Biker gang shootout in of all places..TEXAS..of course..

[aitm]

many a year ago, when my brother went undercover with the Avengers he had to go out of state on a "mission" a group of 20 of them came into our home town and spent a couple hours fucking with the folks at the local pub and smacked up the lone gay kid in the whole town. Three days later one of our own, who to this day is unknown shot three of them right off their bikes with a 30-06 coming down a hill named for my family. Pretty crazy as it takes the sheriff usually about a half hour to even get there. This was around 75-76 so we didn't even get the FBI up there. Three dead bikers…meh…toss em in the fuckin ditch and sell the bikes for the cop fund.

About a week later they pulled my brother out of under cover and his first job was to interview the gang……yeah…talk about good times… Avengers took a different route after that.

[Mike Cl]

many a year ago, when my brother went undercover with the Avengers he had to go out of state on a "mission" a group of 20 of them came into our home town and spent a couple hours fucking with the folks at the local pub and smacked up the lone gay kid in the whole town. Three days later one of our own, who to this day is unknown shot three of them right off their bikes with a 30-06 coming down a hill named for my family. Pretty crazy as it takes the sheriff usually about a half hour to even get there. This was around 75-76 so we didn't even get the FBI up there. Three dead bikers…meh…toss em in the fuckin ditch and sell the bikes for the cop fund.

About a week later they pulled my brother out of under cover and his first job was to interview the gang……yeah…talk about good times… Avengers took a different route after that.

Cool!  Good for your town--wherever it is.

[kilodelta]

but I do despise the ignorance of the pretentiousness the middle class "biker" bullshit.. It's what allows the criminal culture to thrive right under the noses of everyone.   

I was thinking the same thing. Rolling Thunder is coming up soon. Almost all of those folks dress like those I saw in the gang shootout...

[AllPurposeAtheist]

A part that bugs me is a lot of people think I'm a biker just because I have long hair when in fact I won't ride on bikes because I don't have the first inclination to have my body ground into the pavement at 70 mph. I had a good friend who was ground into the pavement and lived another 15 years as a bedridden invalid and died not even knowing his own name. The same people usually think I'm a heavy doper and meth addict..I was a heroin addict for awhile, but got clean from that and never shot meth..
Good for one of your own Aitm.. I grew up right down the street from a notorious Outlaw hangout. Nasty assholes they were.. I have no use for them and kinda glad the world is rid of at least 9 of them..

[drunkenshoe]

Strangely enough it's also a very legitimate question. Our media is very quick to denounce black on black and black on white crime, but it's as if white on white crime doesn't even exist..

If they start to acknowledge any kind of white gang violence, white on white crimes seriously, then they'll have to define white people as terrorists for certain crimes. Now, we can't go around calling white people terrorists, accept that they are highly likely to commit same kind of crimes with nonewhites, can we? What kind of a world that would make? 

#firstworldproblems

[SGOS]

many a year ago, when my brother went undercover with the Avengers he had to go out of state on a "mission" a group of 20 of them came into our home town and spent a couple hours fucking with the folks at the local pub and smacked up the lone gay kid in the whole town. Three days later one of our own, who to this day is unknown shot three of them right off their bikes with a 30-06 coming down a hill named for my family. Pretty crazy as it takes the sheriff usually about a half hour to even get there. This was around 75-76 so we didn't even get the FBI up there. Three dead bikers…meh…toss em in the fuckin ditch and sell the bikes for the cop fund.

About a week later they pulled my brother out of under cover and his first job was to interview the gang……yeah…talk about good times… Avengers took a different route after that.

I was in San Pedro, California for a few months, and one day I was downtown when a biker gang had taken over the place.  It could have been 100 to 200 bikers.  They were spread out everywhere in small groups of 10 to 15 just standing around talking at gas stations and donut shops, and their bikes were just parked.  They didn't appear to be creating trouble, but it was an intimidating sight.  Then at one point, the gang started to move.  At first, 6 or 7 guys revved up their bikes, pulled out on to main street and accelerated down the four lane business district at maybe 70 miles an hour.  Then the hive seemed to come to life, as more bikes revved up, and shot down main street.

