Shooting at Twin Peaks in Waco

[ELB]

I tried to post a little info about what was going on here as I was glued to the TV interviews given by the Waco PD spokesman. Some here seem to want to come up with conspiracy theory for what ever reason. There are a lot of regular guys and gals out there that love to ride. This is not about them. This is about a bunch of bad guys gathering with bad intent. I don't care what anyone says about motor cycle gang riders, they are bad. I have had to deal with them when I was in Police work back in the 70's and 80's. The bottom line here is a bunch of them gathered at Twin Peaks, the reason is not important. A big shoot out and brawl insured. Bullets were flying every where. Fortunately there were Police ready at the scene and were able to contain it to the Twin Peaks location. Fortunately no innocent bystanders were injured, a tribute to the Officers at the scene for their quick response to contain it. It is very unsettling for those of us who live here and those that shop at the Central Texas Market Place. We have a very good Police force in our area and a very good DA. They have tried very hard to gather all the evidence properly and will go through all the people arrested and decide who should be charged and who should not. We should let them do their job. No matter what anyone thinks of those that lost their life or were injured in the event they all have someone that loves them. We should pray for them.

Well said.

[joe817]

Well put SkipB. Totally agree.

[steveincowtown]

Zero collateral damage to people? Headshots. Just bikers dead? Something is really really odd here... Waco may be more scary than Williamson county.

I'll let it come out in the wash, but my personal belief is this is because the bikers weren't the ones doing the majority of the shooting.

I have a HUGE issue with them just throwing a group of people in jail under the guys of organized criminal activity. It is just plain unamerican.

[cb1000rider]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

No.. and if that's really what they are, then I'd stand to be corrected... I just have trouble getting my head around that's what these 180 people happened to be - hard core criminals... The only real evidence seems to be wearing a patch, riding a motorcycle, and being present at a location where there was a gunfight... No doubt some of them are bad guys. They're basically charged due to wearing a patch. I mean if that's the way we're going to do it, lets go round up every bandana wearing hoodlum that there is - which would probably be a much more effective exercise.

We've got "biker gangs" out my way that have road signs and clean stretches of road. Leathers, patches, Harleys... Visual inspection of the stuff they wear and the bikes they ride would have me lumping them all in the same group.... To me, seems like a lot of people copying the lore of the Hells Angels, my guess is that most of them are NOT that.

I just don't think this was THE meeting of outlaw bikers across 4-groups in a very public location. A bunch of these people look like "kids" to me - probably trying to fit in. If you're going to run a well oiled criminal element, you don't do you business in the middle of town.

My Momma, bless her heart, told me that you are known by the company you keep.....and she was right. 'Nuff said...

Momma was right about that. But she didn't say you should summary convicted by association. It's still America.

[VMI77]

Oh....and one of the Cossacks killed is an AA pilot

Criminal? Yeah...OK

I just did a quick google search a found dozens of examples of commercial pilots being charged with drug violations. So, yes an AA pilot can be a criminal.

Drug violations? There are two kinds of criminals in this country...actual criminals who transgress morally and injure others and those who are created by government prohibitionist laws. I don't consider someone busted for marijuana possession, for instance, to be a criminal, no matter what the government calls them. Rush Limbaugh is a "criminal" by the same standards, and while I"m not a fan of Limbaugh, I don''t consider him a criminal because he illegally took painkillers.

The bogus war on drugs has done more damage to liberty and the US Constitution that all terrorist acts combined....then again, so has the so called "war on terror."

Nope, this was the hard stuff. Ultimately the law is the law and who you consider to be a criminal isn't relevant. The point is the people in these gangs are criminals regardless of how you try to spin it.

I don't know what "this was the hard stuff means." And I'm not "spinning" anything --an accusation which is essentially accusing me of lying. I very clearly stated my opinion about criminality. If anyone is "spinning" anything it's you, since my comment was a direct response to your statement about commercial pilots charged with drug violations, not gang members.

[VMI77]

Yes I am very aware of that.

You do realize that the same people on this forum that preach "innocent until proven guilty" are the same ones that are jumping on the FRY EM ALL wagon? The same ones that scream the MSM is liberal and full of it are not willing to accept that some of these guys are GREAT PEOPLE....but because they belong to a Motorcycle Club they must be criminals....

