Drugs, prostitution, money laundering, violence and protection rackets. I really don't think that we should have a problem with the removal of such people from our society.
> and there's a viable theory they were just waiting for an excuse
But is there a viable theory that the police started the shooting?
If you're going to start a shootout in town, and the police are there in force to try to stop that from happening, and you start a shootout anyway, and the police shoot you to get you to stop shooting other people, well... I don't have much room for feeling like the police are out of control there.
If you have evidence that says that I misunderstood the way events happened, feel free to correct my understanding...
What we do have is narratives from bikers present, and some photographic evidence that raises doubts about who started it. There's a lot to discuss/research, so I'll just give you a couple links as major starting points. I'm not saying whether I agree/accept the theories or not, just that we don't have enough definitive evidence to support or deny the conspiracy theory.
Short version: police snipers were already positioned, an undercover agent either started something or was "made", a fight was provoked and police were strangely quick to start firing.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/19/biker-truthers-eme... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/05/27/waco-twin-pea...
(Please don't launch into criticizing the messengers; this is about the message.)
unless you were a tax payer funded gang with no accountability and were heavily armed
The devil is in the details. I think that most people would happen to agree, but I don't approve of e.g. capital punishment or arresting based on being associated with a gang involved in criminal activity. These kinds of reactions don't just affect the current generation, they affect that generation's kids. Only rehabilitation of the parents is likely to seriously improve their lives, IMHO.
Did you get that from the article, or do you have additional sources? The article had one photo of a Christian biker (or rather, one photo of a biker and the caption said he was with a Christian club). The caption did not say that he (or others with the club) were at Twin Peaks, nor did the article mention them whatsoever. Or did I miss something?
To me, it seemed really odd, like the article was trying to say "see, some of these bikers are really decent people" and imply that some of them were there at Twin Peaks that day, when they really weren't.
Apparent trick questions make me nervous.
I'm wondering what those folks did to deserve removal from society without question.
The guy probably did it as a pseudo-legal way of punishing folks for being in a MC, without going through the hassle of due process. As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. In his mind, the bikers were all guilty of "contempt of Waco".
A Texas JP is allowed to institute penalties for contempt of a maximum of $100 and 3 days in jail. They can set bail, but their authority to try cases is limited to misdemeanor offenses punishable only by fines, and civil disputes less than $10k. Given the situation, the JP should have called upon a real judge--or actually several real judges--to process the 177 in custody.
It's the government legislation of morality that empowers outlaws and it will never end so long as human beings like to fuck and get high.
Edit: s/causes these things/empowers outlaws/
Take people out because someone says they're bad. That's not.