quote:
FYI, SanAntonioAg1 is a sip troll.
Gunfight at the Twin Peaks [Staff Warning on page 47]
318,080 Views |
1928 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by rather be fishing
The latest on bail reductions at Waco:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
If strong video evidence exists, why weren't they released after 24 hrs?
From the article techno posted:
What possible legitimate reason is there for refusing to release this video to the public?
quote:
The video clearly shows Bandidos executing Cossacks and Cossacks executing Bandidos, some at point-blank range," Jarrett said. "The facts and circumstances of this case are so extraordinary and so different from anything we have ever dealt with, we believe adequate bonds need to be in place to ensure the safety of this community."
What possible legitimate reason is there for refusing to release this video to the public?
I thought the JP stated he set the bonds that high to send a message.
If it was Cossacks and Bandidos executing each other, why hold everyone in proximity?
Where is the coroners report to back up that accusation?
Shoot! Where is the report at all?
Why is Waco trying to not release documents?
This just keeps looking worse for Waco and the leos/courts.
If it was Cossacks and Bandidos executing each other, why hold everyone in proximity?
Where is the coroners report to back up that accusation?
Shoot! Where is the report at all?
Why is Waco trying to not release documents?
This just keeps looking worse for Waco and the leos/courts.
quote:Actually, adequate bonds are required in every case to ensure the safety of the community. That is not the problem. The problem is that most of the bonds are excessive.
From the article techno posted:
quote:
The video clearly shows Bandidos executing Cossacks and Cossacks executing Bandidos, some at point-blank range," Jarrett said. "The facts and circumstances of this case are so extraordinary and so different from anything we have ever dealt with, we believe adequate bonds need to be in place to ensure the safety of this community."
What possible legitimate reason is there for refusing to release this video to the public?
That, coupled with some/many who should never have been arrested in the first place. But that issue has nothing to do with sharing information with the public that the public has both a right and a need to know (in order to maintain the public's confidence).
Bahgdad Swanton, a clear liar, did his best to get in front of the chaos telling lie after lie. It's a known fact TP only had video of the patio and inside the building. Now the DA has video that clearly Indicates a sentry position.
In the pictures that have been released, no where did I see dead bikers with the exception of one where the patio cameras could have caught live action much less a bikers lining up in sentry position.
Of course if that is the case picking off bikers with M4's or AR's would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
For the attorneys: why not release the video if it clearly vindicates the LE actions and supports assertions of the biker actions?
In the pictures that have been released, no where did I see dead bikers with the exception of one where the patio cameras could have caught live action much less a bikers lining up in sentry position.
Of course if that is the case picking off bikers with M4's or AR's would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
For the attorneys: why not release the video if it clearly vindicates the LE actions and supports assertions of the biker actions?
I believe an attorney talked about Don Carlos having cameras that covered the parking lot.
Discovery hasn't happened yet, so who knows.
Once discovery happens in 177 cases, I am sure any video will get leaked somehow.
If any attorneys involved are reading this, I am happy to facilitate that leak.
Discovery hasn't happened yet, so who knows.
Once discovery happens in 177 cases, I am sure any video will get leaked somehow.
If any attorneys involved are reading this, I am happy to facilitate that leak.
quote:
The latest on bail reductions at Waco:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
What's the difference between being involved and not being involed much? Does "not being involved much" mean that they were never within 1/4 mile of the shooting and "not being involved" mean that they were at least 100 miles from the shooting?
quote:quote:
I would think a biker gang would almost certainly count as a "gang" so far as carrying in the car in Texas goes. Anybody know of a case where this has occurred, where a biker carrying otherwise legally was charged with having an illegal weapon because of his affiliation?
If they have any 1%, I am pretty sure they qualify as a gang.
8T2 would be the best to know if anyone had been charged.
And if you were a 2%er at A&M, does that make you part of a "gang"?
quote:It seems like based on news accounts those they are more certain of perhaps doing some shooting are getting hit with reduced bail that is still fairly hefty. But that's just an observation.quote:
The latest on bail reductions at Waco:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
What's the difference between being involved and not being involed much? Does "not being involved much" mean that they were never within 1/4 mile of the shooting and "not being involved" mean that they were at least 100 miles from the shooting?
quote:As Techno and I discussed outside the Outdoors board,quote:It seems like based on news accounts those they are more certain of perhaps doing some shooting are getting hit with reduced bail that is still fairly hefty. But that's just an observation.quote:
The latest on bail reductions at Waco:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
What's the difference between being involved and not being involed much? Does "not being involved much" mean that they were never within 1/4 mile of the shooting and "not being involved" mean that they were at least 100 miles from the shooting?
