SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Mistrial in Waco biker shootout trial leaves 154 suspects in limbo
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Mistrial in Waco biker shootout trial leaves 154 suspects in limbo Login/Join 
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted
Many will recall this shoot ‘em up a few years back.

quote:
The first trial stemming from a bloody biker gunfight at a Waco restaurant that left nine people dead and 20 wounded has done little to determine the fate of more than 150 people indicted in the complex and controversial Texas case.

A judge on Friday declared a mistrial in the case of Jake Carrizal, president of the Dallas Bandidos motorcycle club, who could face life in prison if he ultimately is convicted on three counts stemming from the melee on May 17, 2015.

The jury deliberated for 14 hours before telling Judge Matt Johnson it was hopelessly deadlocked. McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna declined to comment after Johnson declared a mistrial, so it was not clear if Carrizal will be tried again. All the defendants were charged with engaging in a criminal activity leading to the deaths.

The shootout took place at the local Twin Peaks restaurant, where scores of members of the Cossacks motorcycle club had already gathered when the Bandidos arrived. The two clubs have long been at odds for reasons as seemingly insignificant — to outsiders — as the use of a similar image on their identifying patches.

Details on how the fight began differ, but the altercation quickly intensified. Video from the restaurant shows bikers shooting, running and ducking for cover as waitresses scramble for the exits.

Prosecutor Michael Jarrett, in his closing argument last week, said the Bandidos "controlled the state of Texas in the biker world." He said robbery, drug dealing and violent crime were standard procedure among the group's members.

"This was destined to happen, there was going to be a war," Jarrett said. "The Bandidos are in fact a criminal street gang."

More: 'There was going to be a war': Waco biker bloodbath goes to jury

Carrizal testified that the Cossacks were lying in wait, that they "swarmed" him before he even dismounted from his Harley. His father was among the injured, and Carrizal admitted fighting and firing two shots from a small derringer he drew in the fracas.

Law enforcement officers, tipped that a confrontation was brewing, were at the scene before the brawl began, and they quickly joined in the fray. Reyna invoked the state's organized crime statute and indictments came rolling in, the prosecutor's theory being that even those who didn't punch, kick or shoot were guilty by showing up and adding to their side's show of force.

Defense lawyers fumed, claiming that Reyna was charging their clients without any evidence other than their attendance.

Seven of the nine people who died were members of the Cossacks, authorities say. Carrizal's father was among the 20 people wounded. More than 300 weapons were recovered from the scene, including guns, brass knuckles, knives and clubs.

Carrizal was the test case. A conviction would have put the other defendants on notice that prison was a real possibility. Acquittal would have put pressure on Reyna to start dropping charges. Now, even if Reyna decides to retry Carrizal, other cases likely will come to trial first.

His lawyer, Casie Gotro, in her closing argument, claimed the bikers were victims of profiling. Gotro dismissed the prosecutorial position that all the Bandidos were "criminals or cowards."

"You are going to carve out room for something in the middle," she told the jury.

But in the end, the jury couldn't decide. The next move is up to Reyna. Now 2½ years after the chaos and violence in Waco, the bad blood between the clubs clearly remains.

"I know you are blaming us for this event, but I don't blame us," Carrizal testified. "I don't blame the cops for it. (I blame) the club that surrounded us that day, that had no business being there."


Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Meanwhile the local cable company news channel says Reyna, the prosecutor, may be facing unrelated federal bribery charges.
 
Posts: 27293 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Law enforcement officers, tipped that a confrontation was brewing, were at the scene before the brawl began, and they quickly joined in the fray...


Police armed with shotguns don't how to separate crowd control? Set up a line and separate each group a distance from the other. Disarm each biker one at a time.

Police there could some training in crowd control by the Pennsylvania State Police.


*********
"Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them".
 
Posts: 8228 | Location: Arizona | Registered: August 17, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Student of Weapons Craft
Picture of Exodus
posted Hide Post
Police were nearby, but not on the premise. The owner of the restaurant would not allow them to be on the property. The violence started fast and spun out very fast. There was gunfire before the police had a chance to get there and break it up.
 
Posts: 259 | Registered: June 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of MG34_Dan
posted Hide Post
I have never heard the background on why this shoot 'em up happened in the first place. When it occurred, I was told this was all about "Road Tax". Various biker gangs wanted a piece of the tax charged to drug runners by the gangs to use IH 35. If you pay the tax, the bikers guaranteed security through their territory. If you don't pay the tax, you're on your own.


