Waco Biker Massacre Footage Aired by CNN; Big Questions About Responsibility for Shooting Remain Unanswered


CNN got a big scoop today in the Waco biker massacre story from May: obtaining some video from inside the Twin Peaks restaurant outside of which 9 people were killed and 18 wounded in a biker vs. biker vs. police melee.

Who exactly shot who and why has long been a mystery, and a mystery the police and authorities don't seem to want the public to find a solution to. See some of my reporting about that here, here, here, and here. Many theorize that the police vastly overreacted to a few biker on biker shots that resulted from a club feud outside the planned meeting of a mostly political multi-club coalition, and swooped in with heavy firepower that caused many or most of the deaths or injuries.

The video was under a gag order by a local Judge, as the Waco Tribune-Herald notes today:

The Tribune-Herald in the days following the shootout requested surveillance video and photos from the scene, but the city refused to provide more than 19 pages of incomplete incident reports from the day of the shooting.

The Texas Attorney General's Office ruled for the city on Aug. 7, saying it could withhold the photos, video surveillance and 911 audio recordings, among other evidence, from the Tribune-Herald…

On June 30, Judge Matt Johnson of Waco's 54th State District Court placed video from the restaurant surveillance cameras under a protective order because he said he was concerned about tainting potential jury pools.

Watch CNN's main story. You do see one biker firing one shot, but mostly you just see a lot of patrons and employees panicked by what's going on outside. You don't see the actual firing and being hit that constitutes the bulk of the massacre itself.

Some interesting points about CNN's coverage for people following this story:

• The footage does not in any way shed light on the big remaining mystery of who killed who and why…

• …and CNN itself is completely incurious about that; they cared enough about this May event to obtain and air this video, but at least in this clip (I cannot be sure CNN hasn't aired other followups, but this is the main segment I found on their site) they don't even let their viewers know there is any controversy or question about the police's behavior that day when it came to the shooting and killing.

• But the video does make it pretty clear that likely many/most of the 177 arrested that day were guilty of nothing other than being around when bad shit happened…

• …and makes it clear that CNN wants you to agree with the police that there is something inherently untoward and sinister about a bunch of Texas bike club members having weapons on them, regardless if they were illegally owned or obtained or used.

NEXT: 'Jeb's dead' and Other GOP Debate Observations from Matt Welch on HuffPost Live

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can this video now be used in a civil trial by people wrongly arrested? Or is it still “officially” sequestered?

    1. I would say

      1. Yes it can.
      2. You’ll probably still be arrested for it.
      3. But you have a pretty air-tight defense by pointing out that it was in the public domain already.

      But, like the military, the original court isn’t going to want to roll over and admit that their ‘classified material’ is no longer actually classified. They’ll keep screaming about how there’s an injuction, and the other courts’ll just ignore them.

  2. Yeah, so before this angers up the blood, here’s a little OT humor to soothe.

  3. One of you Hit-n-Run assholes wanna progsplain to me why Obama’s FAA requirements aren’t racist?


    OLYMPIA ? Are you accustomed to flashing your plain, old standard Washington driver’s license in the security line at the airport? It won’t get you through much longer.

    The federal government has denied Washington state an extension from complying with tougher federal requirements that require proof of legal U.S. residency in order for state driver’s licenses and IDs to be valid for federal purposes, including, eventually, boarding commercial aircraft.

    A letter from the Department of Homeland Security, obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday, was sent Monday to the state Department of Licensing notifying the agency of the decision.

    1. It’s not something something if the right people do it.

    2. I hear New Mexico is on that list, too. Thankfully the next time I travel I’ll be driving out with whatever I can’t sell or give away.

    3. I can think of a couple other things this is.

      I heard NY was on this list too, but it isn’t mentioned in the article.

    4. I hope the feds actually go through with this. It’s one thing to deny a state a portion of their highway funding for refusing to pass a law, it’s another thing to deny the citizens of a state the right to travel because their legislatures refuse to comply with your demands. I’d like to see this come to a head.

  4. Shilling for Big Biker eh?

  5. It’s nice knowing we have a pack of blood thirsty clowns with fragile egos and inferiority complexes to roam our streets and escalate any scuffle between plebes to mass killings.

