Biker shootout in Waco

[Urbanized]

OMG those are YOUR OWN words! Nobody has said that, other than you (wrongly) SUGGESTING that someone has! What a bizarre attempt to twist language and logic...

[mkjeeves]

If you are talking about what Jerrywall said is nuts, yes, I said that's an extreme belief he staked out and said it's nuts. Do you want me to repeat that a few more times for some reason?

[mkjeeves]

Here's the post. http://www.okctalk.com/current-event...tml#post891345


He said it was nuts. I said it was as nuts as something else that's nuts. AGREEING BOTH ARE NUTS.

[Urbanized]

Are you serious? All of his posts have been roughly similar to this one:

Well, did they just arrest everyone in attendance or eating at the restaurant, or only those involved in the fights? Its not unreasonable to assume there are some innocent folks caught up in this sweep.

Hardly an extreme position.

[mkjeeves]

Are you serious? All of his posts have been roughly similar to this one:



Hardly an extreme position.

I never quoted that or said it was. Try referring to what I quoted.

[Urbanized]

He essentially said he disagreed with anyone who believes all 170 are unquestionably guilty and deserving of $1 million bail. I agree with that, as would any reasonable person who has read up on this incident, and as did a judge who reduced bail for several already. LEOs cast a very wide net, and some law abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the shoutout were caught in it, or so it appears.

[mkjeeves]

No need for you to attempt to rephrase and expand what either he or I said. Both our words are there and speak for themselves.

[Urbanized]

Funny then that it didn't keep you from restating what he said. It cuts both ways.

[mkjeeves]

Funny then that it didn't keep you from restating what he said. It cuts both ways.

Where? Every single one of your posts is an attempt to change what either he or I said. Our words are here and speak for themselves.

[Urbanized]

Says the guy who leaves out critical, pivotal words in the middle of quotations. You're ridiculous.

[mkjeeves]

Says the guy who leaves out critical, pivotal words in the middle of quotations. You're ridiculous.

His words are here and speak for themselves.

[Urbanized]

Thank goodness, for his sake. I'd hate to see him further slandered with no way for people to verify the nature of the slander.

[mkjeeves]

Thank goodness, for his sake. I'd hate to see him further slandered with no way for people to verify the nature of the slander.

Nice grasp of the law.

[Urbanized]

Last word

[Mel]

I like hot sake. Hakutsura being my favorite.

[positano]

He essentially said he disagreed with anyone who believes all 170 are unquestionably guilty and deserving of $1 million bail. I agree with that, as would any reasonable person who has read up on this incident, and as did a judge who reduced bail for several already. LEOs cast a very wide net, and some law abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the shoutout were caught in it, or so it appears.

FWIW, I tend to agree that of the 170, after the evidence (including cooperating witness statements) gets sifted through, there will likely be several that are not prosecuted, whether due to actual innocence, lack of evidence, or in exchange for cooperation.

That being said, the reduction of bail doesn't necessarily mean a judge questions the person's guilt. While strength of the evidence can be considered by the judge, the function of bail is to ensure a person's reappearance in court. He/she might believe the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, but if the person's role was minor and the defense attorney was able to convince the ADA and/or judge that the person was not a flight risk, bail would very likely be reduced.

[Urbanized]

Nice grasp of the law.

Nice grasp of the English language. While slander can be a legal term, it can also simply mean the spreading of false information to impugn one's integrity. Witness: your altered reposting of Jerry Wall's comments to support your pronouncements about his poor character.

[Urbanized]

Yeah positano, I understand how that works. The discussion has been whether all 170 deserved to be in jail with bail set at $1 million. Jerry Wall said that's unlikely. Based on a number of stories I've read and based on knowledge of legitimate events of the type at which the violence happened, I agree. Somewhere along the line a judge has now agreed with this assessment.

The arrest criteria in this case seemed to be not whether you were directly involved, and not even whether you were a patched member of the clubs who got violent with one another, but instead whether you were simply involved in motorcycling and were on the premises. Those charges won't stick, or certainly shouldn't.

[mkjeeves]

Nice grasp of the English language. While slander can be a legal term, it can also simply mean the spreading of false information to impugn one's integrity. Witness: your altered reposting of Jerry Wall's comments to support your pronouncements about his poor character.

Cite the post or posts where i made a pronouncement about his poor character. You can't because it didn't happen. I've agreed with what he's said in his and my last exchange.

You are completely off in outer space at this point.

[positano]

Yeah positano, I understand how that works. The discussion has been whether all 170 deserved to be in jail with bail set at $1 million. Jerry Wall said that's unlikely. Based on a number of stories I've read and based on knowledge of legitimate events of the type at which the violence happened, I agree. Somewhere along the line a judge has now agreed with this assessment.

The arrest criteria in this case seemed to be not whether you were directly involved, and not even whether you were a patched member of the clubs who got violent with one another, but instead whether you were simply involved in motorcycling and were on the premises. Those charges won't stick, or certainly shouldn't.

Very true. 170 defendants with $1 million pre-charge bails is more than most prosecutors or defense lawyers will experience cumulatively in their entire careers, much less in a single case. It is uninformed speculation on my part, but I expect the district attorney's office went into an aggressive precautionary mode and did everything they could to detain as many as possible until they could get on top of this (the ethics / legality of which could be subject to reasonable differences). I doubt they had any expectation at all that all of those bonds would stick - it was a stop-gap measure. I think you will see the overwhelming majority of those bail amounts dropping (by agreement with the DA) over the course of the next weeks, that's in addition to those that the judge reduces even over the objections of the government.

[jerrywall]

Holy hell... I don't get on the site for a few days. I'm sort of glad....back to riding.

[mkjeeves]

In other Wacky Waco news...a press release by attorneys Looney and Conrad (You can't make this stuff up.)

BOND REDUCTIONS OFFERED ONLY IN EXCHANGE FOR WAIVING POTENTIAL LAWSUITS IN WACO SHOOTOUT

oh wait

Paul Looney "Good news. The D.A. just spoke to me. He agreed to reasonable bonds with no conditions. They get out in the morning."

"They" apparently meaning his client.

https://www.facebook.com/LooneyConra...68274669939433

Be sure and read the follow up comments by Looney WRT one of the prosecutors/defense attorneys alleged to be working both sides of the fence.

[jerrywall]

At this point it's getting so hard to track what's true and what's not. I'm not sure if we'll ever get to 100% of the truth.

[mkjeeves]

We might get to the point of knowing someone shot someone else point blank that started it all. Or not. That's probably about it unless they have a bunch of intel that was gathered beforehand by undercover cops or the feds. Ballistics might tell something too.

[Just the facts]

Why have both "woe is me" stories started out by identifying them as fathers? Are men with children incapable of commiting crimes?