The cops were no where in sight, and the main thoroughfare, which was usually bumper to bumper with traffic, was almost empty, clearing the way for high speed motorcycle travel out of town.  I don't know how frequent this sort of thing was.  I was surprised at how none of the bikers acted like getting a speeding ticket was even a remote possibility.  There was no trouble, but I had the feeling that wherever these guys were at any given time, they pretty much owned the place.

[PopeyesPappy]

We don't call biker gangs terrorists because the activities they engage in generally don't meet the definition. Biker gangs don't have a political agenda. We are however well aware of the types of crimes they commit which are things like running guns, drugs, prostitution and extortion. These are the same types of crimes black gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips are accused of being involved in. Please pay attention to this next part because it is going to be hard for some of you to grasp. American law enforcement classify the Banditos, one of the biker gangs involved in this shooting, as a tier II threat. That is the same classification they use for black gangs like the bloods and the Crips that engage in similar activities. As far as white terrorists go Google the name Timothy McViegh, and see how long it takes for the term terrorist to be associated with this particular white male.

As far as black on black versus white on white violent crime goes most violent crime is intraracial. Whites prey on whites and blacks prey on blacks. Blacks however are far more likely to be both a victim or the perpetrator of a violent crime. Blacks make up about 13% of the population, but they commit about half the violent crime. Most of the time the victims are black too. Statistically speaking black on black violent crime is a bigger problem for the black population as a whole than white on white violent crime is for white people.

[drunkenshoe]

We don't call biker gangs terrorists because the activities they engage in generally don't meet the definition. Biker gangs don't have a political agenda.

I didn't either. Clearly, I am talking about the specific criminal stereotype of American culture and what would happen if it changes. About a connection.

We are however well aware of the types of crimes they commit which are things like running guns, drugs, prostitution and extortion. These are the same types of crimes black gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips are accused of being involved in. Please pay attention to this next part because it is going to be hard for some of you to grasp. American law enforcement classify the Banditos, one of the biker gangs involved in this shooting, as a tier II threat. That is the same classification they use for black gangs like the bloods and the Crips that engage in similar activities. As far as white terrorists go Google the name Timothy McViegh, and see how long it takes for the term terrorist to be associated with this particular white male.

Nothing you wrote needs special attention. However, if we think about the example you gave, may be you need to pay attention to what I've said in my post or generally in my other posts about the subject, because almost every time it comes up, I am talking about the post 9/11 tendency. 

Nobody has to google McViegh. Please pay attention that it happened BEFORE 9/11. If it is hard for you to grasp what I am talking about overall, read about the right wing domestic terrorism in your country. Which is not defined as terrorism carefully in the media. Inlcuding the last event in Texas. Perpetrators are American born people.

You are aware of the difference between the understanding of 'terroism' and ' the terrorist' before 9/11 and after 9/11 that is developed by the American media and manipulation right?

As far as black on black versus white on white violent crime goes most violent crime is intraracial. Whites prey on whites and blacks prey on blacks. Blacks however are far more likely to be both a victim or the perpetrator of a violent crime. Blacks make up about 13% of the population, but they commit about half the violent crime. Most of the time the victims are black too. Statistically speaking black on black violent crime is a bigger problem for the black population as a whole than white on white violent crime is for white people.

FBI doesn't agree with you.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

White-on-white murder in America is out of control

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053811/white-on-white-murder

Yet the disturbing truth, according to the FBI's most recent homicide statistics, is that the United States is in the wake of an epidemic of white-on-white crime. Back in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/staggeringly-high-and-shockingly-under-reported-rate-white-white-murder

The Staggeringly Highâ€"And Shockingly Under-Reportedâ€"Rate of White on White Murder

Why oh why is no one commenting on the insanely high rate of of white on white murder? Bill O'Reilly? Joe Klein, of Time magazine, who devotes his whole column to write this week on black on black murder, in response to Ferguson? Anybody? Because bringing up the canard of black on black crime whenever a white man kills a black man is just how the right-wingâ€"and apparently the mainstreamâ€"media rolls.

Note to smug white racists: Take a look at the real numbers. According to the FBI's most recent homicide statistics, Vox.com reports, "the United States is in the wake of an epidemic of white-on-white crime. Back in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians.

83 percent!