It looks like bond is being reduced as such:
Cossacks: $250k
Support groups (Scimitars): $100k
Everyone Else: $25k
Don't know if any Bandidos have made bail other than the guy that somehow made the 1MM bail.
quote:quote:As Techno and I discussed outside the Outdoors board,quote:It seems like based on news accounts those they are more certain of perhaps doing some shooting are getting hit with reduced bail that is still fairly hefty. But that's just an observation.quote:
The latest on bail reductions at Waco:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/prosecutor-details-executions-at-twin-peaks-during-hearing/article_53ece56c-d50d-547b-bcc0-dfbef1024746.html
So this time the prosecutor indicated strong video evidence of the shootout exists. Bail is being reduced considerably for those apparently not involved much, and being reduced to a quarter million for those they think were involved somehow.
Looks like things are slowly working themselves out.
What's the difference between being involved and not being involed much? Does "not being involved much" mean that they were never within 1/4 mile of the shooting and "not being involved" mean that they were at least 100 miles from the shooting?
It looks like bond is being reduced as such:
Cossacks: $250k
Support groups (Scimitars): $100k
Everyone Else: $25k
Don't know if any Bandidos have made bail other than the guy that somehow made the 1MM bail.
Three guys posted million dollar bonds
quote:
That, coupled with some/many who should never have been arrested in the first place. But that issue has nothing to do with sharing information with the public that the public has both a right and a need to know (in order to maintain the public's confidence).
Im not defending any side here since I don't know the facts. It seems like WPD may have screwed up. But we don't have a "right" to see the video until it's made public. Your curiosity isn't a right.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Im not defending any side here since I don't know the facts. It seems like WPD may have screwed up. But we don't have a "right" to see the video until it's made public. Your curiosity isn't a right.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:quote:quote:
That, coupled with some/many who should never have been arrested in the first place. But that issue has nothing to do with sharing information with the public that the public has both a right and a need to know (in order to maintain the public's confidence).
Im not defending any side here since I don't know the facts. It seems like WPD may have screwed up. But we don't have a "right" to see the video until it's made public. Your curiosity isn't a right.
But the question is when and how is it made public.
We have open records laws for a reason that allow the public to review the actions of public officials acting on out behalf. Those officers and troopers at that restaurant that day were there at our behest in our service. Accordingly their actions are subject to public review.
You're absolutely right. But is it at least possible to seat a jury and have a trial first? Or is solving things on the Internet more critical?
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
I'm sorta surprised with as much as you talk about "process", our Constitution, and what you feel our legal system should be, that you'd prefer having video and other evidence rushed out for public consumption prior to a jury even being seated.
If you were accused of a crime or involved in an incident, would you want the evidence bantered around in the court of public opinion prior to your trial even getting started?
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
So we are to wait 18 to 36 months before reviewing the police action?
If that's how long it takes the trial to work its course, yes.
Why stop at the video? What other evidence do we want released prior to the trial? Should we begin requiring all evidence in all cases released to the media within 2 months of an event?
Look, I agree that things need to be public and can't sit in the dark forever. I just think there's a balancing act between that and a fair trial.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If there's no trial then things should be released. I'm not at all saying things should never be released. But what precedent do you want to set? With all the body cameras out these days, if an officer interviews a rape victim and then a suspect on the body camera, do you want both interviews made public prior to a trial? Where is the line?
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:quote:
If there's no trial then things should be released.
So when do we determine that there isn't a trial and documents should be released? There is no statute of limitations on murder so there is never a date at which we will say there will not be a trial.
You are the one who came up with this standard of waiting until trial so you need to explain how it works.
I'm merely telling you that I think it's too early, in my opinion, in THIS instance, to be demanding the public gets to watch all evidence.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:quote:
If there's no trial then things should be released. I'm not at all saying things should never be released. But what precedent do you want to set? With all the body cameras out these days, if an officer interviews a rape victim and then a suspect on the body camera, do you want both interviews made public prior to a trial? Where is the line?
That is a good question and if it was remotely connected to the case at hand I would be inclined to have that discussion. However it is not so let's deal with the case at hand and the information not being released.