I happen to know (as I mentioned) several of the Cossacks and though they may get rowdy, they are far from criminals.

Yeah...they did put the TEXAS rocker on their vest and in doing so kicked dirt in the face of the other club ..... knowing it will cause issues. But they are willing to stand up for themselves and not be bullied.

No one has said "fry em all". They are all suspects in a a violent crime that endangered many and have been arrested pending the investigation. Do you want the cops to let them all go?

Just because you claim to know a couple of them doesn't make them good guys. Maybe this is another example how important discretion and discernment in choosing friends is.

Let them all go? That's a strawman. No one has suggested letting them "all" go. Arresting everyone present, without evidence of committing a crime, and assessing a $1 million bond, doesn't meet Constitutional standards. Mass arrests and collective punishment are features of totalitarian police states, not Constitutional Republics (not that this is any longer a Constitutional Republic). The system isn't supposed to exist to make police work easy, it's supposed to exist to ensure liberty and individual rights.

Do you really think there are going to be trials for all 170 arrested? Do you think that the majority of those arrested will even be charged with a crime? If the police think you could have committed a crime because you happen to be around where a crime is committed, should they be able to arrest and imprison you until they can collect enough evidence to decide to try you or let you go, or should they have to have enough evidence to have probable cause for an arrest in the first place? It appears rather obvious that the police didn't know who all did what so they just arrested everyone intending to sort it out later.

Not a straw man at all. Who do you think they should hold and who do you think they should let go at this point? Are they not all suspects until they can investigate further? Who would you have arrested?

By the way, they didn't arrest everyone present. Only the known biker gang members were arrested. Who's playing the straw man card now?

They should have arrested those they witnessed committing a crime. Known biker gang members were arrested? So, everyone wearing biker vest, insignia, etc...or essentially, everyone present. You can quibble over my imprecise wording all you want...doesn't change the essence of my previous comment. And you're sill the one playing the straw man card.

[nightmare69]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

No.. and if that's really what they are, then I'd stand to be corrected... I just have trouble getting my head around that's what these 180 people happened to be - hard core criminals... The only real evidence seems to be wearing a patch, riding a motorcycle, and being present at a location where there was a gunfight... No doubt some of them are bad guys. They're basically charged due to wearing a patch. I mean if that's the way we're going to do it, lets go round up every bandana wearing hoodlum that there is - which would probably be a much more effective exercise.

We've got "biker gangs" out my way that have road signs and clean stretches of road. Leathers, patches, Harleys... Visual inspection of the stuff they wear and the bikes they ride would have me lumping them all in the same group.... To me, seems like a lot of people copying the lore of the Hells Angels, my guess is that most of them are NOT that.

I just don't think this was THE meeting of outlaw bikers across 4-groups in a very public location. A bunch of these people look like "kids" to me - probably trying to fit in. If you're going to run a well oiled criminal element, you don't do you business in the middle of town.

Productive members of society doesn't join a gang

[mojo84]

CB, I bet once the investigation gets further along some of the ones that were not directly involved in the shooting and don't have warrants will be cut loose. To hold the arrested people long enough to sort through the evidence, they had to file charges. People can only be held so long without charges being filled.

Since yo have a problem with the way it was done, tell us who you would have held/arrested and would you have determined which ones.

Keep in mind, many of these involved joined groups that tout their organizations as being "outlaw motorcycle gangs" and "1%ers". What dob you think they mean by that. Also, many I'd not most of such organizations requires a probate or prospect to commit a crime to earn their colors which is full membership.

These aren't the now common yuppie weekend warrior motorcycle riding club. These guys pledge to commit crimes and hide behind their good deeds and charity work to get the naive to think they are good guys.

[VMI77]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

I'm not saying any of them are good guys, I'm merely advocating following the law. The government doesn't get to decide who are good guys and who are bad guys and apply the law one way to the good and one way to the bad. The law is supposed to apply to everyone. There is either probable cause for an arrest or there isn't.

[mojo84]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

No.. and if that's really what they are, then I'd stand to be corrected... I just have trouble getting my head around that's what these 180 people happened to be - hard core criminals... The only real evidence seems to be wearing a patch, riding a motorcycle, and being present at a location where there was a gunfight... No doubt some of them are bad guys. They're basically charged due to wearing a patch. I mean if that's the way we're going to do it, lets go round up every bandana wearing hoodlum that there is - which would probably be a much more effective exercise.

