Posted on 11/10/2015 6:51:16 PM PST by don-o
Please tell us exactly how/why you consider that a "stupid" question?
You lie — you believe in betraying the Constitution. You believe in depriving people of their right to free association. You are just to anti-American to realize it.
What is your theory for it?
Was it because Texas has inept cops across the state, so inept that they can't catch these thugs doing bad deeds even when the thugs practically wear uniforms identifying themselves as thugs?
Was it because these "criminals" are so very professional and accomplished and can get away with doing bad deeds even while wearing the equivalent of flashing neon signs that identify them as thugs to cops and anyone else with eyes?
eastexsteve and mac truck, neither one of you deceitful cowards have even approached providing an actual THEORY as to how it is that so many bad guys could have evaded Texas cops for so long. Instead, you go off on tangents, post "scary" pictures, change the subject --
-- it's because you know you're trapped in a corner. If you insist that all of those arrested are guilty, then you HAD BETTER ALSO accept that it means you have either a very low opinion of Texas cops, a very high opinion of biker "thugs" professionalism, or both.
It's why you NEVER answer with your own theory. You only answer with distractions. You are at heart deceitful cowards, and you prove it here with your words.
Why Did Prosecutors Indict So Many People in the Waco Biker Shootout Case? - The Atlantic - David A. Graham - November 12, 2015
I'm still seeking the text of the indictments, and this article popped up.
I was citing elements of federal RICO in post 125. If I confused them in another post, then my apologies.
-- Are you retreating from your statement that "All that has to be shown is that the perps acted in unison to achieve the same objective(s)."? --
Absolutely. LOL! I was speaking off the cuff as seems to be the general practice on this forum. There are many more tests to be met. I cited the state code for organized crime in order to clarify what the law was regarding the definitions of gangs or criminal organizations. I don't think enough is known by the general public as to whether or not the tests can be made for a conspiracy, or whether or not conditions were met for organized criminal behavior in the parking lot crime scene. However, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I can tell you by the evidence displayed in the CNN video inside the restaurant that about 6 or 7 of those individuals appear to be violating the law. Now, if those individuals can mount an affirmative defense, I would be interested to know what that would be.
Yet you'd like us to believe in this case that an organizational structure in which one in three members are convicted criminals is somehow an acceptable societal norm.
Hint: It isn't...and if you really wanted to help those innocent bikers in Waco you'd stop bleating that only one third of them were convicted criminals before they started slugging, stabbing, and shooting each other.
Cops can't be everywhere at all times. Do you get a ticket every time you violate the traffic laws? Dallas already has 83+ murders this year. Do you think they caught them all? (The normal conviction rate is only about half.) Look at all the illegals crossing the border. They're breaking the law. Do they catch them all? Do you think they even catch 10 percent of them? How about 5 percent? One percent? So, the basis of your implied theory that two-thirds of the bikers were squeaky clean doesn't hold much water.
You are so predictable in that you are always evasive. I maintain that you are a deceitful coward. You have ZERO explanation for LEO's utter failure to have ever caught these "criminals" before.
I am a "convicted criminal" by your book because I have been arrested and tossed in jail TWICE (I was a wild child and extended my adolescence into my early 30s! I guess you are so much better and superior of a person than I am, aren't you, mac truck?)
So I guess no organization should ever let me join because by your lights, I taint the organization with my very presence.
You are contemptible and you have ZERO respect for the law or for the US Constitution. You belong in North Korea.
Thanks for answering.
Do you think a "criminal" convicted of a DUI, illegal carry of a firearm, or pot possession, is on the same par as a criminal convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, extortion, rape, or murder?
Because if you do, you are a fool.
REALLY what you mean is that you think that the right of free association is stupid, a bad idea. You have contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
You are voluntarily associating with me, and by your lights, I am a "criminal" on the same level the majority of the 60 of 177 bikers arrested at Waco who had prior records. You had better start ignoring my posts and declining any reply to them if you don't want people to "look askance" at you.
