Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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."
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."