Who can tell? Although I bet both groups have some amount of culpability in this one. We'll probably never know for sure what really happened, except possibly if there's video available.
Supposedly there is video footage and there are ballistics reports. So far - as noted in the article - the Waco police have suppressed it.
Since we're over 4 months later, I'm not sure how they're still being held without trial. Criminal thugs or not, they MUST have their day in court and the opportunity to defend themselves.
There are two clear groups (Police and Bikers) but also many subgroups. The bikers subdivide into three: Two gangs and a group consisting of several non-affiliated people. The Police seem to have a clear narrative. The other three groups present conflicting narratives. One might think that the clear narrative makes the most sense. To me it does not.
Given what happened (a chaotic firefight at a bar) I would expect a great many conflicting stories to emerge. That's what happens in chaotic situations. So the conflicting accounts from the various biker/bystander groups is in a way a confirmation of the events. It is the police's polished and consistent narrative that seems out of place.
Drugs, prostitution, money laundering, violence and protection rackets. I really don't think that we should have a problem with the removal of such people from our society.
All 177 people who were at that restaurant were charged with the same thing, even though there is no evidence that they were involved. Like literally the people hiding in the bathroom were charged the same as the people shooting out front.
I'm wondering what those folks did to deserve removal from society without question.
Justice of the peace, not judge. The person who set the initial bond apparently had no sanctioned education in the law. I have trouble believing that even the most devious and corrupt J.D. in existence could possibly create a legal theory that would even begin to square what that magistrate did with the laws of Waco, Texas, and the U.S.
The guy probably did it as a pseudo-legal way of punishing folks for being in a MC, without going through the hassle of due process. As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. In his mind, the bikers were all guilty of "contempt of Waco".
A Texas JP is allowed to institute penalties for contempt of a maximum of $100 and 3 days in jail. They can set bail, but their authority to try cases is limited to misdemeanor offenses punishable only by fines, and civil disputes less than $10k. Given the situation, the JP should have called upon a real judge--or actually several real judges--to process the 177 in custody.
There are laws that deal with gangs and organized crime. The Banditos and Cossacks are both very much gangs and very into organized crime. Being present at a gang shoot out while wearing gang colors is association. Is that fair? probably not, but that's what happened.
Do you live in this society? Why would anyone assume that the police are not part of a turf war? Police are a gang, too. They just have a government mandate.
> I really don't think that we should have a problem with the removal of such people from our society.
The devil is in the details. I think that most people would happen to agree, but I don't approve of e.g. capital punishment or arresting based on being associated with a gang involved in criminal activity. These kinds of reactions don't just affect the current generation, they affect that generation's kids. Only rehabilitation of the parents is likely to seriously improve their lives, IMHO.
The funny part is that many of the people arrested weren't part of gangs that are even alleged to be involved in criminal activity (until that day). Many of them weren't in the Bandidos and Cossacks, but regular 99% biker clubs. Some of the guys arrested were in the Soldiers for Jesus Christian Motorcycle Club, not some outlaw biker gang.
> Some of the guys arrested were in the Soldiers for Jesus Christian Motorcycle Club.
Did you get that from the article, or do you have additional sources? The article had one photo of a Christian biker (or rather, one photo of a biker and the caption said he was with a Christian club). The caption did not say that he (or others with the club) were at Twin Peaks, nor did the article mention them whatsoever. Or did I miss something?
To me, it seemed really odd, like the article was trying to say "see, some of these bikers are really decent people" and imply that some of them were there at Twin Peaks that day, when they really weren't.
Some of these gangs are doing human trafficking. If you think that laws against that are "legislating morality" rather than the only sane moral stand, then I don't even know how to begin having a conversation about ethics with you.
That's entirely possible. Just like there are people who have "exotic" taste for moonshine (or want to avoid taxes), but we have a lot less problems with bootleggers now than we did during prohibition.
Some of us have a VERY big problem with such removal without review by judge & jury. Seems the police were already there and prepared for a battle, and there's a viable theory they were just waiting for an excuse (not the first time such has happened in Waco, with comparably bad results). We have a judicial process for a reason, and bad things happen when "removal of such people" is taken lightly.