As Vox's Matthew Iglesias writes, rather brilliantly:

This is not to say that white people are inherently prone to violence. Most whites, obviously, manage to get through life without murdering anyone. And there are many countries full of white people â€" Norway, Iceland, France, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom â€" where white people murder each other at a much lower rate than you see here in the United States. On the other hand, although people often see criminal behavior as a symptom of poverty, the quantity of murder committed by white people specifically in the United States casts some doubt on this. Per capita GDP is considerably higher here than in France â€" and the white population in America is considerably richer than the national average â€" and yet we have more white murderers.

Another disturbing and revelatory stat via Vox: 36 percent of those killed by whites are women, a far higher percentage than what you see with murderers who are black.

[Solitary]

I has a gang of bikers drive by my car when parked here in Phoenix call the Caballeros. I asked their leader next to me if they were the gay Caballeros, he shook his head, grinned, and laughed. Another biker that went by asked him what I said and he whipped out a gun and pointed at me. I revved up my engine. The leader poked him and he put the gun away.

I had a gang of Hells Angels in a wooded area that was cleared out in Illinois' where it was used to camp in. It was a week day an no one around and my girlfriend and I decided to have sex in the grass hidden just above it. Right in the middle of going at it a biker with his bitch drove by us and ignored us. the whole gang stayed outside the clearing. When my girlfriend and I decided to get the hell out of there, when we were leaving I told the gang to go back and party all they want. They all thanked me and I thanked them for staying outside instead of giving us trouble. I don't think it is fare to treat all bikers the same way. Yes, selling drugs is a crime, and they do fight among themselves and don't take crap off of anyone that doesn't respect them, but what groups of people do that have power?

You go around looking for trouble with any gang or group you are going to get in trouble. I've been around bikers all my life and never had any trouble with any of them or their gangs because I don't look down at them. The movies and the media have greatly exaggerated how bad they are, and they usually fight among themselves and the police who want to control everyone and make them stay in line even if they are not doing anything wrong if they are different from them. The biker gangs in Holland are a different story.
It's been my experience if I don't mess with them or disrespect them I have no trouble, just like any group that has power, like the police. The people that have problems with the police gat their asses shot now too. If all bikers are dangerous, and all cops are too, then people are afraid of them just like people that are homophobic and bigots. Solitary

[PopeyesPappy]

Shoe, the post 911 tendency in the US is to apply the term terrorist to a lot of people that wouldn't have been traditionally considered terrorists. I believe that is a mistake. We don't want the government to start classifing common criminals (even those that participate in organized crime) as terrorists because that allows the government to operate under different rules, and I don't want my government to be allowed to make up the rules as they go.

What I got from your posts is that we apply the term discriminately based on race with whites being less likely to be called terrorist than minorities. That we should consider these bikers as terrorists. They aren't. They are criminals engaged in organized crime, and the government classifies them the same way they classify other similar gang activity regardless of the race of the gang. This is as it should be.

I never said white on white crime wasn't a problem. I said statistically black on black crime was a bigger problem for blacks than it is for whites. The FBI statistics you linked confirmed this so lets break down a few of the numbers you provided.

There were 6,131 murders in the US in 2011.
2,904 (47.37%) of the offenders were white.
2,958 (48.25%) of the offenders were black.
3,172 (51.74%) of the victims were white.
2,695 (43.96%) of the victims were black.
82.91% of the white victims were murdered by whites.
90.8% of the black victims were murdered by blacks.
7.16% of the blacks were murdered by whites.
14.12% of the whites were murdered by blacks.

According to the US census bureau there were 308,758,105 people in the US on April 1st 2010. (the closest time to 2011 statics I could find)
239,905,048 (77.7%) of them were white.
40,756,070 (13.2%) of them were black.

Here are some conclusions we can draw from those numbers.
A white person in the US in 2011 had a 0.0012105% percent chance of being murdered.
A black person in the US in 2011 had a 0.0072578% percent chance of being murdered.
A black person in the US in 2011 was 6 times more likely to be murdered than a white person.
A black person in the US in 2011 was 6.6 times more likely to be murdered by a black person than a white person was to be murdered by a white person.

If those last two figures don't tell you that statistically black on black violent crime is a bigger problem than white on white violent crime then I don't know what to say.

Other than that the first thing I said was most violent crime is intraracial. I never said that whites don't kill whites, or that it wasn't a problem. Just that it was a bigger problem in the black community than the white one, and your numbers confirm that.

[drunkenshoe]

What I got from your posts is that we apply the term discriminately based on race with whites being less likely to be called terrorist than minorities.

