Twin Peaks Biker Files Objection: Waco PD Grand Jury Foreman has Conflict of Interest

Breitbart Texas ^ | July 14, 2015 | Lana Shadwick

[mac_truck]

Free speech does not require supervision...

Of course it does... and one need look no further than yesterday's scuffle in the public square between the Black Panthers and the KKK for an example.

Police have no less obligation to protect public safety and order when two opposing motorcycle clubs get together, as was the case at Twin Peaks in Waco.

-btw Some have claimed that anyone was welcome to attend the Texas CoC meeting that day, but I do not believe that to be true anymore than I believe that 100 Cossacks and Symitars drove to Waco that Sunday for a lecture on motorcycle safety.

Complaining about how a police presence when public safety is at risk infringes on the free speech rights of bikers carries a whiff of hypocrisy with it also.

According to MC subculture the area dominant club determines what colors, patches, etc. any club may wear. There is an established rules based hierarchy which effectively supervises the free expression of all bikers.

No true believer in free speech can ascribe to the MC subculture without sounding like a hypocrite...can they?

[Robert Teesdale]

Of course it does... and one need look no further than yesterday's scuffle in the public square between the Black Panthers and the KKK for an example.

That's not free speech. That's assault, perhaps inciting to riot. I understand your point. I think mine is equally valid; that you understand it; and that furthermore strict scrutiny applies in support of my argument.

Police have no less obligation to protect public safety and order when two opposing motorcycle clubs get together, as was the case at Twin Peaks in Waco.

They didn't previously. Why was this particular COC meeting suddenly surrounded by prepositioned militarized police?

-btw Some have claimed that anyone was welcome to attend the Texas CoC meeting that day, but I do not believe that to be true anymore than I believe that 100 Cossacks and Symitars drove to Waco that Sunday for a lecture on motorcycle safety.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like. COC meetings are traditionally neutral ground. I doubt that any lack of welcome would be COC policy.

Complaining about how a police presence when public safety is at risk infringes on the free speech rights of bikers carries a whiff of hypocrisy with it also.

Let's be candid. There is a difference between police presence and police intimidation. There is a difference between displays of force and providing routine policing.

According to MC subculture the area dominant club determines what colors, patches, etc. any club may wear. There is an established rules based hierarchy which effectively supervises the free expression of all bikers.

That is oversimplifying it. If you think of the rocker and color combination arrangements as a form of heraldry, you will be closer to the mark.

No true believer in free speech can ascribe to the MC subculture without sounding like a hypocrite...can they?

Certainly. What is heraldry? Ultimately it is an identification system. How do you know whether it's a Frenchman or cousin William coming at you under fifty pounds of sheet steel? You look at the blazon on his shield; you interpret the colors on his achievement; you rank the difference on the arms; and you can tell exactly who it is, who they are allied to (as you are educated in political alliances as befits your station) and you know how to behave, what business may be conducted, and so on.

It really is a rough form of heraldry. Same purpose: it's a communication structure for men of action who are part of an initiated subculture of alpha males.

You're a squire before you're a knight; you're a prospect before you're a patch holder. We can discuss the parallels all day, but it's not rocket science.

[mac_truck]

That's not free speech.

Of course it is...one side waves the flag and cheers while the other side burns the flag an cheers, with the police in the middle protecting each side from the other.

That's quintessential American free speech and its supervised.

Why was this particular COC meeting suddenly surrounded by prepositioned militarized police?

The police had reliable information that there was going to be trouble there... and it turns out they were right.

A better question might be why didn't the Texas CoC anticipate the problem in the first place?

If you think of the rocker and color combination arrangements as a form of heraldry, you will be closer to the mark.

Not even close.

Here's a link that explains all about motorcycle club etiquette and it sounds much like I described but with a lot more detail. There's even a section that covers first amendment issues.

Final question: Do you support an MC's right to wear a state designation bottom rocker without asking for permission, and why or why not?

[Robert Teesdale]

Of course it is...one side waves the flag and cheers while the other side burns the flag an cheers, with the police in the middle protecting each side from the other.

The police have no duty to protect. Their job is to enforce the law if it is broken.

That's quintessential American free speech and its supervised.

Supervision may be a side effect, but it is not the purpose of police presence. Enforcement of the law is.

The police had reliable information that there was going to be trouble there... and it turns out they were right.

The accusation is being made that this trouble was engineered by law enforcement through provacateurs and confidential informants, and that accusation both carries some weight and is credible. It is not proven.

A better question might be why didn't the Texas CoC anticipate the problem in the first place?

They would not have been privy to the plans of confidential informants and nothing in that COC's history would have indicated an issue as being likely.

Here's a link that explains all about motorcycle club etiquette and it sounds much like I described but with a lot more detail. There's even a section that covers first amendment issues.

Yes, I am familiar with that link.

Final question: Do you support an MC's right to wear a state designation bottom rocker without asking for permission, and why or why not?

Of course. There are no laws prohibiting it, and it is a freedom of speech issue (as well as more obscure rulings surrounding the display of membership marks). "Within rights" does not automatically confer "wise" on a decision.

I support the right of a lovely blonde teenager in a microbikini, high heels and iced nipples to perform door to door opinion canvassing in Brownsville without being assaulted. She has every right to do so.

It would not be a wise course of action.

Do you support the right of non-veterans to wear US military uniforms, claim decorations such as Bronze Stars and wear those decorations in public?

That's free speech too.

United States v. Alvarez

Our blonde in question; our weirdo in uniform; and our unsanctioned rocker flyers are all in the same boat of lawful, protected-right activity that is offensively stupid.

Reality will intrude.