“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
– Barack Hussein Obama, January 23, 2009
 
Posts: 2191 | Location: Austin Texas USA | Registered: February 03, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of HayesGreener
posted Hide Post
The Bandidos have been ruthless in expanding their dominance of criminal enterprise for many years. Intimidation and violence are their stock. Whatever the spark that day, It's ultimately about the money and the territory.


CMSGT USAF (Retired)
Chief of Police (Retired)
 
Posts: 4358 | Location: Florida Panhandle | Registered: September 27, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Reyna invoked the state's organized crime statute and indictments came rolling in, the prosecutor's theory being that even those who didn't punch, kick or shoot were guilty by showing up and adding to their side's show of force.

Defense lawyers fumed, claiming that Reyna was charging their clients without any evidence other than their attendance.


I can tell you that they would never get a guilty verdict from me if they had no direct evidence that the person broke a law. Just being present is an asinine reason to charge someone with a crime. I've never seen any BLM or Antifa thugs charged with this.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
WTH? There is no limbo. The other defendants will dispose of their cases in the normal manner. The government and the defense will certainly consider this outcome, when deciding how they want to proceed, but it's not controlling on those other cases. Whether or not Carrizal is re-tried will be up to the prosecutor.

No "limbo" at all.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12591 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Reyna invoked the state's organized crime statute and indictments came rolling in, the prosecutor's theory being that even those who didn't punch, kick or shoot were guilty by showing up and adding to their side's show of force.

Defense lawyers fumed, claiming that Reyna was charging their clients without any evidence other than their attendance.


I can tell you that they would never get a guilty verdict from me if they had no direct evidence that the person broke a law. Just being present is an asinine reason to charge someone with a crime. I've never seen any BLM or Antifa thugs charged with this.
If there were actually no evidence a person committed a crime, I would expect you, or any other juror to vote to acquit. However, "claiming" there is no evidence, is not the same as there being no evidence. In this case at least some of the jurors believed the government met it's burden, and not only had evidence of a crime, but also had evidence that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, some other jurors disagreed.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12591 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
If there were actually no evidence a person committed a crime, I would expect you, or any other juror to vote to acquit. However, "claiming" there is no evidence, is not the same as there being no evidence. In this case at least some of the jurors believed the government met it's burden, and not only had evidence of a crime, but also had evidence that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, some other jurors disagreed.


I'm pretty sure they had some evidence in that case - the comment came from the attorneys for some of the other 150 who were charged even though there was no video evidence or eyewitness testimony saying that they participated in shooting or hitting anyone. They are being charged for being present as a 'show of force' for their side.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
If there were actually no evidence a person committed a crime, I would expect you, or any other juror to vote to acquit. However, "claiming" there is no evidence, is not the same as there being no evidence. In this case at least some of the jurors believed the government met it's burden, and not only had evidence of a crime, but also had evidence that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, some other jurors disagreed.


I'm pretty sure they had some evidence in that case - the comment came from the attorneys for some of the other 150 who were charged even though there was no video evidence or eyewitness testimony saying that they participated in shooting or hitting anyone. They are being charged for being present as a 'show of force' for their side.


You ought to read the indictment, and the statute defining the crime before you reach a verdict.

I’ve not found the indictment(s) online, but the news stories talk about a first degree felony “engaging in organized crime activity.”

Shooting and hitting someone is disorganized criminal activity.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Here is the statute:

quote:
Sec. 71.02. ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following:
(1) murder, capital murder, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary, theft, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, continuous sexual abuse of young child or children, solicitation of a minor, forgery, deadly conduct, assault punishable as a Class A misdemeanor, burglary of a motor vehicle, or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle;
(2) any gambling offense punishable as a Class A misdemeanor;
(3) promotion of prostitution, aggravated promotion of prostitution, or compelling prostitution;
(4) unlawful manufacture, transportation, repair, or sale of firearms or prohibited weapons;
(5) unlawful manufacture, delivery, dispensation, or distribution of a controlled substance or dangerous drug, or unlawful possession of a controlled substance or dangerous drug through forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, or deception;
(5-a) causing the unlawful delivery, dispensation, or distribution of a controlled substance or dangerous drug in violation of Subtitle B, Title 3, Occupations Code;
(6) any unlawful wholesale promotion or possession of any obscene material or obscene device with the intent to wholesale promote the same;
(7) any offense under Subchapter B, Chapter 43, depicting or involving conduct by or directed toward a child younger than 18 years of age;
(8) any felony offense under Chapter 32;
(9) any offense under Chapter 36;
(10) any offense under Chapter 34, 35, or 35A;
(11) any offense under Section 37.11(a);
(12) any offense under Chapter 20A;
(13) any offense under Section 37.10;
(14) any offense under Section 38.06, 38.07, 38.09, or 38.11;
(15) any offense under Section 42.10;
(16) any offense under Section 46.06(a)(1) or 46.14;
(17) any offense under Section 20.05 or 20.06; or
(18) any offense classified as a felony under the Tax Code.
(b) Except as provided in Subsections (c) and (d), an offense under this section is one category higher than the most serious offense listed in Subsection (a) that was committed, and if the most serious offense is a Class A misdemeanor, the offense is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree punishable by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for:
(1) life without parole, if the most serious offense is an aggravated sexual assault and if at the time of that offense the defendant is 18 years of age or older and:
(A) the victim of the offense is younger than six years of age;
(B) the victim of the offense is younger than 14 years of age and the actor commits the offense in a manner described by Section 22.021(a)(2)(A); or
(C) the victim of the offense is younger than 17 years of age and suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the offense;
(2) life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 30 years if the most serious offense is an offense under Section 20.06 that is punishable under Subsection (g) of that section; or
(3) life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 15 years if the most serious offense is an offense punishable as a felony of the first degree, other than an offense described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) Conspiring to commit an offense under this section is of the same degree as the most serious offense listed in Subsection (a) that the person conspired to commit.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether in voluntary and complete renunciation of the offense he withdrew from the combination before commission of an offense listed in Subsection (a) and made substantial effort to prevent the commission of the offense. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence the offense is the same category of offense as the most serious offense listed in Subsection (a) that is committed, unless the defendant is convicted of conspiring to commit the offense, in which event the offense is one category lower than the most serious offense that the defendant conspired to commit.

Added by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 922, ch. 346, Sec. 1, eff. June 10, 1977. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2373, ch. 587, Sec. 1 to 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 782, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 555, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 761, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 9, eff. May 21, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 685, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 641, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1162 (H.B. 3376), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1163 (H.B. 126), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 153 (S.B. 2225), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130 (H.B. 2086), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1357 (S.B. 554), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 68 (S.B. 934), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 91 (S.B. 1303), Sec. 20.003, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 223 (H.B. 260), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 620 (S.B. 688), Sec. 10, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1200 (S.B. 158), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1200 (S.B. 158), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 161 (S.B. 1093), Sec. 16.005, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1252 (H.B. 8), Sec. 21, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1325 (S.B. 549), Sec. 4(b), eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 333 (H.B. 11), Sec. 16, eff. September 1, 2015.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Here is the definition:

quote:
Sec. 71.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter,
(a) "Combination" means three or more persons who collaborate in carrying on criminal activities, although:
(1) participants may not know each other's identity;
(2) membership in the combination may change from time to time; and
(3) participants may stand in a wholesaler-retailer or other arm's-length relationship in illicit distribution operations.
(b) "Conspires to commit" means that a person agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense and that person and one or more of them perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. An agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be inferred from the acts of the parties.
(c) "Profits" means property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from an offense listed in Section 71.02.
(d) "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

Added by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 922, ch. 346, Sec. 1, eff. June 10, 1977. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 782, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 555, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
If there were actually no evidence a person committed a crime, I would expect you, or any other juror to vote to acquit. However, "claiming" there is no evidence, is not the same as there being no evidence. In this case at least some of the jurors believed the government met it's burden, and not only had evidence of a crime, but also had evidence that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, some other jurors disagreed.


I'm pretty sure they had some evidence in that case - the comment came from the attorneys for some of the other 150 who were charged even though there was no video evidence or eyewitness testimony saying that they participated in shooting or hitting anyone. They are being charged for being present as a 'show of force' for their side.


You ought to read the indictment, and the statute defining the crime before you reach a verdict.

I’ve not found the indictment(s) online, but the news stories talk about a first degree felony “engaging in organized crime activity.”

Shooting and hitting someone is disorganized criminal activity.
Sorry, but "shooting and hitting someone," most certainly can be organized criminal activity. I'm at a loss as to why you would make that claim, only allowing for it to be "disorganized," since your very next post shows the statute, that includes "aggravated assault," as one of the offenses that constitutes "organized criminal activity" in Texas.

Further, I didn't "reach a verdict," merely pointed out that claims by one of the parties, are only that, and nothing more.

If you want the statute for Aggravated Assault in Texas, here it is:
http://www.statutes.legis.stat...ocs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12591 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
If there were actually no evidence a person committed a crime, I would expect you, or any other juror to vote to acquit. However, "claiming" there is no evidence, is not the same as there being no evidence. In this case at least some of the jurors believed the government met it's burden, and not only had evidence of a crime, but also had evidence that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, some other jurors disagreed.


