived act of disrespect, but while the melee initially involved the bikers, it’s unknown when authorities engaged.
According to Weathers, he and more than a dozen other members were outside of the Twin Peaks restaurant, while numerous members of the Cossacks, a rival biker gang, were near the patio area. A member of the Cossacks allegedly yelled at Bandidos club President David Martinez, saying he could not park in a particular space, but Weathers said he had not even pulled into the space at that point. Weathers, feeling his club president had been disrespected, then told the Cossacks member not to talk to his president that way, to which that member responded by punching Weathers in the face, he alleges.
Weathers said he covered his face in a defensive stance, but was soon pushed to the ground. Moments later, he heard gunshots, what he described as a “double tap.” Weathers was shot in the arm, but admitted that he did not know where the first shots came from because he was engaged in a fight with other bikers at the time.
Weathers said altogether the entire incident only lasted about four or five minutes.
“What affiliation with LE do you have? “
It was a long post!
As for my affiliation with LE:
1. When I was a teenager, I got pulled over for running a stop sign at 2 AM after an out of town game. I didn’t run it. I just made a quick stop and the cop let me go.
2. When I went to a friends out of state wedding in GA I got pulled over just before dark with no taillights. Head lights were on so the cop had me check the fuse and followed me to the next gas station to get a new one. I was a few mph over the limit so when the lights came on I thought I would have to pay the mandatory driving in GA fee.
3. I got a ‘over 55’ ticket in Arizona on I-10 in the 80’s.
4. In the 90’s the local newspaper editor in MD called the sheriff and told him that he felt threatened because I was asked the wrong question. Actually, everything was ok till he went to Senator Sarbanes with the question and apparently the senators staff told him not to enquire on that subject.
5. In 2000 I got pulled over at 1 AM because the cop wanted to see my new car. He made a U-turn to come back behind me. Actually, his excuse was that he saw no license plate. It was the paper plate in my rear window put their by the dealer but not very visible due to the low profile and spoiler.
6. In 2003 I called 911 as this dude was trying to break into a car at 2 am that had been left their a few days ago by someone not from the neighborhood.
7. 2011: Retired from a successful career as a nuclear engineer.
Note: I may have missed a few informal on-the-street meetings with LE but none of any significance.
“From day one that I spoke to you — I told you off”
A few posts ago, you said you first tried to reason with me!
“But it came to mind to not be intending on running over to the police and volunteering any information either, if there were to be something occur which would be likely to later be talked about in a courtroom. I do regret not going, and not being able to be in position to offer testimony in support of any who would end up being charged with something, but I may have been able to see they were innocent of -— because I saw a policeman do such & such, or whatever. “
Confusing. You say you would not volunteer information if it would be talked about in court.
However you then say you regret not being able to testify against the cops.
As I read this I see that you are totally biased in favor of the criminal gangs and against the police.
Thank you for your honesty.
Not in LE yourself in some way...
I'm still not convinced.
But I am convinced you don't care to admit to the possibility that those who were arrested, were not all of them ---each and every one of them justifiably arrested and are guilty of the charges which they were.
The retired judge who refused motions to set aside the arrests, did not validate the arrests (in the case of one gentleman) as much as he noted the attorney had a compelling argument (the judge said "good argument") before punting, allowing the case to remain possibly taken to court.
That was after the police admitted in yet another hearing that they had no evidence that the accused had conspired to commit crime, or that he had committed any crimes.
Two hearings, and it comes out that the only 'evidence' which was mentioned by LE was --- they were associated with an MC --- and since they were present that day in Waco...blah, blah, bullshit.
It doesn't matter much that this judge let it slide. He didn't necessarily give the charges as filed ringing endorsement either. Obviously, the DA is gaming the system to an extent, although has not gotten away with every attempt.
There are compelling reasons to suspect, for some limited number of those arrested but were not seen to have participated in the fighting, that not only do the police not have evidence of conspiracy other than thru mere assumptions that there is, there are discernible indications that in regards to some number of those arrested, there is the opposite, and the police damn well know it, but are going to attempt to ride the accusation by way of innuendo, guilt-by-merest-association train as far as they will be allowed by compliant judges (and possibly juries) to take them towards blaming even those who committed no acts of violence, for those acts.