Never mind, I'll let the 5 or 6 of you guys still left on this thing have your circle jerk of conspiracy theories.
quote:More condescension and projection. You're attributing an attitude to me that I neither have nor have I implied as much on this thread.quote:
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
I'm sorta surprised with as much as you talk about "process", our Constitution, and what you feel our legal system should be, that you'd prefer having video and other evidence rushed out for public consumption prior to a jury even being seated.
If you were accused of a crime or involved in an incident, would you want the evidence bantered around in the court of public opinion prior to your trial even getting started?
Sassapis has summed up my attitude regarding this matter quite nicely. And your single response to his posts are a disappointment.
I expect integrity from public servants. I would hope any video evidence would support that on display in this, and every case.
This whole thing is related to Jade Helm and the closing walmarts.
I haven't a clue why you're so emotional about this, and why you insist on repeated Strawmen arguments.
Like most people I bet, my first impression of this case was that law enforcement controlled/dispatched a volatile situation with appropriate force. But the more I learn, the more skeptical I have become that my first impressions will stand the test of time. I am not a part of the criminal justice system, and thus I am not required to reserve my own judgment nor suspend my common sense. I'm not required to give anyone the benefit of any doubt. This is a discussion board, and I'm enjoying the discussion. Sorry you're not.
Like most people I bet, my first impression of this case was that law enforcement controlled/dispatched a volatile situation with appropriate force. But the more I learn, the more skeptical I have become that my first impressions will stand the test of time. I am not a part of the criminal justice system, and thus I am not required to reserve my own judgment nor suspend my common sense. I'm not required to give anyone the benefit of any doubt. This is a discussion board, and I'm enjoying the discussion. Sorry you're not.
quote:quote:
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
I'm sorta surprised with as much as you talk about "process", our Constitution, and what you feel our legal system should be, that you'd prefer having video and other evidence rushed out for public consumption prior to a jury even being seated.
If you were accused of a crime or involved in an incident, would you want the evidence bantered around in the court of public opinion prior to your trial even getting started?
If I was having dinner at the restaurant next door in a Harley shirt, and currently sitting in jail going on three weeks on a 1 million dollar bond, then I would want every video released yesterday.
quote:quote:quote:
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
I'm sorta surprised with as much as you talk about "process", our Constitution, and what you feel our legal system should be, that you'd prefer having video and other evidence rushed out for public consumption prior to a jury even being seated.
If you were accused of a crime or involved in an incident, would you want the evidence bantered around in the court of public opinion prior to your trial even getting started?
If I was having dinner at the restaurant next door in a Harley shirt, and currently sitting in jail going on three weeks on a 1 million dollar bond, then I would want every video released yesterday.
Don't forget the impound fees for your sweet Toyota Venza.
quote:
Condescension duly noted. What does my "curiosity" have to do with my post?
Condescending? I think you read a little too much into my post. I just gave you my opinion. Now, if I had use some eye rolling emoticon (or whatever they're called) then I could see you thinking I was being condescending.
And it seems to me (myself included) that the majority of people want to see the video out of curiosity more than anything else. And that's my opinion.
I've got the bootleg copy of the video. Who's got the cash I will require to leak it?
Featured Stories
See All
8:30
1h ago
3.1k
6:48
3h ago
1.3k
8:45
2h ago
3.1k
Rapid Reaction: Offense explodes as A&M staves off sweep at Alex Box
by David Sandhop
2:27
7h ago
2.2k
2025 Goodland (KS) TE Linkon Cure returned to A&M for unofficial visit
by Ryan Brauninger
7:30
22h ago
2.3k
#15 Aggies advance to super regionals after dispatching Toreros
by Luke Evangelist
Big Shooter
LIVE from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M at Louisiana State (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
103
Aldo the Apache
Why is it taboo to mention concerns with A&M sports?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
89
Big Shooter
LIVE from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M at Louisiana State (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
86
InMyOffice
FINAL from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M 14, Louisiana State 4 (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
84
Big Shooter
LIVE from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M at Louisiana State (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
84
Big Shooter
LIVE from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M at Louisiana State (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
70
Big Shooter
FINAL from Baton Rouge: No. 1 Texas A&M 14, Louisiana State 4 (Sunday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
60
Colonel Ingus
Why is it taboo to mention concerns with A&M sports?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
59