The police could well have been there because they had good reason to suspect that there was going to be trouble.
> and there's a viable theory they were just waiting for an excuse
But is there a viable theory that the police started the shooting?
If you're going to start a shootout in town, and the police are there in force to try to stop that from happening, and you start a shootout anyway, and the police shoot you to get you to stop shooting other people, well... I don't have much room for feeling like the police are out of control there.
If you have evidence that says that I misunderstood the way events happened, feel free to correct my understanding...
Such evidence is rarely obvious. Police are refusing to provide what evidence they do have (videos etc), judges have offered "we'll drop charges if you don't counter-charge", sweeping million-dollar bonds imposed on 177 people present are being seriously reduced or dropped, and other highly suspect actions are raising red flags.
What we do have is narratives from bikers present, and some photographic evidence that raises doubts about who started it. There's a lot to discuss/research, so I'll just give you a couple links as major starting points. I'm not saying whether I agree/accept the theories or not, just that we don't have enough definitive evidence to support or deny the conspiracy theory.
Short version: police snipers were already positioned, an undercover agent either started something or was "made", a fight was provoked and police were strangely quick to start firing.
hanging around a motorcycle club with weapons at the ready seems a bit suspect....generally speaking you wouldnt want to pick a fight with a biker club when everyone is present...
unless you were a tax payer funded gang with no accountability and were heavily armed
Gangs form around an economy. In the case of OMGs, the economy is drug and human trafficking, extortion, contract slaying and various other illicit businesses. Many OMGs are made up of a large percentage of ex military, with the USMC highly represented. Ditto for police forces, maybe not as much USMC. Considering how many soldiers we have, it's no surprise that OMGs are on the rise. You can thank the GWoT for that. They fight over economic power, often expressed as turf wars. So those are the dots. It's not hard to connect them.
The bottom line is three gangs met that day. Two of them without an official mandate.
That's the bottom line for anyone who didn't read the article.
The article builds a timeline of events that is outside the official story. I appreciate that you recognize the police are a gang, but the article is trying to cover some specific things, not generalities.
Read the article and you'll see it's more about the legal aspects of a situation where 177 people were indiscriminately sent to jail on rubber stamped charges.
Imagine being in an IRC channel with a 200 people and 10 of them got into a fight, presumably hacked each other, and than everyone in the channel is arrested on felony charges, and sent to jail with $100,000 bonds. Allegedly there may have been provocation and excessive weapons use by the police posing as members of rival groups.
No I saw that. But this is Texas we're talking about. Texas is one of the most corrupt states when it comes to criminal justice. There have been articles written about how people end up stuck in the system for years based on only one charge of vagrancy. Lubbock is one of the worst places to get arrested in the US, for example.
How in the world is the head of the Grand Jury a Waco police officer who was at least a little involved with the incident? Shouldn't he have been recused from that process?
>>Peterson signed all 177 of the so-called cookie-cutter probable-cause affidavits in bulk, without specifying the evidence against each individual defendant. Peterson, it turns out, is a former state trooper with no legal training.
Hate lawyers and law schools if you want, but they have their time and place. The problem here seams not that officers broke the law, but that they seem not to have any understanding of the law in the first place. Instead of planning and deliberation, they were all showboating against each other. The whole incident reads like a script for Lethal Weapon IV.
I'd be very interested in the bullets recovered from the scene, but it sounds like that's not happening. The whole talk of long guns and a police trap sounds sadly totally expected with American police.
Are biker gangs on the rise following Sons of Anarchy, which depicted outlaw biker gangs in a semi-glorious(?) light, or are they just getting more media attention?
The Hell's Angels and such have been around forever, but I never much heard about them until a couple of years ago.
I think you answered your own question. The Hells Angels have been around for-...well, since just after WWII. Hunter S. Thompson wrote a book about them. Made somewhat famous when they provided security for a Rolling Stones concert in Altamont, CA and a concert-goer ended up getting stabbed. Much like Sons of Anarchy, the bikes are just a prop; they're really just organized crime. But they've been around, occasionally making news. I probably run in different circles than you do, but Hells Angels have always been popping up in the news from time to time over the years.