You've been a very bad boy, mac. Much worse than most of the real jailbirds I've known over the years; they have more respect for the law, the Constitution, and liberty than you. You stink. You are an enemy within of MY country.
As I said — you are contemptible. And then you go and prove it with that disgusting, insulting picture. Is that your girlfriend? Or your Mom?
And also — thanks for proving that I kicked your ass in this debate! {^) Sent you scurrying away to look for scary pictures, they’re all you have. You poor bastard.
There was a link provided previously (#26), on this thread, to that portion of the Texas criminal code.
It's still not technically a RICO statute, even though there are some parallels. In your own discussion of RICO statutes, it seemed to me as if you were hoping to make something of that apply, regardless of your mention of that be in response to someone else who mentioned "RICO" specifically earlier on, after which you included mentions and discussion of RICO numerous additional times.
Perhaps in the course of the upcoming proceedings, federal law can be looked towards also, hopefully(?) at least to the extents which Cboldt went into some detail regarding, in reply #44 and #47.
But you didn't. You cited only a portion of the definitions within that section (71), and those arguably would apply in this instance, only if first; assumption is made that those attending the CoC meeting in Waco were involved with ongoing criminal activity, and second, after there was evidence produced in support of that assumption, the net result leading to a judge (for the purposes of whichever individual trials there will be) defining the associations/clubs as being foremost & primarily "criminal" associations, or criminal "gangs".
I do think in this particular instance, if a judge were to allow or else concede this point without reservation, it would be an injustice to those MC members who were not part of whichever clubs that they members of ---primarily for reason of habitually engaging in (or in some way $profiting$ from) ongoing criminal activity---, nor were the MC's themselves as a whole, most primarily organized around considerations of ongoing criminal activity.
Yet too, if one MC were to fit the definition of "gang" that still does not equal that all other patch wearing MC's are of the same exact predilections...
To repeat one point which I raised that you may have rather skipped over, as far as I can determine, that portion of Texas code (71), is as I said --an enhancement, not to be confused with the portions of criminal code which breaches of are typically recognized as primary cause of arrest, and primary articles of indictments.
It does appear to me that there are quite a few people who are running towards putting that particular cart before the horse, just as Waco PD did in the cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-name, otherwise identically worded initial arrest warrants, that Renya seems to be trying to ride into some sweet sunset of himself being an heroic "tough on crime" public servant/figure, or until the wheels fall off, whichever comes first
So far what is painfully missing here, is evidence of (criminal) wholesaler-retailer considerations, and "profits" etc., or some other ongoing criminal enterprise be the primary reason for association with others in combination.
What we have here are various Motorcycle clubs, most primarily organized around motorcycle ownership and usage, regardless if there be some members of those MC's who at times past may have engaged in criminal activities in association with one another.
If memory serves, one requirement for membership in the Cossacks motorcycle club, is to own a Harley Davidson, not some motorcycle of other manufacture. And those Cossacks MC, in the 2015 "gang assessment" made mention there only for reason there had been some (violent) altercations between members of Cossacks MC and Bandidos. It said nothing of that MC being some form of threat to society as criminal "gang".
It is informative to read Pattern Jury Instructions for Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity, especially conspiracy.
Especially --- conspiracy. Thank you for mentioning that.
The laws in this regard are being presented by some in awfully slippery ways --- which makes it easy for guys like Renya to stretch innuendos added on to what some people actually did, to apply to yet other persons who participated in no "organized" crimes then, or even prior to the CoC meeting, yet which could conceivably still result in lifetime prison sentences for them.
Even short of lifetime sentence, it's still problematic, if what would be being most relied upon for conviction of committing assault, and even murder, is most fundamentally for reason of mere association with those who assaulted persons, or were themselves assaulted and then attempted to protect themselves, when most people who went there that day -- it seems to me--- were not hoping for and desiring that type of thing to occur, even if some were understandably nervous about some kind of dust-up happening being a possibility.
Cossacks too? As an organized "gang" engaging in ongoing criminal activity?
