Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 187

Thread: Government Nonsense; Waco Biker Gunfight

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Government Nonsense; Waco Biker Gunfight

    Earlier today I read a blog comment representing that government knew in advance about what was going to happen at the restaurant in Waco. The comment wasn't particularly supported with links or citations, so I assigned it the status of "opinion".

    However, just a little while I ago the radio news report (ABC network?) passed along police comments. The police said they had approached the restaurant prior to the gunfight, but the restaurant was "uncooperative."

    Now, while that would tend to support the blogger comment that government knew there was going to be trouble, that is not the point of this post.

    Dueling/mutual combat is illegal in Texas (I checked).

    So, if government had probable cause to believe a gunfight was going to happen, they didn't need restaurant cooperation. They could just up and arrest any and all people against who they had probable cause to believe they were planning a mutual combat.

    Reversely, if they didn't have at least probable cause to believe mutual combat was going to occur, they were pestering the restaurant with speculation and worry.

    So, why are the police now pointing a finger at the restaurant for "not cooperating"? Basically, they're trying to shift some blame to the restaurant for "not cooperating" to prevent the gunfight, implying that cooperation would have prevented the gunfight. Yet, if they had probable cause to believe mutual combat was going to occur, they didn't need restaurant cooperation to stop it.

    I have a feeling there is something fishy with the government actions. It seems they knew something; otherwise they wouldn't have been seeking restaurant cooperation. And, for darn sure, they wouldn't be blaming the restaurant for "not cooperating."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    I'm curious to know who shot whom in this melee and how many were killed by police, who may well have been fully justified in doing so. Just don't know at this time. Police are kind of in a rock and hard place situation. Having probable cause sufficient to make an arrest stick and withstand an expensive lawsuit if it doesn't is likely to be problematic. The same tactics and legal construction that police might have employed to preemptively stop the violence are probably going to turn out to be the same tactics and legal construction that would allow police to "preemptively" round up a bunch of open carriers having dinner. Having been on the receiving end of police misconduct (the Tony's 7 incident in 2007 - nobody got shot or arrested, just forced to leave) I wouldn't be happy giving police a blank check to break up, disperse or arrest a group they didn't like or feared were capable of mischief. The probable cause bar is set high for a reason. Until you actually do something illegal, you shouldn't be subject to harassment just because you could do something illegal.

    I hope there's some video both inside and outside the restaurant. I'd sure like to know how all this shooting got started.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Two observations; while your opponent, of any sort, is screwing up, don't interfere, and there have been a number of mentions that law enFORCEment was prepositioned. The cops are embarrassed by the collateral damage.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Winnipeg Canada
    Posts
    1
    The government is always trying to deflect blame. Example Waco


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597

    Government Nonsense; Waco Biker Gunfight

    The guy on TV seems to be the Sheriff and not the ATF. would be much more inclined to trust locals over Feds. I would assume they had wiretapped some of the bikers under warrant.

    The quote I heard from the cop talking about 'the worst carnage he has seen in 30 years' ... doesn't sound like he was there for Branch Davidians or Luby's down the road in Killeen.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by HPmatt; 05-19-2015 at 12:29 PM.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  6. #6
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyj47718 View Post
    The government is always trying to deflect blame. Example Waco
    Which one? Or both?

    I'd say both.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ...

    So, if government had probable cause to believe a gunfight was going to happen, they didn't need restaurant cooperation. They could just up and arrest any and all people against who they had probable cause to believe they were planning a mutual combat.

    Reversely, if they didn't have at least probable cause to believe mutual combat was going to occur, they were pestering the restaurant with speculation and worry.
    ....

    I have a feeling there is something fishy with the government actions. It seems they knew something; otherwise they wouldn't have been seeking restaurant cooperation. And, for darn sure, they wouldn't be blaming the restaurant for "not cooperating."

    I'm afraid your strong feelings against all things government have caused you to create a false dichotomy here.

    Let me give you a third path. The police had some information that a gang fight was likely. While that information didn't rise to the level of probable cause, it was sufficient that some type of preparations seemed prudent. And indeed it seems the local police did do some preparations by having officers in place ready to respond quickly. None of this violates anyone's rights.