    1. Apparently it is a necessary step in the journey to utopia.

      1. At least ISIS gives you the chance to convert.

        1. You’re allowed to convert into a seizuring heap of tasered flesh.

  6. …and makes it clear that CNN wants you to agree with the police that there is something inherently untoward and sinister about a bunch of Texas bike club members having weapons on them, regardless if they were illegally owned or obtained or used.

    Big surprise. CNN can’t tell which way the wind is blowing and sure as shit can’t tailor its coverage away from being mindless stenographers for authorities. They are absolutely ill-equipped for investigative journalism and subsequently pulling themselves out of the ratings basement.

    Maybe they’ll prove me wrong on this.

    1. They’re below MSNBC in the ratings?

      1. msnbc can be found in the sump hole in the corner of basement, drowning in a 1/4″ of water.

  7. I just want everybody to know that I ate the jelly beans and I’m OK. For now.

    1. Well, if something does go wrong, were they worth it?

    2. Que? Did a jilted ex send you a carebear package out of the blue?

        1. Sevo|10.28.15 @ 8:44PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          “…I was using the new upholstery attachment on my car.”

          Gotta ask: Did you check in the vac for more of ’em?

          reply to this
          Pl?ya Manhattan.|10.28.15 @ 9:06PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          No. Gross.

          reply to this

          But if you’d just bought the shop vac… and the first thing you vacuum is your car upholstery… and the jellybeans were found on the car upholstery prior to vacuuming…

          1. Then they’d taste like China, or wherever Home Depot stuff is made.

            I don’t want that virus from The Simpsons.

            1. I was using the new upholstery attachment on my car

              On your “car”, sure…

              Tell the truth, the jelly beans were in your pocket.

    3. I still wanna know if you took the vac apart looking for more of ’em.

      1. No. I remembered where I got them and bought more, plus some really good beer.

        1. Goddamn hipster!

            1. I am not disgusted that you ate car floor jelly beans, but rather that you ate banana jelly beans. What’s next, Manhattan clam chowder?

              1. They’re second only to roasted marshmallow jelly beans. Or pomegranate, those are pretty good too.

                1. They’re second only to roasted marshmallow jelly beans

                  It pains me to say it, but you have Cytotoxic-level taste in jelly beans.

                  1. Banana is the JJ Abrams of flavors

                    1. I don’t know if it makes sense, but I laughed

                    2. Gilmore is the Michael Bay of commenters.

                    3. That was mean.

                      I know this is the internet and everything, but Dude…

                    4. So what you’re saying is…

                      …i’m very *subtle*?

                    5. I’m going to mentally insert exploding helicopters into all of your posts from now on

  8. The CNN article I read a while ago reads like it was ghost written by somebody from the Waco PD.

    1. They need to maintain their access to booking shots.

  9. C’mon Brian, even if the guns were legally owned it’s still illegal to have them in a bar or while drinking.

    1. It was a restaurant and there’s nothing illegal about possessing a gun while drinking. What the fuck was your point anyway?

      1. This is rural Texas. Aren’t you required to have a gun in a bar?

        1. Waco isn’t “rural”, Every establishment in Texas that serves alcohol has signs prominently displayed stating unlicensed possession of a firearm on the premises is a felony.

          1. Yeah, but jokes that play on stereotypes don’t give a rip about facts.

    2. Twin Peaks isn’t a 51% establishment (though if it were, you’d be right.). As such, it’s legal to carry concealed there. If it’s like the 24 hour Mexican joint near me, the bar area is placarded 51%, but the rest of the restaurant isn’t.

      As for drinking while carrying, from TX Penal Code 46.035(d),

      A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed

      What’s “intoxicated”? Annoying, that part of the Code doesn’t define that term. However, Chapter 411, Subchapter H of the Texas Government Code does at Section 411.171:

      “Intoxicated” has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

      Sigh, that’s annoying. Well, Section 49.01 Texas Penal Code reads:

      “Intoxicated” means:
      (A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
      (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

      So, while the cop can bust you under “A” if you don’t have your normal faculties, it’s a lot more likely that the code means, ‘don’t get so drunk you blow a 0.08.’

      IANAL, go get one if you need one.

  10. Are we the only sane people in this country?

  11. and CNN itself is completely incurious

    You don’t say.

    The idiot savants of news.