Are people watching _Sons of Anarchy_ and saying, "I want to join an outlaw biker gang?", and hence "on the rise" as you put it? I dunno, when _Goodfellas_ or _The Sopranos_ came out, did the mafia start to be "on the rise"? No. Such things might get more attention by the media when the topic comes out in popular media, which might sell more ads, so more stories are produced.
There was also a shooting at a Twin Peaks in Webster a few months later. Maybe 'Bike Night' doesn't promote a family friendly crowd. If breasteraunts want to gather these gangs up and feed them alcohol, they should be held partially responsible.
I have lived in Waco for 5+ years. Never experienced a 'biker gang' or heard of biker related violence here.
I had my run with the law that disenchanted me. I saw a city worker stealing mail. I was laughed at by the police officer and almost charged for wrongfully calling 911. City worker tried slamming their car door in my face while I was talking to the officer, and the officer laughed again. I just walked away at that point.
The head of the grand jury is obvious bias. The imprisonments for 'being present' are insane. A blanket bail that is an unreasonable amount is odd. The false propaganda that biker gangs from all over the USA were flooding towards Waco with terrorist weapons was just a blatant lie.
Tip or not, why was full swat basically waiting in the parking lot before the event? Any other day, they wouldn't care if a few <insert anything not living in Hewitt> picked each other off in the parking lot. If they had a feeling something was going down, why not be proactive instead of reactive?
House taxes rise, school budgets cut, service cuts, and dodgy press release guy gets a promotion. yay. At least Baylor made a new shiny stadium to distract the general population.
Edit: Oh yeah, the current 'Waco Warrant Roundup' posted names of everyone with known warrants in the county. They're pulling over everyone and running warrant searches. Seems unlawful. I got pulled over and warrant checked because of 'loose articles in truckbed'. It was a bloody tie down strap that was hooked to the truck.
"In November 2013, two Cossacks were stabbed in a roadhouse parking lot in Abilene;"
Roadhouse? As in Logan's Roadhouse? As in the Chili's of the great plains? That stabbing happened in a Logan's Roadhouse parking lot, not the Road House where James Dalton bounced. This is a fascinating story, but it loses some credibility (to me) with a purposeful omission like that.
57 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadSince we're over 4 months later, I'm not sure how they're still being held without trial. Criminal thugs or not, they MUST have their day in court and the opportunity to defend themselves.
Or the system is all a sham after all..
Given what happened (a chaotic firefight at a bar) I would expect a great many conflicting stories to emerge. That's what happens in chaotic situations. So the conflicting accounts from the various biker/bystander groups is in a way a confirmation of the events. It is the police's polished and consistent narrative that seems out of place.
Apparent trick questions make me nervous.
I'm wondering what those folks did to deserve removal from society without question.
The guy probably did it as a pseudo-legal way of punishing folks for being in a MC, without going through the hassle of due process. As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. In his mind, the bikers were all guilty of "contempt of Waco".
A Texas JP is allowed to institute penalties for contempt of a maximum of $100 and 3 days in jail. They can set bail, but their authority to try cases is limited to misdemeanor offenses punishable only by fines, and civil disputes less than $10k. Given the situation, the JP should have called upon a real judge--or actually several real judges--to process the 177 in custody.
The devil is in the details. I think that most people would happen to agree, but I don't approve of e.g. capital punishment or arresting based on being associated with a gang involved in criminal activity. These kinds of reactions don't just affect the current generation, they affect that generation's kids. Only rehabilitation of the parents is likely to seriously improve their lives, IMHO.
Did you get that from the article, or do you have additional sources? The article had one photo of a Christian biker (or rather, one photo of a biker and the caption said he was with a Christian club). The caption did not say that he (or others with the club) were at Twin Peaks, nor did the article mention them whatsoever. Or did I miss something?
To me, it seemed really odd, like the article was trying to say "see, some of these bikers are really decent people" and imply that some of them were there at Twin Peaks that day, when they really weren't.