    What also doesn't violate anyone's rights is to approach the owner of the restaurant and ask for some voluntary cooperation to assist with preparations to respond to a gang fight, or perhaps even take some voluntary measures to help reduce the odds the fight breaks out in the first place. I've not seen any reports of what cooperation was requested (and refused) so impossible to have an informed opinion about whether such cooperation was likely to have been of any real help. We might wonder whether the restaurant catered to biker gangs, was afraid of the gangs if the owners did cooperate with police, or what other reasons they might have had for not wanting to assist police. Their right and their choice up to the point they cross a line between mere witnesses/victims into facilitating or encouraging. But I don't see that the police have done anything wrong here.

    Simply put, you seem to suggest that police had only two choices:

    1-With probable cause of a fight, make arrests before the fight happens.

    2-Without probable cause, do nothing.

    My third choice is:

    3-With information a fight is likely, but without being able to establish probable cause before hand, take what measures are legal to be prepared to respond if/when the fight does break out.

    Rather than looking at every situation through a lens of "government is bad", from time to time consider on whether a different judgment might be more just or appropriate. It sounds to me like local police had some information of trouble brewing and did what they legally could--without violation of anyone's rights--to prepare properly to respond, perhaps even to try to avoid problems.

    As for the Branch Davidians that someone else mentioned, that was federal, not local police.

    The last big mistake local cops made in Waco was seizing a lot of children from the polygamous community near Waco based on one anonymous phone call. I recall a judge slapping them fairly hard on that one.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Likely spot on Charles.

    The restaurant was/is private property, the officers apparently didn't have PC, (no warrant either), didn't know who exactly was going to be involved, if at all.

    To have gone in under those terms who have been a witch hunt under color of law.

    The word "government" is akin the waving a red flag in front of a bull for some people.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    SNIP I'm afraid your strong feelings against all things government have caused you to create a false dichotomy here.
    Grapeshot wrote: The word "government" is akin the waving a red flag in front of a bull for some people.
    I'm afraid, Utbagpiper, your strong feelings against my rejection of government have led you to ignore a crucial point--why is government blaming the restaurant at all? Whether I presented a false-dichotomy or not, your post still doesn't answer why police would mention "uncooperation" by the restaurant in the first place.



    Separately, thank you for heaving in with a diversion, allowing me the chance to point out something else: the restaurant is under no obligation to "cooperate" with police. They're required to "comply" with police. So, why is government pointing a finger at all, blaming them for exercising their rights not to "cooperate".

    And, we do not know from the police or restaurant what the requested "cooperation" was. There is no reason at all to accept vague police comments about the restaurant "not cooperating." We've all seen or heard news reports where police label an arrested suspect who is exercising his 5A right against self-incrimination as "not cooperating with the investigation." I can recall a few traffic stop videos and such where the citizen was labeled "uncooperative" for standing on his rights. Did the police pitch a bunch of vague suppositions to the restaurant? Did the restaurant already have reason to distrust those police? Did the police just present a weak case to the restaurant when requesting their cooperation? Meaning, did the police fail to sell themselves and their goal well enough? Are the police assuming people "owe" them cooperation? Or, trying to take advantage of the idea that society believes it and thereby tar the restaurant?

    Certainly, a restaurant has control of its property, and its employees control of themselves. They have no obligation to "cooperate" with police. It is not blameworthy by police. The police are not arbiters of social mores, they enforce the law.

    All of which is subordinate to this one point: why are the police mentioning non-cooperation by the restaurant at all?


    Now, you two have a choice. I let you distort and dodge in other threads because I didn't want to let it drag the thread further and further off subject. However, I started this thread. I will highlight every single logical fallacy, distortion, evasion, false attribution (thanks for opening that door, Grape), omission, and red-herring you try to pull. So, you can either eschew those tactics in this thread, of have them pointed out to all readers. Every time.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-19-2015 at 03:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Asking the restaurant to shutdown, and blaming the restaurant is two different things. They asked and were told no! I have not seen the report on how the police provided the information about the restaurant. If they made an accusation that causes damages, and it has, they are liable. The restaurant lost their franchise, if police are the least bit responsible they should pay damages. Asking a business to shut down because a possible crime may be committed would shut down most of the businesses in the US, and is absolutely insane.

    Anytime a crime is committed it IS fault of the criminal!
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post

    The word "government" is akin the waving a red flag in front of a bull for some people.

    With VERY good reason, as informed and liberty loving people should know.

    If I had to bet money, one of these childish bikers produced a gun, the cops freaked (to serve and protect officer safety is the prime directive) and started spraying and praying. They will lie and get away with it. This is boot licking Waco in a boot licking age. And they'll get away with it because these biker gangs are unsympathetic trash.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Asking the restaurant to shutdown, and blaming the restaurant is two different things. They asked and were told no! I have not seen the report on how the police provided the information about the restaurant. If they made an accusation that causes damages, and it has, they are liable. The restaurant lost their franchise, if police are the least bit responsible they should pay damages. Asking a business to shut down because a possible crime may be committed would shut down most of the businesses in the US, and is absolutely insane.