  12. Put on your tinfoil hat….

    Whenever there is any sort of violence caught on video, how long does it take the police to publish the video? How long does it take them to release names? Usually the first opportunity, right? Usually the same day – so they can have their nice “aren’t we heroes for catching the bad guys” press conference.

    I don’t begrudge them that. When you do a good job and catch the guy who shot someone at the 7-11 you should get to hold a press conference and say “look at the video showing the guy we just caught shooting the clerk!” That’s reasonable.

    But what happens when there is some question as to the propriety of police actions? Suddenly we don’t see video. We don’t hear the names of those brave officers who risked their lives to save us all from the bad guys. Suddenly police reports don’t get completed and are unfiled for weeks while all the evidence is reviewed to ensure that all parties concerned are singing from the same songbook.

    When that happens we know two things. Somebody with the police screwed up… maybe a little, maybe a lot. And secondly, the internal investigation will show that procedures were followed and everyone acted properly.

    I don’t have to know any more about this situation than the fact that the police are withholding everything, including the names of the officers involved and even an accounting of who shot who. That alone tells me that they don’t believe that they acted properly.

  13. Who exactly shot who and why has long been a mystery, and a mystery the police and authorities don’t seem to want the public to find a solution to solve.

    Don’t end the sentence with a preposition, motherfucker.


    1. Goddamnit.

      Who exactly shot who and why has long been a mystery, and a mystery the police and authorities don’t seem to want the public to find a solution to solve.

      Muphry’s Law

    2. Prepositions are just something I love to end sentences with.

  14. Yeah, Brian. I look at that video and draw the conclusion there just isn’t enough people walking around, carrying guns into restaurants, parks whatever. Bikers, school teachers, drug addicts, pastors, whatever. More need to be carrying.

    Are you nuts?

    1. Where was he trying to make that assertion?

      1. “?…and makes it clear that CNN wants you to agree with the police that there is something inherently untoward and sinister about a bunch of Texas bike club members having weapons on them, regardless if they were illegally owned or obtained or used”

        He clearly disagrees that if everyone carried it wouldn’t be “sinister.” Sinister means something bad might happen. So he doesn’t think everyone carrying wherever they want carries the potential of what that video showed.

        1. “So he doesn’t think everyone carrying wherever they want carries the potential of what that video showed.”

          And it obviously fucking doesn’t. This happened because the police made it happen.

        2. “everyone carrying wherever they want carries the potential of what that video showed.’

          Being massacred by police?

      2. There you go, Woodrow…add cyto to the blithering idiots who want everyone carrying wherever they want.

        1. And, you know, 99% of the people on this board.

          1. I said that below.

        2. What’s wrong, joe? Are you one of the primitive animists who believe that guns have a special power of to act on their own?

          It’s funny when twits like you show up.. People can kill each other at any time. You don’t need a gun. Humans perfected killing one another centuries before the gun came onto the scene.

          Any object will do. A rock, a brick, something sharp to slice at someone, a car to run people down, gasoline in a glass bottle and lighter.

          But yet, people don’t. Why do you think that is?

      3. And Gilmore. I’m sure there are more.

        1. You’re not even making sense

          People (aka “everyone”) carries wherever they want all the time in many states.

          You’re suggesting that the fact that POLICE mowed down group of people has something to do with carry laws?

          1. Police did that? And you know that how? Even Brian doesn’t know that, as he said in the article. But go ahead, tell us all about your detailed investigation and questioning of all who were there.

            1. There is increasingly clear evidence that is exactly what happened.

              1. Yeah? Please detail it.

                  1. So there is your proof, cyto. A lawyer for one of the defendants admits that the bikers started the shooting (boy, that’s proof not enough people carry guns, eh?), and then HE claims that it was police who caused all the harm. He says.

                    Thanks, Cyto, for proving how important it is to have a juris prudence system that uses elements like grand juries, rather than guilt determined by media outlets and libertarians.

                1. Brian has detailed plenty of inconsistencies with police claims and evidence at the scene. Witness testimony said the majority of fire came from officers.

                  Most of the gunshot wounds were shots to the back, from a distance = yet they won’t release detail on the calibers determined from the autopsies (available here), which would clearly exculpate the police if in fact they weren’t shooting wildly into a crowd.