Deal with it. The hand you are holding on to -- sucks.
For a supposedly smart guy, why are you such an idiot?
You have no excuse. It's all by your own choice.
No, I included mention that my intent would be to provide accurate testimony, even if it helped LE contentions, but that I intended if I was there, to focus my majority of own attention on LE, yet not run to volunteer information to them in order to help them convict anyone.
That is different from how you chose to attempt to re-phrase my own statements, changing the meanings.
This is yet more of your same old crap. You foul up everything you touch, just like I've been trying to show and tell you. You have serious problems with judgement in this regard ---- and think just like some (but not all) pigs I have known.
Any volunteering of information I would seek to provide (if I would have been able to hold on to the idea, and not for whichever reasons change my mind) I thought I would prefer to provide to possible defense -- not primarily because they were bikers, but of those who even before the incident occurred ---I had the thought cross my mind--- just might get themselves mixed up with those who may end up actually committing crimes, and then, simply because they were bikers, have their lives ruined because of the criminality of others which they did not share.
For those persons who would otherwise be guilty, the police would most likely not need any assistance from myself in order to convict them. Remember the camera set-ups? At some point I came across information that those apparatus would be there, which led to my own understanding and further contemplation that those, and any information gathered would be under full control of LE, before, during, and long after --- IF anything were to blow up as was supected was a possibility.
They sure as shooting didn't need any help from me to put bullet holes in at least six people that day.
I had no intent to try to help any of those among the bikers who could be instigators of something which, according to reports, had prospects of getting out of hand, more due to emotional reactions for some, than malice aforethought intent to commit assaults upon persons who were not throwing punches at themselves. For any who I may have seen instigate things, I'd tell it if I was asked. Otherwise, I had no intent to tell lies for anyone to try and help them cover something up, they'd be on their own in that regard.
An unresolved question had come to mind in all of this --- how would I find the possibly innocent among those who otherwise I may have seen do something which made them obviously guilty? That was a big snag, and what took the wind out of my sails.
Not desiring to be witness for possible prosecution, but deserved defense if I could but have gained useful information, I would provide it even if it helped LE in some way. I did include mention of that, but you let yourself not see that, I can assume since to see it, and admit to yourself that was there, would blow your whole trip.
Ahemm ...
You would NOT volunteer information that would convict bikers or vindicate the police.
You would volunteer information to clear bikers.
Thank goodness some of the witnesses in Ferguson were more forthcoming and provided testimony that helped clear the cop there.
“No cops in the family.”
I had a cousin that was a ‘deputy’ in a small Alabama town for a few months back in the sixties. A police force of four. He washed out.
“Not in LE yourself in some way...”
I did stay in a Holiday Inn ...
“I’m still not convinced.”
LOL! Your point?
“Deal with it. The hand you are holding on to — sucks. “
LOL! Now you got me REALLY worried ...
“I’m still not convinced.”
Me either.
” I thought a whole slew of hearings had taken place, or a judge somewhere had made a bold move “
“No, I included mention that my intent would be to provide accurate testimony, even if it helped LE contentions, but that I intended if I was there, to focus my majority of own attention on LE, yet not run to volunteer information to them in order to help them convict anyone.”
As I said before. Your intent was NOT to offer anything if it helped vindicate the cops or convict bikers and your intent WAS to offer information if it would vindicate the bikers. Why the bias? What is your affiliation with the Bandidos?
————Your Post————————
“But it came to mind to not be intending on running over to the police and volunteering any information either, if there were to be something occur which would be likely to later be talked about in a courtroom. I do regret not going, and not being able to be in position to offer testimony in support of any who would end up being charged with something, but I may have been able to see they were innocent of -— because I saw a policeman do such & such, or whatever.”
“No cops in the family. Not in LE yourself in some way...”
Are you or any of your family members affiliated with either the Bandidos or Cossacks or any of their support clubs?