I'm pretty sure they had some evidence in that case - the comment came from the attorneys for some of the other 150 who were charged even though there was no video evidence or eyewitness testimony saying that they participated in shooting or hitting anyone. They are being charged for being present as a 'show of force' for their side.


You ought to read the indictment, and the statute defining the crime before you reach a verdict.

I’ve not found the indictment(s) online, but the news stories talk about a first degree felony “engaging in organized crime activity.”

Shooting and hitting someone is disorganized criminal activity.
Sorry, but "shooting and hitting someone," most certainly can be organized criminal activity. I'm at a loss as to why you would make that claim, since your very next post shows the statute that includes "aggravated assault" as one of the offenses that constitutes "organized criminal activity" in Texas.

Further, I didn't "reach a verdict," merely pointed out that claims by one of the parties, are only that, and nothing more.

If you want the statute for Aggravated Assault in Texas, here it is:
http://www.statutes.legis.stat...ocs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm


You must be totally devoid of any trace of a sense of humor. Jeepers!

Besides that, my response was directed at BamaJeepster, not you.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
You must be totally devoid of any trace of a sense of humor. Jeepers!

Besides that, my response was directed at BamaJeepster, not you.


Big Grin

I get the statute and the thought behind it, but if the prosecutor gets up there and some guy claims that he was standing at the bar and watched the fight and the prosecutor has no video evidence or eyewitnesses who can testify that the guy participated in the fight, I'm sorry but I'm not gonna find him guilty. Call it jury nullification or whatever, but that is nonsense. No better than the overzealous prosecutor here in the South who will occasionally want to prosecute a homeowner who takes out a thug trying to break in. Not gonna vote to convict him; no way, no how - don't care what the statute says.

I think the reason they say this leaves the other cases in limbo is because this guy is the leader. If they can't prove that he (and the group) was there to commit a crime, then these other cases have no chance because they can't be convicted of 'conspiracy to commit a crime' if the prosecutor cannot prove that they were there to commit a crime.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
You must be totally devoid of any trace of a sense of humor. Jeepers!

Besides that, my response was directed at BamaJeepster, not you.


Big Grin

I get the statute and the thought behind it, but if the prosecutor gets up there and some guy claims that he was standing at the bar and watched the fight and the prosecutor has no video evidence or eyewitnesses who can testify that the guy participated in the fight, I'm sorry but I'm not gonna find him guilty. Call it jury nullification or whatever, but that is nonsense. No better than the overzealous prosecutor here in the South who will occasionally want to prosecute a homeowner who takes out a thug trying to break in. Not gonna vote to convict him; no way, no how - don't care what the statute says.

I think the reason they say this leaves the other cases in limbo is because this guy is the leader. If they can't prove that he (and the group) was there to commit a crime, then these other cases have no chance because they can't be convicted of 'conspiracy to commit a crime' if the prosecutor cannot prove that they were there to commit a crime.


If it is just “some guy” standing at the bar when the fight breaks out, no problem. If, on the other hand, the guys at the bar are wearing gang regalia, and the reason for being there was the fight, guns, knives, sticks and stones, etc., just being there can be a crime.

Aren’t you of those guys who want judges to enforce the laws as written, not what they would prefer?




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
If it is just “some guy” standing at the bar when the fight breaks out, no problem. If, on the other hand, the guys at the bar are wearing gang regalia, and the reason for being there was the fight, guns, knives, sticks and stones, etc., just being there can be a crime.

Aren’t you of those guys who want judges to enforce the laws as written, not what they would prefer?


Sure, if they can prove that he had guns, knives, sticks and stones and was there specifically to confront and fight another gang, then sure - he should be convicted.

This first case does not bode well for the prosecution being able to prove what their intention was. What if they were just looking for a place to drink and the other gang was already there and a fight broke out?

If you can't prove that their intention was to go and confront them, you can't prove conspiracy on the part of any of the other participants. And if you have no direct evidence against the individuals in the chaos, you really don't have a case.

We'll see how it plays out, of course.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
Is the engaging in criminal activity the only charge? That is, I think, the sort of thing you charge someone with in connection with a more traditional charge, like selling drugs, or when you can't actually prove the "real" charge.

I didn't know Casie Gotro was the defendant's lawyer. I have had a case with her. She seemed like a good lawyer. Congratulations to her - a mistrial is a good result for a defense lawyer, generally speaking.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53122 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
No different than the felony murder rule that hangs the getaway driver with murder even if they didn't participate. If you put on your little leather costume that matches your "brothers" little leather costume that happens to bear the name of a known outlaw biker gang you sort of lose all credibility trying to claim you were just hanging at the bar sipping your beer and dindonuffin.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Mistrial in Waco biker shootout trial leaves 154 suspects in limbo

© SIGforum 2024