                  None of which makes any difference to the retardation of your claim = which is that “people carrying wherever they want” somehow guarantees the eventuality of massacres…

                  …when in fact, millions of people carry ‘wherever they want’ every day all across America… and remarkably, there are no incidents even remotely close to what you’re assuming should be happening.

                  I was just wondering how far you planned to back up that patently retarded claim?

                  1. I hope he backs it up all the way to that point in his ass from where he pulled it out.

                  2. Okay, but where’s your proof that they *did*?


                  3. Wow! The autopsies refer to “medium caliber” and “small caliber” copper-jacketed bullets as being the cause of death in most cases. The caliber designations can mean just about anything as there are no standard definitions. However, it is very unlikely that many bikers had copper jacketed ammunition in handguns. Hollow-point ammunition is preferred for handguns, and not many of these use copper-jacketing (Hornady is the only brand that comes to mind.)

                    Something is rotten in Waco. But they only go after Branch Davidians and bikers. I am neither a Branch Davidian nor biker, so I think it’s best not to speak out.

                  4. My recollection is that the partial results released so far have a few key points:

                    (1) The bullet wounds were all from either a .223ish caliber or a shotgun.

                    (2) The recovered bullets were all fragmented.

                    (3) Many trajectories were from elevated firing positions.

                    None of those facts is consistent with a biker firing a single shot. Everyone killed there was killed by a cop.

            2. There ain’t no such thing as joe. It’s just a run-of-the-mill troll when he’s drunk. And unemployed.

    2. Are you tall?

      1. Are you an idiot?

        1. No but you clearly are.

        2. You can’t answer a question with a question unless you’re a Jew.

          1. I thought that only applied to the ‘what is this/am I? A ?’ format.

            1. Having grown up as a member of the tribe, I can assure you it applies to every question. So much so that any response to a question in Yiddish can be boiled down to a single word.

    3. You’re absolutely correct – I mean, what if the police get antsy seeing all those guns and decide to shoot up a place again.

      1. “She had it coming dressed up like that.”

        1. We have to restrict gun rights because cops can’t not shoot people who carry. Solid logic.

    4. I agree, the cops should have been drug-tested and disarmed before they got involved.

  15. Answering questions with questions…



    Do you want something to masturbate to?


    Well, ok. Here you go!

    1. Boo, I was hoping for unicorns

        1. Less sparkly and more refined than I expected. Also a unicorn with a gun could totally take him.

        2. What is that I can’t even.

            1. Oh goddammit now my Youtube “wishlist” is loaded with your sick fantasies.

              1. Your Youtube wishlist is loaded with Daphne Joy videos?

                1. Too pneumatic for my blood but pleasantly non-otherkin. Thx.

    2. Not masturbating but I am laughing my ass off.

    3. Ok I watched this one too and it is pretty funny. “How would guys use it?” “Practice”

    4. I have always wanted to speak Japanese. Something about it seems “right”

      1. Or… Korean?

      2. Speaking of that…Babymetal and Dragonforce together!

        This world has become too damn kawaii for me. I’m off to look for a new one.

      3. It seems that way until you actually understand it. Then it too often sounds retarded.

    5. I lost it at whatever rock paper scissors translates to in Korean. That was adorkable.

        1. If humans had a similar strategy life would be so much simpler.

  17. When it comes to answering a question with a question nothing tops this :


  18. “Who exactly shot who and why has long been a mystery, and a mystery the police and authorities don’t seem to want the public to find a solution to.”

    My grandson has a Harley and lives in that part of Tejas. He tells me that this was all due to a guy named “Burning Bush” walking in on his girl having relations with a Waco PD officer. So two of the bike gangs agreed to “stage” a brutal fight so that the cops would be called in and Burning Bush could shoot the guy that was playing with his girl’s stink cave.

    Also, I think the answer to the above question is that the police shot the bikers because the bikers were shooting at them. No idea why the Waco PD hasn’t figured that out yet.

    1. Cool story, bro.

      1. +1 mystery solved

  19. Coverage of this video was horrendous! And commenters saying, “See, these are just a bunch of scumbags who should be in jail, the cops are right!”

    Um, the video shows nothing of the sort. It shows a bunch of people not wanting to get shot, and one guy with a gun probably trying to defend himself against a bunch of cops that are shooting people indiscriminately.

    Notice how they haven’t released ballistics reports that would reveal who actually shot the people who died. $5 says it was mostly cops who actually shot people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.