It's the government legislation of morality that empowers outlaws and it will never end so long as human beings like to fuck and get high.
Edit: s/causes these things/empowers outlaws/
> and there's a viable theory they were just waiting for an excuse
But is there a viable theory that the police started the shooting?
If you're going to start a shootout in town, and the police are there in force to try to stop that from happening, and you start a shootout anyway, and the police shoot you to get you to stop shooting other people, well... I don't have much room for feeling like the police are out of control there.
If you have evidence that says that I misunderstood the way events happened, feel free to correct my understanding...
What we do have is narratives from bikers present, and some photographic evidence that raises doubts about who started it. There's a lot to discuss/research, so I'll just give you a couple links as major starting points. I'm not saying whether I agree/accept the theories or not, just that we don't have enough definitive evidence to support or deny the conspiracy theory.
Short version: police snipers were already positioned, an undercover agent either started something or was "made", a fight was provoked and police were strangely quick to start firing.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/19/biker-truthers-eme... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/05/27/waco-twin-pea...
(Please don't launch into criticizing the messengers; this is about the message.)
unless you were a tax payer funded gang with no accountability and were heavily armed
Take people out because someone says they're bad. That's not.
The bottom line is three gangs met that day. Two of them without an official mandate.
The article builds a timeline of events that is outside the official story. I appreciate that you recognize the police are a gang, but the article is trying to cover some specific things, not generalities.
Imagine being in an IRC channel with a 200 people and 10 of them got into a fight, presumably hacked each other, and than everyone in the channel is arrested on felony charges, and sent to jail with $100,000 bonds. Allegedly there may have been provocation and excessive weapons use by the police posing as members of rival groups.
This is the real problem. The police operate on a blank check principle and are held to zero accountability. The taxpayers are the real victims here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=waco+population&ie=utf-8&oe=...
It's the taxpayers that are giving them that blank check in the first place. They're not victims, they're complicit.
Hate lawyers and law schools if you want, but they have their time and place. The problem here seams not that officers broke the law, but that they seem not to have any understanding of the law in the first place. Instead of planning and deliberation, they were all showboating against each other. The whole incident reads like a script for Lethal Weapon IV.
The Hell's Angels and such have been around forever, but I never much heard about them until a couple of years ago.
Are people watching _Sons of Anarchy_ and saying, "I want to join an outlaw biker gang?", and hence "on the rise" as you put it? I dunno, when _Goodfellas_ or _The Sopranos_ came out, did the mafia start to be "on the rise"? No. Such things might get more attention by the media when the topic comes out in popular media, which might sell more ads, so more stories are produced.
I had my run with the law that disenchanted me. I saw a city worker stealing mail. I was laughed at by the police officer and almost charged for wrongfully calling 911. City worker tried slamming their car door in my face while I was talking to the officer, and the officer laughed again. I just walked away at that point.
The head of the grand jury is obvious bias. The imprisonments for 'being present' are insane. A blanket bail that is an unreasonable amount is odd. The false propaganda that biker gangs from all over the USA were flooding towards Waco with terrorist weapons was just a blatant lie.
Tip or not, why was full swat basically waiting in the parking lot before the event? Any other day, they wouldn't care if a few <insert anything not living in Hewitt> picked each other off in the parking lot. If they had a feeling something was going down, why not be proactive instead of reactive?
House taxes rise, school budgets cut, service cuts, and dodgy press release guy gets a promotion. yay. At least Baylor made a new shiny stadium to distract the general population.
Edit: Oh yeah, the current 'Waco Warrant Roundup' posted names of everyone with known warrants in the county. They're pulling over everyone and running warrant searches. Seems unlawful. I got pulled over and warrant checked because of 'loose articles in truckbed'. It was a bloody tie down strap that was hooked to the truck.
Roadhouse? As in Logan's Roadhouse? As in the Chili's of the great plains? That stabbing happened in a Logan's Roadhouse parking lot, not the Road House where James Dalton bounced. This is a fascinating story, but it loses some credibility (to me) with a purposeful omission like that.