Are you an attorney? I ask because several (including one I can name - Clinton Broden) have asserted that there are more grounds for action against Waco than that one you cited.
I'm not an attorney. I just work with several. The thing is, that all the other statements made by the article regarding the cops' actions individually are not wrongful. For instance:
1. "..local, state and federal law enforcement officials knew of a conflict between the Cossacks and the Bandidos.." OK, so they knew. So what? That doesn't mean they have to do anything about it.
2. "..[the police] decided that the Waco Twin Peaks was where that conflict might escalate into something RICO worthy and interesting.." Nothing wrong with what the cops did here.
3. "..surrounded the Twin Peaks with militarized police.." Nothing wrong here. This is well within police authority.
4. "..set up their cameras.." Nope, nothing wrong here.
5. "..then watched, as in CNN's memorable phrase, as the parking lot was turned into a raging war zone.." This involves a matter opinion by CNN. But still, nothing says the cops have to act every time they see crime in progress. Remember the Joe Horn case? The cops were watching as the burglary took place, and Horn shot the perps.
However, what ties this all together and begs to establish a cause of action is if the cops PROVOKED the gunfight. If the bikers can establish this, then everything else points to a conspiracy, and the bikers have a BIG lawsuit. Without evidence that the cops provoked the fight, the bikers have nothing but empty accusations.