Yes. Because that's the turth. And who is we? Why are you owning up to a whole country with 308 millions of people and at least 12 different cultures and races. We are talking about a world human rights issue.

This is not something unique to USA if you feel that annoyed about the conversation going on from your country. Same bullshit goes on in all the West, Europe; first world countries which are predominantly white.

Here is one about the recent German terrorist. Please pay attention to this article, because it is going to be hard for you to grasp.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/05/so_when_can_we_call_the_germanwings_pilot_a_terrorist.html

So, When Can We Call the Germanwings Pilot a Terrorist?

So, let’s get this straight: You can deliberately crash a plane into a mountain, kill 149 innocent people and not be called a terrorist? And then, when evidence emerges that you methodically planned your execution, the media still won’t call you what you are? Instead, they’ll call you a terrorist by another name.

Troubled, but not a criminal?

Sick, but not a thug?

Crazy, but not a terrorist.

This is white privilege en fleek.

It has now been confirmed that in late March, German co-pilot Andreas Lubitz callously planned and carried out his mass murder with pathological determination when he crashed Germanwings Flight 9525 into the French Alps. Despite the lives of so many being shattered, the mainstream media has remained steadfast to the idea that this is a story of a “normal guy” who mysteriously snapped.

I trust you know about the examples happened in you rown country. Last year, Vegas.

That we should consider these bikers as terrorists.

No. I haven't even mentioned bikers. Again, I talked about 'criminal stereotype' in the American culture. Go read it again.

Actually, I was the one busting my ass in another thread about all acts of terrorism having a political agenda, while a bunch of people kept jerking off.

I never said white on white crime wasn't a problem.I said statistically black on black crime was a bigger problem for blacks than it is for whites. The FBI statistics you linked confirmed this so lets break down a few of the numbers you provided.

Yes, you said that. You wrote:

Statistically speaking black on black violent crime is a bigger problem for the black population as a whole than white on white violent crime is for white people.

This is not correct. White on white crime is almost as bad as black on black crime.

Most importantly, the FBI statistics give something completely opposite to the general conviction of  American society. A few points of difference in the numeric value does not make one a big problem and the other is just a normal statistics.

Please add to that white crimes are always under reported and under advertised. Also add that poverty and education are always bigger issues among nonwhite community while not among the whites.

Statistics made on 'chance of being murdered'  doesn't mean shit in this aspect. FBI reports are based on the cases that is known about and SOLVED. Not chances. Those are interpretated according to the many different variants and changing tendencies of crime.

[drunkenshoe]

If they start to acknowledge any kind of white gang violence, white on white crimes seriously, then they'll have to define white people as terrorists for certain crimes. Now, we can't go around calling white people terrorists, accept that they are highly likely to commit same kind of crimes with nonewhites, can we? What kind of a world that would make? 

#firstworldproblems

[PopeyesPappy]

When one group is statistically six times more likely to be murdered than another then statistically they have it worse. Period. You can convince me that I'm wrong about that by simply providing statistics that say black people aren't more likely to be the victim of black on black violent crime than white people. That is what the numbers you linked said. Until you can do that telling me I'm wrong means nothing.

[Shiranu]

It's not about who is actually killing who, it's about how the media (and society in general) portray the different killings.

[drunkenshoe]

When one group is statistically six times more likely to be murdered than another then statistically they have it worse. Period. You can convince me that I'm wrong about that by simply providing statistics that say black people aren't more likely to be the victim of black on black violent crime than white people. That is what the numbers you linked said. Until you can do that telling me I'm wrong means nothing.

I see. Solid FBI report says by 2011, 83 % of WHITE people were murdered by WHITE people and you want me to convince you that you are wrong about the conviction you and the society you live in have on something so obvious that can gouge your eyes out, because your personal 'hopes and convictions' are built on the expectations/managed perceptions that nonewhite people are a bigger threat to ALL; the society by 5 %? Or 7%? Because you are convinced that one group is statistcally is 'more likely' to be killed as the SATISTICS of the CHANCES go?

And then you'll tell me that I am just providing some statistics but nothing more. And I am the one who is telling you that you are wrong.

What is your next step? After you stop stomping your foot down, are you going to hold hands with a few like minded friends and 'pray' for not to be wrong?