They'd likely not require assistance from me for any who were truly guilty of what --- as it turned out, 177 of those present did come to be formally charged with.
For those who did not take part in actively engaging what could be regarded as crime, and even for possibly some number of individuals who could have been pulled into the fighting, would be guilty of ---could likely be self defense WHICH IS STILL NOT AGAINST THE LAW, and can in many instances trump most other laws, self defense being among the most primary of rights. The only charge left is conspiracy with others to commit crime at that time and place, any proof of this "conspiracy" noise so far has been offered only by way of assumptions and innuendo. And your own mouth full of continually twisting accusations. You really are a piece work.
There you go again, spinning it all up into something it is not, with comparison that doesn't fit. What did I try to tell you about bringing false equivalencies into the picture
How many police are presently facing criminal charges in regards to this?
Are there bikers marching up and down the street? Have bikers burned down any Quickstops? Has the Justice Department contacted the local PD and pressured them to put a policeman in jail?
Have any policeman lost their present positions of employment, having been forced to resign due to widespread threats uttered by those who have burned down multiple business in addition to a Quickstop? Are any bikers, and those who share concern that some of those arrested are very likely not guilty of what they have been indiscriminately, one and all equally charged with, running around breaking into business establishments in order to loot them before setting them on fire? How many widescreen television sets have gone missing since? Were any television sets protected due to most of those who were arrested having stayed behind bars for the better part of a month?
Was anyone arrested in Ferguson with bail set at a million dollars, and they were held in jail for weeks, just because they happened to be nearby when fighting broke out, even though there was video which quite possibly showed (lets assume it did show) that this particular individual, although had been marching in misguided protest (thus a 'gang' member) did not participate in physical altercation, but was instead seen to be actively avoiding being a participant, like, was trying to physically move himself away from where fighting was taking place?
If riots had broken out right afterwards, and it was clear to me that police were not guilty of what rioters burning down a city were thinking and saying they were guilty of, then you would STILL not have a valid comparison --- You're not even close. You're so far away from reality its like you are on another planet.
It was more like I wasn't expecting any police to be formally charged with much of anything (they haven't been) and the running I mentioned that I thought I'd rather refrain from, was in regard to that being immediately right after anything bad that was expected could possible happen, did, and most everyone including myself was still on scene.
But here we still are, while you continue to twist things towards utmost condemnation in any way possible.
Once again, the truth is seriesly not in you.
Now you're just trolling.
Just fishing. But for what? What's the matter?
Everyone in your real life off run and left you-- avoid you if they can? (because you are so poisonous)
“I’ve already explained it.”
I am not convinced.
“No, I said that if it came to it, I would testify truthfully, even if helped the police make convictions.”
Yes. You said that if you were questioned, you would answer truthfully but you said you would NOT volunteer any information if it helped the cops or hurt the bikers while at the same time you said you WOULD volunteer information if it helped the bikers.
“a convicted rapist whose sexual fantasies led him to abduct and kill two 20-year-old college students—Rachel Newhouse and Aundria Crawford.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/02/10/1023470/a-killer-in-our-midst.html#storylink=cpy";
What do I think? NOT YOUR FAULT! The other case, not your fault either. Thanks for sharing your powerful testimony. BUT: Peace. Not your doing, not your fault. Servus, of course.
” and even for possibly some number of individuals who could have been pulled into the fighting, would be guilty of -—could likely be self defense WHICH IS STILL NOT AGAINST THE LAW, and can in many instances trump most other laws, self defense being among the most primary of rights. “
You can lose your right to self defense if it is shown that you escalated the situation. Going with seventy other well armed dudes to provoke a showdown may trump any ‘self-defense’ claims here.
“There you go again, spinning it all up into something it is not, with comparison that doesn’t fit. “
I am referring to your desire not to offer information that could clear LE in this situation.
In Ferguson witnesses offered information that helped clear the cop.
“It’s a long story.”
Very sad. I faintly remember that but I googled for more info.
I lived in SLO 07 and 08. Beautiful country and great wines.
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.