    Anytime a crime is committed it IS fault of the criminal!
    Good point. So, why is government trying to shift some blame to the restaurant?

    It would be too easy for the government to just omit any comment at all about the restaurant. Even if someone else asked, "did the restaurant cooperate with you?", the police, being professionals and self-styled leaders, could easily just say, "the violence is the fault of the criminals. The restaurant behaved lawfully on this point; no one is required to cooperate with police."



    Separately, government has been lying to me since I was eleven years old (earlier actually, but I can point to a very specific lie at that time). Day in, day out, multiple times a day sometimes. It is so frequent I have formulated a rule:

    Take what the government says, and just turn it 180-degrees. You will be surprised how often that later turns out to be right.

    A wag (Butler Schaefer?) said something along the lines of: "Never believe an allegation of government wrong-doing until after the official denial."

    If I were a restaurant owner, the last dang thing I would do is assign much credibility to any "facts" or "evaluations" presented to me by police. Also, besides unreliability, they darn sure aren't going to take responsibility and reimburse me for any losses arising from me relying on their information or recommendations.


    I suspect there is a big screw-up by police behind this Waco firefight. I wouldn't be surprised if police let the situation percolate so they could run in and bust a buncha bikers and claim "we done good! Give us more budget!" Percolate past the point they could have already just arrested bikers. I mean, really. One hundred and seventy (?) charges of participating in a criminal enterprise or some such, but only after the gun fight?
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-19-2015 at 03:57 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    So, why are the police now pointing a finger at the restaurant for "not cooperating"? Basically, they're trying to shift some blame to the restaurant for "not cooperating" to prevent the gunfight, implying that cooperation would have prevented the gunfight.
    If I were Johnny Law and wanted to "encourage" the management of Twin Peaks to disinvite the CoC meeting I would have talked with them about Accessory Before The Fact Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy to Commit (as it turned out in this case) First Degree Murder. Before there were deaths I might, as Johnny Law, tried out Obstruction of Justice, Riot, or Disturbing the Peace among other possibilities. From the news reports and press conferences the cops were aware of a "high probability" of some sort of dust-up taking place. Thety could have had a state of emergency declared and restricted the carrying of weapons in the emergency zone. They could have enforced the municipal parking codes and towed any motorcycle not legally parked (e.g.: only one to a designated parking space, meter fed, no parking anywhere that is not a designated parking space, no parking in fire lanes - I can go on for another few days if you really want me to). Enforce the fire code re: exceeding rated capacity of the building. Enforce the antiloiterring code.

    QED - even if the restaurant did not "cooperate" there were ways of restraining the behavior of the MCs. Even if thgose ways PO'd the MC members who might be ten tempted to express their ire towards a law enforcement presence that was vastly outnumbered.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    From AgingRebel.com:

    When the restaurant refused to ban the Confederation of Clubs, police stationed at least 22 cops including ten Swat officers from the Waco P.D. and the Texas Department of Public Safety in the parking lot outside the restaurant. They did not station either uniformed or plain clothes officers in the restaurant.

    The shove in the bathroom became a scuffle in the restaurant. When about 30 Bandidos, Cossacks, Scimitars and other bikers spilled into the parking between the Twin peaks and the Don Carlos Mexican restaurant next door, the police were waiting for them. The scuffle became a knife fight and several men were stabbed. When one of the combatants produced a gun the Swat team opened fire with automatic weapons. Multiple sources have told The Aging Rebel that all of the dead were killed by police.
    From this perspective, it looks like the police waited until a firearm emerged to react. And I've not heard of AgingRebel.com, so take that info with a grain of salt.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If I were Johnny Law and wanted to "encourage" the management of Twin Peaks to disinvite the CoC meeting I would have talked with them about Accessory Before The Fact Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy to Commit (as it turned out in this case) First Degree Murder. Before there were deaths I might, as Johnny Law, tried out Obstruction of Justice, Riot, or Disturbing the Peace among other possibilities. From the news reports and press conferences the cops were aware of a "high probability" of some sort of dust-up taking place. Thety could have had a state of emergency declared and restricted the carrying of weapons in the emergency zone. They could have enforced the municipal parking codes and towed any motorcycle not legally parked (e.g.: only one to a designated parking space, meter fed, no parking anywhere that is not a designated parking space, no parking in fire lanes - I can go on for another few days if you really want me to). Enforce the fire code re: exceeding rated capacity of the building. Enforce the antiloiterring code.

