“THAT statement amounts to an admission the arrest is unsupported. OTOH, if they don’t need anybody to flip, well then, they are obliged to make an accusation based on evidence they already have.”
No, I’m sorry, you are misinterpreting my comment. Maybe I didn’t state it clearly enough, but I was speculating on what additional evidence they might need to prove the conspiracy charge. That is why I said “They’ve laid out the beginnings of that case...” at the start of my comment addressing you claim that they hadn’t made a “coherent accusation of conspiracy”.
“Supporting an arrest requires a particular accusation, with some quantum of evidence to support each element of the crime. The accusation the government put on the table is gang conspiracy. Crimes attach to individuals, so the accusation has to be in the nature of “this accused conspired to commit assault.””
They just need probable cause to justify the arrest, they don’t need to lay out the whole case against someone, or detail all the evidence that might support the eventual conviction.
“The point I made early on was that wearing the colors and being at the scene of the shooting is not evidence that [insert name of an individual here] engaged in conspiracy.”
It certainly is evidence for underlying facts that support a conspiracy case. You can’t prove a case involving a large criminal organization without first proving that such an organization exists, and then proving that the accused are affiliated with that organization. So, if criminals are stupid enough to advertise those associations publicly, it does make those aspects of a conspiracy case that much easier to prove.
“None of the affidavits accuse [insert name of individual here] of engaging in conspiracy. They invite the reader to infer some sort of amorphous gang fight conspiracy, because there is friction between the gangs. But friction and animus are not conspiracy.”
Alright, I think this is the heart of the matter, that you believe the probable cause is deficient because they don’t lay out a specific case for conspiracy against the individuals. However, if you read the affidavit, the accusation is that the individual “did commit or conspire to commit...”. So all that is needed is probable cause for one or the other, the direct involvement in a crime (even as an accomplice), or the conspiracy. The police witnessed the crimes being committed, and that is generally accepted by the courts as probable cause for arrest in and of itself.
I suppose you can argue the conspiracy charge is extraneous, but so long as they can make a case for probable cause on any of the charges, the arrest is probably going to be deemed legitimate.
“If you adopt a position that “club conspiracy” is enough, we’re back to “why not arrest all of MS-13 for being affiliated with a criminal gang that routinely engages in violence?” A conspirator need not be at the scene of the violence to be guilty of conspiracy.”
In this case, all of the accused were at the scene, which I think is an important detail that undermines the accusation that this is just “guilt by association”, or “club conspiracy”. We don’t have a case where there is some scanty connection the government is trying to establish between parties that are only connected tangentially. No, we have a case where the government has known members of criminal organizations, apprehended at the scene, after law enforcement, bystanders, and video cameras witnessed them engaging in mass violence.
So, if a bunch of MS-13 members, or any other gang engaged in a similar event, getting in a public and deadly gang fight right in front of the cops and the public, I really would prefer the police to arrest them as well.
Just show us all the facts.
What is there to hide?
Skip the evidence for a moment. My statement was as to the accusation, first. The accusation, sans evidence, is deficient.
Evidence is involved too, but first things first. Make an accusation that fits the crime. Then, when the accused is before the judge who approves the deprivation of liberty, the accused can ask a series of yes or no questions, e.g., do you have ANY evidence that I [fill in the blank following the elements of the accusation]. ANY "no" answer means the evidence is deficient.
Wearing of colors and being at the scene is not even a sufficient accusation. None of them are going to credibly deny those points as a matter of evidence (disputing being there (although some of the arrested did arrive AFTER the shooting stopped), or wearing colors).
-- the accusation is that the individual "did commit or conspire to commit...". So all that is needed is probable cause for one or the other, the direct involvement in a crime (even as an accomplice), or the conspiracy. The police witnessed the crimes being committed, and that is generally accepted by the courts as probable cause for arrest in and of itself. --
I'm haven't been talking about individuals who perpetrated violence at the scene. The deficiency I have been addressing is whether or not the state 1) states and 2) has probable cause of conspiracy.
-- so long as they can make a case for probable cause on any of the charges, the arrest is probably going to be deemed legitimate. --
That depends on the timing of "making the case." It's not legal for the state to accuse somebody before it has the evidence. But, if you abandon your previously held position that it is legal to arrest a bunch of people, without evidence, and "wait for them to turn against each other" to provide the evidence the state needs, then I'll conceded the point. If the state has the evidence before they arrest, the point is a truism. Being able to make the case with evidence and having probable cause are equivalent.
-- we have a case where the government has known members of criminal organizations, apprehended at the scene, after law enforcement, bystanders, and video cameras witnessed them engaging in mass violence. --
As I said before, the people who are viewed perpetrating violence can be arrested. For them, there is probable cause of committing at least assault. Many, I think most of the accused stand accused of ONLY conspiracy. If you reflect on the posts in this dialog, you will see my reference to the paucity under the element of conspiracy. -- In this case, all of the accused were at the scene, which I think is an important detail that undermines the accusation that this is just "guilt by association", or "club conspiracy". --
The state has the burden of making the accusation, and of asserting that it is prepared to prove the accusation in court. Is it your contention that being on the scene and wearing colors establishes conspiracy?