We've got "biker gangs" out my way that have road signs and clean stretches of road. Leathers, patches, Harleys... Visual inspection of the stuff they wear and the bikes they ride would have me lumping them all in the same group.... To me, seems like a lot of people copying the lore of the Hells Angels, my guess is that most of them are NOT that.

I just don't think this was THE meeting of outlaw bikers across 4-groups in a very public location. A bunch of these people look like "kids" to me - probably trying to fit in. If you're going to run a well oiled criminal element, you don't do you business in the middle of town.

My Momma, bless her heart, told me that you are known by the company you keep.....and she was right. 'Nuff said...

Momma was right about that. But she didn't say you should summary convicted by association. It's still America.

No one's been convicted yet.

[mojo84]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

I'm not saying any of them are good guys, I'm merely advocating following the law. The government doesn't get to decide who are good guys and who are bad guys and apply the law one way to the good and one way to the bad. The law is supposed to apply to everyone. There is either probable cause for an arrest or there isn't.

I think they have probable cause to arrest them. Probable cause doesn't require them to be guilty before they are arrested.

Tell us who you would have arrested and who you wouldn't have. See my comments to CB.

[mojo84]

Yes I am very aware of that.

You do realize that the same people on this forum that preach "innocent until proven guilty" are the same ones that are jumping on the FRY EM ALL wagon? The same ones that scream the MSM is liberal and full of it are not willing to accept that some of these guys are GREAT PEOPLE....but because they belong to a Motorcycle Club they must be criminals....

I happen to know (as I mentioned) several of the Cossacks and though they may get rowdy, they are far from criminals.

Yeah...they did put the TEXAS rocker on their vest and in doing so kicked dirt in the face of the other club ..... knowing it will cause issues. But they are willing to stand up for themselves and not be bullied.

No one has said "fry em all". They are all suspects in a a violent crime that endangered many and have been arrested pending the investigation. Do you want the cops to let them all go?

Just because you claim to know a couple of them doesn't make them good guys. Maybe this is another example how important discretion and discernment in choosing friends is.

Let them all go? That's a strawman. No one has suggested letting them "all" go. Arresting everyone present, without evidence of committing a crime, and assessing a $1 million bond, doesn't meet Constitutional standards. Mass arrests and collective punishment are features of totalitarian police states, not Constitutional Republics (not that this is any longer a Constitutional Republic). The system isn't supposed to exist to make police work easy, it's supposed to exist to ensure liberty and individual rights.

Do you really think there are going to be trials for all 170 arrested? Do you think that the majority of those arrested will even be charged with a crime? If the police think you could have committed a crime because you happen to be around where a crime is committed, should they be able to arrest and imprison you until they can collect enough evidence to decide to try you or let you go, or should they have to have enough evidence to have probable cause for an arrest in the first place? It appears rather obvious that the police didn't know who all did what so they just arrested everyone intending to sort it out later.

Not a straw man at all. Who do you think they should hold and who do you think they should let go at this point? Are they not all suspects until they can investigate further? Who would you have arrested?

By the way, they didn't arrest everyone present. Only the known biker gang members were arrested. Who's playing the straw man card now?

They should have arrested those they witnessed committing a crime. Known biker gang members were arrested? So, everyone wearing biker vest, insignia, etc...or essentially, everyone present. You can quibble over my imprecise wording all you want...doesn't change the essence of my previous comment. And you're sill the one playing the straw man card.

You really think it's that easy to sort something like this out? It was a pretty chaotic scene with a lot of folks looking similar with their similar clothes. Are you saying it's the law that only people that are seen by police committing a crime can be arrested?

[cb1000rider]

CB, I bet once the investigation gets further along some of the ones that were not directly involved in the shooting and don't have warrants will be cut loose. To hold the arrested people long enough to sort through the evidence, they had to file charges. People can only be held so long without charges being filled.

Since yo have a problem with the way it was done, tell us who you would have held/arrested and would you have determined which ones.