    QED - even if the restaurant did not "cooperate" there were ways of restraining the behavior of the MCs. Even if thgose ways PO'd the MC members who might be ten tempted to express their ire towards a law enforcement presence that was vastly outnumbered.

    stay safe.
    I agree in part, and disagree in part.

    I agree with the alternatives you offered after the bold-face in the quote above.

    I disagree with bold-face material.

    You would threaten a restaurant with prosecution for which you had no probable cause? What? Just make up threats for what you would do if something bad happened?

    State of emergency? Based on what? Which probable-cause point would you use to declare to a state-of-emergency to deny others their right to self-defense, but which was also sufficiently probable to arrest them before violence occurred? Keep in mind, we still don't know which bikers were exercising a right to self-defense and which were committing assault with a deadly weapon. For all we know, many of the bikers were shooting back at a threat. Now, surely somebody broke the law by initiating lethal force without legal justification. But, after that first one, we still don't know who was defending and who was aggressing. All we have are the police blanket charges and media hype suggesting "all these dangerous bikers committing a bloodbath." General, very general.

    "High-probability" (your words, your quote marks) equals more that probable cause. Remember that Terry et seq allows a detention to investigate whether a crime is, was, or is about to occur. And, that RAS is a lower standard than probable-cause. Had the police genuine RAS, they could have temporarily seized every biker as he arrived to investigate whether a crime was about to occur. In fact, if the police genuinely believed this, they would have had a lot more cops present. The shortage of cops at the scene suggests the cops themselves didn't actually suspect there would be a "dust up".

    So, (general rhetorical question) why are the police now pointing a finger at the restaurant accusing "non-cooperation"?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It is the loyalist wet dream that if you are not with us you are against us.

    Good thing so many of us and a growing amount are seeing these shenanigans for what they are.

    The quickness of the cops to push the blame to a third party, in the past has shown they were much more culpable in creating the crime than they want others to believe.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I wonder if they wanted to set up some sort of entrapment, and the restaurant owner didn't want to be part of that.

    Uncooperative, is one of those boiler plate words, can hear cops use them often in court painting the guy their in court with in a bad light, even if its for simply standing up for their rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I'm pretty much agree with Piper. A high-probability due to common sense (hey, here come 100 outlaw bikers from competing clubs riding into town -- bet there is going to be some trouble) is not the same as legal PC.

    Not knowing what was asked of the restaurant and not knowing in what sense it was uncooperative makes arguing about who did or didn't do what quite difficult as there are numerous permutations that could be suggested and obviously all but one will be wrong. Whatever it was, the chain did cut off the franchise. Whatever it was the franchise did/didn't do must have been sufficient under the franchise agreement to warrant such dissolution or, if not, we will certainly see a lawsuit on that issue in the near future. Was it appropriate for the cops to mention it? Again, don't know what was asked/answered.

    Sounds like the cops employed a little common sense that this meet up was likely to result in some kind of illegal activity if not a brawl. Now that doesn't mean that all actions of LEO were appropriate and I don't have enough facts to argue either way on that issue. There has been a lot of social media blather, but that is not the same as factual reporting of the specifics.

    Clearly the outlaw bikers were breaking numerous laws before, during and after the brawl. But I haven't seen or heard any evidence that if they had just shown up, had some lunch and gone home peacefully that LEO would have intervened if, for not other reason, than not wanting to end up with a brawl in response to a heavy handed approach. Not having any LEO in the restaurant, IMO, is indicative of LEO not wanting to be heavy handed here. Again, that makes good common sense. Be prepared for the worst, hope for the best and try not to instigate a problem. It isn't like the cops threw up a checkpoint on the way into the parking lot to look for drugs or weapons.

    I'm just not prepared to blame this on gov't nonsense and I am just not seeing that LEO was out of line in their preparations. If we find out the request made and the response from the restaurant, I very well may amend my opinion on this or if we find out that LEO did jump in with both feet and make it more deadly than it was then sure, there may be plenty of blame to pass around. I just haven't seen that yet.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    A false dichotomy is like saying If you don't support the murder of west you support the murder of the east.

    I do not see a false dichotomy in the OP. I see a speculation, observation, and an invitation for other ideas.