No, there wasn't even mention of that MC in past gang assessments, which assesments are LEO "rappery" (lots of talk) much less there is anything approaching abundance of evidence that that MC functioned as an association for reasons of engaging in ongoing criminal enterprise...
Fromwhat I saw, there was one man who fired a weapon -- at who or what is not known. That didn't look so good. There's one.
There another guy, a heavy-set guy who had his own weapon drawn and held at the ready...periodically aiming it generally towards where gunshots apparently were being exchanged, all while other guys scrambled to escape the combat zone, where people WERE getting shot and nine ended up being killed, more wounded by gunfire also.
What law is that guy guilty of breaking? Pulling out a weapon in public, while not law enforcement officer?
It looks to me like he was quite likely looking to protect himself and others from the not unreasonable concern (even flat-out FEAR) that somebody with a gun, and ill-intents towards himself and those nearby around himself, would follow those who were fleeing the parking lot seeking to get away from the fighting and gunfire and try to SHOOT THEM.
He looked like he was standing ready to confront that possibility -- and not allow that to occur, if he could stop it.
Is that one of the guys you see as a "law breaker"?
Yep, one violation of the law. Start counting.
-- Is that one of the guys you see as a "law breaker"?--
Without going back and meticulously counting, one of about a half-dozen of illegally carrying a firearm under Texas Penal Code.
More than half of their retail $$$ business proceeds --- not alcohol.
Unless there was other signage --- not against the law to be carrying concealed, provided an individual had a permit.
Both groups have criminal members, yet people of good standing in their community join those groups and are not arrested. Hmmmm.
Maybe you should consider that in every group there will be people who have criminal records.
If you will summarily judge the majority by the actions of the minority, then despite media enhanced reputations, (sometimes earned by some individuals, sometimes not,) then everyone might as well just line up and get their bracelets, lives wrecked, and sit in jail.
Not all of the people there and arrested were patch holders in either the Cossacks or the Bandidos, and of those, again many had no prior records. You are using guilt by association as probable cause. In your mind, perhaps, that may be sufficient, but I will again refer you to anyone who wears a Political Party emblem or hangs out with the members of any political party.
Everyone is an unindicted co-conspirator by your metric.
As for what people wear, well, that is up to them. If a kid can wear a shirt to school that says "F*ck you" and that is 'freedom of speech', then whatever adornment bikers choose to wear on their protective clothing (leathers) should be up to them. Certainly, some images are protected by copyright, others as trademarks, and still others closely guarded denotations of membership in a specific group.
That latter isn't so unusual. People get upset when those not in their group wear their stuff, and if you don't believe that, try roaming around in a police uniform sometime, or be a civilian hanging around a military base wearing the uniform. Even Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts aren't too happy when people wear the outfit and aren't members. So, too, with bikers and motorcycle clubs.
I, personally, have ridden with bikers of many different clubs. As a former State MRO rep, I was afforded the opportunity to ride with some fine folks, from Christian riders to Veterans to AMA clubs to even some 1% clubs. I was not a member of any of those clubs, my activities were published in a newsletter, and far from secret. I have had a CCW permit the whole time, and have no criminal record.
Some of the people I rode with had a past, some were police officers--it ran the gamut. Most were ordinary folks, unlike the portrayal of anyone wearing leathers you see on teevee being some murderous meth-crazed wild eyed rapist who parks in handicap zones without a permit.
The sad part is that you not only accept the stereotypes generated primarily by media, but are willing to use media generated stereotypes as guidance for law enforcement and a determinant of guilt, or at least probable cause.
Think about that, please, because there isn't a very large proportion of people here on this forum who don't fit into some group maligned by the media, yet you are willing to suspend disbelief and let the media image of bikers prevail.
Yes, there are some real badasses who ride motorcycles. The vast majority of bikers, however don't fall into that category, any more than the vast majority of car drivers are serial killers.
Please note that it was not just Bandidos or Cossacks who were arrested. So, in a nutshell, that wasn't the standard.
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.