They were all charged with organized criminal activity. I think you're saying "see if those charges stick". I agree with you that it'd be reasonable to round everyone up that was associated and hold them for a constitutionally reasonable amount of time - say 24 or 48 hours. Within that amount of time, I'd put a bunch of effort in to reviewing video that I assume was there and figuring out who should be held. If no evidence exists like that, it's going to be a tough one.

What I'm not OK with is the 1M bail against this level of evidence. That's basically "indefinite hold". You're a police officer, right Mojo? How does 1M bail compare to even more violent crimes with much more definitive evidence that you're familiar with? To me, it speaks to a judicial system in Waco that perhaps over-reacted or is afraid. That sort of round-up and bail isn't "innocent until proven guilty". It is: "locked up until proven innocent". That's the part that I'm having a problem with. I'll bet they got some real bad guys. But I'll also wager that there are some non-criminals here that are going to be destroyed by this economically... Associated with the wrong parties? Sure. That shouldn't land you in jail necessarily.

If you're OK with this, why not round up EVERYONE that's on the street during one of these mass looting events? Mostly, they're guys out to do no good. Pop them all with 1M bail, hold them indefinitely, and see what sticks. I think you'd mostly get the criminal element... Mostly...

[TVGuy]

Would you guys be saying the same things about some of them being good guys if it was the Crips and Bloods that shot it out in a busy shopping center?

I'm not saying any of them are good guys, I'm merely advocating following the law. The government doesn't get to decide who are good guys and who are bad guys and apply the law one way to the good and one way to the bad. The law is supposed to apply to everyone. There is either probable cause for an arrest or there isn't.

They've booked over a thousand, A THOUSAND, weapons into evidence. Probably just a few bad apples that brought all of that in.

Where did they find weapons...Hidden in bags of chips, flour, crammed in toilets. That's what law abiding citizens do. I know I hide my EDC in a toilet every time I go out to eat.

These were not good guys.

Also, if four guys are together to cause trouble and one unexpectedly murders someone, all of them are charged with murder.

If they were there to meet about criminal activities and mass murder happens, all are guilty by association. I'm not saying all will be charged or convicted, but there is PC to hold/charge them all currently.

[mojo84]

CB, I bet once the investigation gets further along some of the ones that were not directly involved in the shooting and don't have warrants will be cut loose. To hold the arrested people long enough to sort through the evidence, they had to file charges. People can only be held so long without charges being filled.

Since you have a problem with the way it was done, tell us who you would have held/arrested and would you have determined which ones.

They were all charged with organized criminal activity. I think you're saying "see if those charges stick". I agree with you that it'd be reasonable to round everyone up that was associated and hold them for a constitutionally reasonable amount of time - say 24 or 48 hours. Within that amount of time, I'd put a bunch of effort in to reviewing video that I assume was there and figuring out who should be held. If no evidence exists like that, it's going to be a tough one.

What I'm not OK with is the 1M bail against this level of evidence. That's basically "indefinite hold". You're a police officer, right Mojo? How does 1M bail compare to even more violent crimes with much more definitive evidence that you're familiar with? To me, it speaks to a judicial system in Waco that perhaps over-reacted or is afraid. That sort of round-up and bail isn't "innocent until proven guilty". It is: "locked up until proven innocent". That's the part that I'm having a problem with. I'll bet they got some real bad guys. But I'll also wager that there are some non-criminals here that are going to be destroyed by this economically... Associated with the wrong parties? Sure. That shouldn't land you in jail necessarily.

If you're OK with this, why not round up EVERYONE that's on the street during one of these mass looting events? Mostly, they're guys out to do no good. Pop them all with 1M bail, hold them indefinitely, and see what sticks. I think you'd mostly get the criminal element... Mostly...

I'm not saying "see if those charges stick". I saying that by being there, professing membership, multiple murders and a history of turf wars between the two gangs, it is reasonable to arrest them and charge them the way they have been. Where in the world do you come up with me me being a cop? I've been scolded on here more often for being too hard on cops in the past. More violent crime than a multiple murder in a public place with innocent bystanders nearby? I'm sure some of those arrested will have their charges added to or changed to murder. I'm sure if your family had been nearby, you would have a different opinion about how this was handled by the police.

Your comment about the looters is ridiculous. If the looters were killing people, I would expect the cops to shoot them and arrest the others. Also, most of the looters aren't professing to be outlaw motorcycle club members and advertising that on their clothing.