    Ironically funny though seeing the false dichotomist accuse others of false dichotomies.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6
    Boy, what a bunch. If some place is Warned of trouble and refuses to cooperate then you have to ask just what their motives are. Doesn't seem to matter now as they are no longer in business as Twin Peaks. Twin Peaks is going o have a problem as a corporation convincing me the rest of their places are safe.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I agree in part, and disagree in part.
    Would yopu please explain how you attribute the thoughts I put down as being my thoughts/values?

    A question was raised - what could the cops have done in the face of Twin Peaks management not going along with what the cops would have considered as cooperation in dealing with the situation. A shopping list of possible actions was provided.

    I really would like to know what words or phrases led you to consider that I supported or encouraged any of the possible actions I listed.

    I agree with the alternatives you offered after the bold-face in the quote above.

    I disagree with bold-face material.
    Given your pronouncements elsewhere about the evil of government how can you agree with even those things you did not bold? Please use small words and type slowly so I can understand your response.

    [aliquid hic]
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm afraid, Utbagpiper, your strong feelings against my rejection of government have led you to ignore a crucial point--why is government blaming the restaurant at all?
    What "blame"?

    Did the police say, "Because the restaurant didn't cooperate it is the manager's fault that this happened,"?

    Have the police charged the restaurant owner/manager with some crime?

    How exactly has the restaurant been "blamed"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Whether I presented a false-dichotomy or not, your post still doesn't answer why police would mention "uncooperation" by the restaurant in the first place.
    So now you want the government and police to keep secrets now?

    I suppose they mentioned it to make clear they had pursued every option they legally could to keep the peace and prepare....lest some anarchists types were to blame them for being caught with their pants down rather than placing blame for criminal violence on the scum-bag criminals who make a life of violence, crime, peddling drugs that destroy lives, etc.

    Or maybe, they mentioned it simply because, you know, it is true. Crazy thought I know.

    Lacking further information, methinks the cops did just about everything right they could here while respecting rights, not escalating a situation, and not nitpicking over a bunch of trivial laws you'd object to anyway (the options skidmark pointed out could have been pursued by an LEO type, rather than peace officers). I've not seen any serious injuries or deaths except among those criminal scum who voluntarily belong to their version of non-governmental service providers.

    That the franchise has pulled the franchise from the establishment, suggest to me that corporate is not entirely happy with how the owner/manager chose to handle the situation.

    My opinions subject to change pending more information. But thus far, I see nothing here to suggest anything from the police or government except what any sane, civilized man would want to see in this case...certainly nothing approaching "nonsense."

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Given your pronouncements elsewhere about the evil of government how can you agree with even those things you did not bold? Please use small words and type slowly so I can understand your response.

    [aliquid hic]
    I...a g r e e...y o u r...a l t e r n a t i v e s ...f i t...w i t h i n...t h e...f r a m e w o r k...o f...l e g i t i m a t e...g u b b e r m i n t...r e c o g n i z e d...b y...o t h e r s.


    You know Skidmark, I've been kinda holding something back, in part because I figured it would be kinda tasteless to mention it. But, your recent little attacks have pushed me to my limit on that point. So, here it goes.


    Maybe I should've used small words and written slowly on those two checks I sent User to help defray the legal expenses defending a certain OCer who was prosecuted for brandishing his finger. You can copy and paste this post to him as my written authorization to him to verify it for you without revealing my name to you privately or anybody publicly.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who sent money. Maybe you can keep that in mind before you sling pointless and insulting comments at members. You might be aiming your remarks at somebody who helped that finger-brandisher with cash.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-19-2015 at 09:27 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    .


    You know Skidmark, I've been kinda holding something back, in part because I figured it would be kinda tasteless to mention it. But, your recent little attacks have pushed me to my limit on that point. So, here it goes.


    Maybe I should've used small words and written slowly on those two checks I sent User to help defray the legal expenses defending a certain OCer who was prosecuted for brandishing his finger. You can copy and paste this post to him as my written authorization to him to verify it for you without revealing my name to you privately or anybody publicly.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who sent money. Maybe you can keep that in mind before you sling pointless and insulting comments at members. You might be aiming your remarks at somebody who helped that finger-brandisher with cash.
    You want your money back? Just tell me how much and give me a POB to send it to. I'll still thank you for your support at that moment.

    [aliquid hic]
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You want your money back? Just tell me how much and give me a POB to send it to. I'll still thank you for your support at that moment.

    [aliquid hic]
    Oh, no thanks. You just told the whole forum what sort of person you are.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •