Talk:Hells Angels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Mmoyer (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - created 24 August 2007

.

Contents

[edit] Orthography...

The name in proper English would be, of course, "Hell's Angels", denoting the Angels of/in Hell. But being "proper" is obviously, exactly what Hells Angels don't want to be! So out the window goes the apostrophe in their "official" terminology, e.g. patches, colors, etc. I suggest that Wiki contributors try to be exact when referring to the name of the motorcycle club itself (they spell it "Hells Angels") and literary references to it, where it is usually spelled in "proper English", e.g. Hunter S. Thompson's book about them. The Gnome 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Source: http://www.hells-angels.com/faq.htm "Should the Hells in Hells Angels have an apostrophe, and be Hell's Angels? That would be true if there was only one Hell, but life & history has taught us that there are many versions and forms of Hell."

[edit] Shoot me - but I've tried...

I have no affiliation with the Hells Angels or any other motorcycle club - I am interested in the biker culture - its good aspects and its bad.

I am particularly intrigued by the Hells Angels, purely from a sub-culture point of view, and I believe the public will be well served with an article that is neither complimentary, nor insulting, but objective and unbiased.

There has been a lot of discussion over the article - I think if we steer clear of inflamatory language (such as citing the club as an "outlaw" motorcycle club) and stick to VERIFIED information, we are able to produce a useful reference in the spirt of Wikipedia... without p***sing anyone off.

Since no-one seemed willing to spend the time to organise and research the article, and take the big controversial step, I decided to do so.

This may not be politically correct - I'm not a wikipedia veteran - however - I am open to discussion and would appreciate any sensible, unemotional comment and correction on the rework.

I've spent a few days doing research and trying to verify many of the statements made in the article in an unbiased and objective manner.

I have therefore made edits accordingly, reorganising information, keeping every piece of information which was verified, cited or referenced in an attempt to create a unbiased, objective article. Dzstudios 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Major kudos for your efforts, Dzstudios!! The rewrite and reorganization is a significant improvement on the article. I am going to make a couple of changes, however, including removing the giant list of chapters (just too many to be useful), and clarifying some of the finer details with correct terminology (you might give the Motorcycle club article and its refs a detailed readover). Again, bravo for your efforts!! Mmoyer 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
A pleasure - and thanks for your input!Dzstudios 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request removal of 'biased' and 'rewrite' tags

I would appreciate your comments on the rework - and your opinion on removal of the rewrite/biased tags.

I will remove the tags, also. Mmoyer 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I ran out of time and was unable to get to it  :( Mmoyer 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomads

The article is wrong when it states that the Nomads are a "puppet club" of the Hells Angels (or any other bike club for that matter).

Puppet clubs are junior to the established clubs.

The Nomads are a separate chapter that is not related to any geographical area, hence the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaligulaJones (talk • contribs) 20:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Mmoyer 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Tanks

I am wondering if anyone can verify the statement in the 'History' section of the 'Hells Angels' article. The last sentence of the section states that one of the original lower rocker patches was 'Green Tanks', in reference to an area of Oakland, California. I can find no information to corroborate this statement, and the only reference I could find on the 'net for an area called 'Green Tanks' was for a fishing guide description (www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=1683). However, this reference does not refer to an area of Oakland, but of San Diego. It references a 'Point Loma' and a lighthouse, both of which I could find in San Diego. It sounds as if this 'Green Tanks' is a physical description alluding to some kind of Storage or Refinery tanks which happen to be green in color. Not being a resident of California, I don't have any other way of verifying this information. The article states that it needs a citation, of which I would agree. I believe that, if no proper source is found which can verify the statement, it should be removed from the article. Comments? CrowdedWords 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a reference for the actual rocker text then we can add a statement to the article that its unclear what the location actually refers to. Also, I wonder if the rocker text is in any of the printed materials even if it's not in an online source. I would say to let it ride until someone can check the printed materials, such as Bargers book. Mmoyer 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Info reads:
The first Oakland group, ca. 1956, before Sonny was involved, had the name "Green Tanks" as the lower rocker jacket patch. Green Tanks is a section of Oakland.
It's been a month and I did a fair amount of searching for anything even close to supporting this and could find nothing, so I removed it per WP:V. Mmoyer 03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IGNORANCE IS BLISS

Most of the urban legends surrounding the H.A.M.C. are just that, urban legends. When it comes to trusting the organized crime organization known as the Department Of Justice, don't be misled. This article had some accuracies, however, to me it was laughable. I could compare the writing of this article to that of a virgin teaching a sex ed class. Two of the biggest reasons modern day Angels get the reputation they do is this: 1) most people cannot tell the difference between some maniac in leather on a motorcycle and a true Hells Angels member. 2) human beings in general fear the unknown... What I do know is this, angels are the most loyal and respectful people I have ever met. Being an ex-Marine who has seen a lot of combat action, I truly understand the idea of brotherhood... I would and do completely trust them with my life without question... How many people can you say that about? Your local congressman or senate rep.? Your commander in chief? Your local law enforcement? Your friends and peers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.48.157 (talk) 22:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

To use your analogy, trusting them with your life could be compared to the virgin teaching the sex ed class. In my hometown, where I grew up (the local biker gang became full patch members of HA in 1997), putting a virgin in charge usually meant that someone was about to get screwed! I take it you are a member or a wannabee? Hardly NPOV. The only criticism I would currently provide for this article is that it needs a bit more work on the "history" section, without regurgitating either too much of the BS from Sonny Barger's book, or buying into other popular mythology. One of the best references I've seen is Jerry Langton's description of the Hells Angels origins on page 18-20 of his book "Fallen Angel". It's fairly well rounded. While you are at it you might want to read the rest of his book - it certainly wasn't the U.S. Department of Justice that was blowing up 11-year-olds with car bombs and putting recently murdered victims into sleeping bags and dumping the bodies into the St. Lawrence River. Garth of the Forest 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
While it doesn't apply to all Hells Angels or motorcycle enthusiasts in general, the links that group has to crime are well known and documented. Perhaps it's a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole crate. --Lendorien 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the HAMC's links to organized criminal activity are well documented; however I also am of the opinion that the various governments involved are on shaky ground with legislation like RICO and Bill C-95 in Canada, which, it could be argued, both infringe on the citizen's right to freedom of association. See this article I wrote recently for what I think is a neutral point of view related to this concern. If for example, my brother commits a murder, should I be put on trial simply because I am in his family and wear a similar jacket to his? Of course not - not in a liberal democracy, anyway. But because law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have been so inept at, well, doing their jobs in gathering the required information for prosecuting members of organizations like the Hells Angels for actual crimes that some members have committed, they've convinced legislators to pass sweeping laws such as RICO, and the Patriot Act, for example. It is a slippery slope, my friends. Just ask anyone you know who was in Germany between 1933 - 1945...Garth of the Forest 08:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To address the comment about Angels blowing up 11 year olds etc.. What you are doing is holding a group accountable for guilt by association. That method of reasoning and understanding is nothing but useless. If we were to take a look at members of our governments (Federal, State, and Local), we would see a laundry list of people convicted of crimes. Some of those people continue to serve in a position of privelage. What it boils down to and why I feel the article submitted is inflamitory is this. When we as humans choose to put our faith in something we tend to follow it blindly. Most people would argue that, especially the blindly part, but if you are truly honest with yourself you may have a different opinion of things. I.E. Most Americans feel they do their part by voting to choose their elected officials. On the flipside most Americans will try to find a way out of jury duty because they see it as an inconvenience. In turn, although we know the legal system is flawed and biased, because it was established and run by human beings with emotions, we tend to trust them to tell us how things are. Any good researcher know there is no knowledge like first hand knowledge. Onelast thing on this matter. As far as judging the entire motorcycle club for the instances you pointed out, do you take that approach with everything in life? It reminds me of another story. It would be fair to say that the modern Bible used in Christianity is based on the works of the Catholic religion, like it or not. A religion that has killed how many millions of people and for what purpose? But does that mean we should question the sanity of anyone who puts their faith in the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.44.32 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and agree with you (up to a point); however the main difference between the Hells Angels and the Catholic Church is that the former organization's current raison d'être is to profit from the proceeds of criminal activities, while the latter - the Catholic Church's primary raison d'être - was (and is) to promote (and live a life guided by the teachings of) the Christian faith, a relatively worthwhile cause I would argue as long as it is done in a peaceful and tolerant manner by those who truly believe. True, due to human failings of many members of the Church over the centuries, and simply by how long it has been in existence compared to Hells Angels MC, there is more blood (when measured in pure quantity versus on a per capita basis) on the hands of members and former members of the Catholic Church than on the collective hands of the Angels. But you are also talking about billions and billions of people in the case of the history of Catholicism and hundreds or perhaps a few thousand over the relatively brief existence of the HAMC. Hardly a reasonable comparison. On the more specific issue where you suggest that the article is inflammatory I suggest that if you take issue with any specific content then you need to be more specific and provide some references to provide verifiable reason for disputing the existing content - many people have worked very hard here to present a neutral POV - my task has been primarily to object when others try to gloss over or downplay the HAMC's obvious and well-documented connections to organized criminal activity, while at the same time (see my other notes above) agreeing with you that simply wearing a particular jacket or having a particular tattoo is not in and of itself a crime.
As to your comment about the value of original research, while true, you need to be aware that original research is not acceptable as a primary source for Wikipedia content. You need to provide verifiable, reputable, third-party resources for any content you wish to add to an article, and you should also do the same to justify the removal of any content. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many headings

This article has far too many headings to be useful. Is there some way to consolodate things a bit? --Lendorien 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Too many headings leaves little room for actual prose. The article is a recitation of facts, not an actual article. Mmoyer 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International criminal organization

I reverted the addition to the opening paragraph that the HA are regarded by many countries as international criminal organization because the two supplied references only mention two countries (Canada and Denmark), and only the Canada reference contains a specific legal designation (which will probably be overturned IMHO). The Denmark ref contains no such official designation.

Generally speaking, such a statement in the opening paragraph is highly biased (see WP:POV) and goes to the heart of the controversy (already mentioned in the opening paragraph) about the HA: Are they just a misunderstood motorcycle club whose members sometimes do bad things, or are they a criminal organization? Well, it depends on who you ask. According to a former Bandidos member (Winterhalder, methinks), these 1% clubs aren't engaged in organized crime; Instead it's more like disorganized crime, where certain members and/or chapters decide independently to engage in drug dealing or whatever. I think that the "Controversy" section is a better place to discuss these assertions.

Also, I'd like to encourage User:67.43.141.158, who made these edits, to create a Wikipedia account and join the discussion on how to improve this article. We certainly welcome new editors! Mmoyer 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-documented fact that the Hells Angels are an organized crime syndicate (this transition having taken place gradually over time, but more specifically after certain events that occurred in the summer of 1965). While Winterhalder's descriptive term "disorganized crime" is very apt for describing the behaviors of many of the various independent outlaw motorcycle clubs that existed from the late forties until the mid-nineties, and could arguably also be used to describe the behaviors of the most inept of the HAMC membership and its various puppet clubs, since the mid-eighties there has been a series of mergers and acquisitions on a global scale that has, at least in Canada, given the Hells Angels arguably an even larger organized criminal reach than was previously enjoyed here by the Mafia.Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Jay Bishop

I removed the following from the Membership section:

"The most notorious member of the Hells angels would have to be Sheldon Jay Bishop, known as Slaughter House. Slaughter House is the most dangerous member of the Hells Angels. He has taken down over 40 opposing gang members, and up to 25 civilians. The location of Sheldon Jay Bishop is currently unknown. He lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he than ran off, never to be seen again. He is currently number 8 of the most dangerous, organized crime members in the United States."

... for the following reasons:

  • No supplied references.
  • Google search for anyone named Sheldon Bishop, Jay Bishop, or Sheldon Jay Bishop, or Slaughterhouse or Slaughter House in association with the HA yielded no results.
  • Number 8 on some unnamed list is not supportable.

Mmoyer 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the ramblings, and chest thumping, of one "SJB", in a vain attempt to create notoriety. CrowdedWords 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph needs more work

While I understand the intent behind the most recent changes, I am concerned about the wording of, in particular, the last sentence of the second paragraph. I believe that it gives the reader, very early in the article, a wrong impression of what "one-percenter" means in the biker subculture. I also question the use of the word "clause" in that paragraph - suggest we try, at the very least, a re-write of that last sentence in the second paragraph. Garth of the Forest 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it on the last paragraph. Clause isn't quite the word I was looking for, but it did the job at the time. In fact, simply saying one-percenter with a disambiguation link may be the best idea, as wiki-linking is there to let people go find out about unfamiliar concepts in the appropriate article (rather than having to explain everything in this one). I am not familiar with biker subculture, so I went with my understanding as informed by the linked definition in the main motorcycle club article. But the first sentence doesn't need any altering, and I have more refs to back up the details if you find them necessary. VanTucky Talk 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job. That was the wording change I was looking for. Well done. Garth of the Forest 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I have assessed this article as B class, given its level of detail and organization, and of low importance as I do not feel that it plays a strong role in the understanding of the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with B class assessment (we are hopefully moving in the direction of A class, three steps forward, two back, lather rinse repeat); however I believe this article to be of high importance for understanding the recent history of organized criminal activity in Canada. I suppose if your focus is on the first few hundred years of Canadian history (ie pre-cold war era), then this content is of low importance, but if you are focused on the last twenty or thirty years it is very important to understanding the changes in our approach to policing and understanding organized criminal activity that have taken place in Canada over the last few decades. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filthy Few Patch

There needs to be a citation regarding the "in reality the patch is only awarded to those who have, or are prepared to, murder on behalf of the club." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.85.197 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Further yet, I boldly decided that a re-wording (which I've done) was necessary because this "reality" is a very subjective one and in violation of WP:NPOV - it is a belief held by many law enforcement officials and it may be true but this belief is disputed by others who may have a much less subjective point of view.Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hells-angels-logo.jpg

Image:Hells-angels-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited content

There seems to be a lot of uncited and poorly cited content that has snuck in over the last few months. This stuff needs to be refernced or it should go. And free geocities webpages are not credible sources for wiki articles. Macutty (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, both. Will you please be more specific about which unreferenced content (or poorly cited content) you feel should be removed unless better sources can be found? Otherwise I fear my former brothers-in-arms and I may have to go find our rusty old armour to polish up in case some dragon comes along and starts being overly bold, thereby terrorizing, perhaps unintentially, some of the local villagers. Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole Hells Angels North Chapter section is based on a geocities website for starters.....I'll sift through more of the article later. Macutty (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Also thwe whole section on Downtown Toronto Hells Angels Clubhouse, Ontario has no valid citations. They are either dead, or dont cite the information written in the article. Either new citations should be found or the info removed. Macutty (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as no one has provided any alternate sources for the info (and I have not been able to find any backing up the claims made) I'm taking down the info that does not have current or valid citations. Macutty (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not do that. Do not just arbitrarily remove information from an article just because it is poorly referenced. Rather, insert the appropriate tag(s) i.e. "citation needed", for example. If you have a valid reference that refutes any claim made as factual, then please provide the appropriate reference(s), and if you wish to be bold then change the wording of the article to suit the new reference(s). But don't just arbitrarily remove content just because you can. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not a matter of poorly referenced, its a matter of the referneces either not being available, or not containing the info writeen in to the article. You cant make up details, provide a false citation, and then say "leave it until we find other sources." You need to find a verifiable source BEFORE you add content. If no citations exist then the info needs to be removed. I didn't just rush out to delete the info, I gave well over a week for anyone to provide other sources (and tried to find other sources myself) but they do not exist. Macutty (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This statement is false there are plenty of references for the material you removed you have not made an effort to look. I will not revert your changes right now but I will be re-inserting some of the relevant content in future when I have more time. Recognize that people are busy they have RL commitments and some of us follow many topics not just HA. You should not just arbitrarily remove content just because it doesn't suit your POV. You wouldn't be a patched HA or a hang-around by any chance, would you? Anyway, the geocities website you mentioned is all accurate information I've read several books that confirm it and reputable Canadian media have covered this material in the past, but I agree that additional references are desirable for the sections you removed. But they already had some references and you did not provide evidence to the contrary that the material was false. Recognize that adding good references takes time and a bit of research effort is required. Please note it was not me who originally added the content you removed but I protest its removal. There were references provided they perhaps just weren't exhaustive enough to suit your tastes, and I understand that you took issue with some of the wording. But if you are going to change wording then you need to provide your own references, and/or rationale, not just decide unilaterally to delete mass sections of content just because it doesn't suit your POV pushing. You need to give other editors more than a week to respond some of us are very busy in RL and only get on here every week or so. Again, don't be too much of a dragon or you will have a legion of knights swarm you. Well ... okay ... I admit ... maybe just one while the rest hide behind trees. But I'm a powerful knight I've got truth and references to back me up. Now was that smoke coming from your nostrils or are you just glad to see me? Garth of the Forest (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, the info i removed had was not referenced. Period. The links provided did not substantiate the info contained in the wiki article, or did not exist at all (as in the case of the torntofokus website which is dead). And if you have read books, or watched news stories, thats great, reference those. But you cant just say "I heard this somewhere so I'm going to add it and hopefully someday, someone will provide a citation for it." Nothing I did is POV, it simply removing uncited content. I didnt add new material from a POV, just removed the info that was uncited or miss-cited. And a geocities website, regardless of whether it is accurate, does not meet the wiki standard for a reference. And to your comment: I am a software salesman. The only affiliation or connection I have to this or any motorcycle group is what I read in the paper, or see on the news. I've never even been on a harley....there are just some folks out there who dont like seeing the one sided POV pushing on these kinds of subjects. I dont take issue with relevant, factual, properly cited info....but you cant take a news story, reference it, and then add a bunch of facts, dates, details that are not contained anywhere in the news story. Thats called OR and it isnt permitted on wikipedia. i know you havent added the info, but someone did and this is exactly the process they followed. Macutty (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And to your comment "But they already had some references and you did not provide evidence to the contrary that the material was false." the burden of proff is on you (or the contributor) to provide proof the information is factual and correct, not on me to prove that it is false. Macutty (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. It was not my intent to start a revert war here which is why I haven't touched what you've done (yet). I come across a lot of really good content on wikipedia which is either under-referenced, not referenced at all, or has POV issues. My approach is just a bit different from yours and certain other editors whose approach leans towards "when in doubt, speedy delete", whereas the approach I prefer is to add tags to the article or section indicating that certain "facts" found in the article need to be referenced, or cited in a more scholarly fashion. These may be facts which I may already know are true, if it is a topic I am very familiar with, or in other cases perhaps I simply don't know enough about the topic yet to be able to decide if the material in its present form is worth keeping and just needs additional references, or if it needs to be removed or completely rewritten. I then, as time permits, for the material I have the most interest in, go out and and seek references to either support the content, or to provide my justification for removing it or modifying it. Others take an approach like yours - if the content isn't referenced, they give it a week or so (or in some cases I have seen, a few hours or minutes) and then just unilaterally delete it without adding any tags or warnings or seeking opinions of other editors who have invested a lot of time and effort in getting the article in question to its current state. I find this approach overly harsh, counterproductive, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to assume that all contributors have good intentions, they just maybe haven't yet taken the time required to bring their contributions to content to a "FA" quality, or don't know how, they need to rely on the gnomes. I appreciate that you at least served notice of your intentions here on the talk page. And the beauty of wikipedia is that the information that you deleted is still there. I will make an effort to squeeze out a bit of time this weekend to go and get that content you removed, and provide you with the references that you seek, before adding any of it back in to the article. The book I'm reading now indicates that there are "thousands of pages" of police intelligence reports that have been entered into court records relating to the content that you removed, so I should have no trouble getting you references for the content. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

News Story About Them Plotting to kill Mick Jagger

You might want to mention that. I don't have the time, but I just saw it on the Yahoo front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.50.162 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Hunter

See the talk page of Meredith Hunter's article, where further info is shown, with Hunter taunting the Angels, as well as firing at them. This is from the "Times", based on the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.236.174 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also eyewitness accounts and evidence to the contrary that question whether Hunter even had a gun, and that Sonny and his boys "produced" the weapon at a later date to help get their brother off from the charges he faced. There is also evidence of police corruption and that money changed hands to help promote the "self-defense" theory and bolster the story that eventually led to an acquittal. Other eyewitnesses and researchers have concluded that the Oakland Hells Angels who were there that day (and near Hunter at the time that his fatal injuries were inflicted) essentially got away with murder. I've read and watched material from both points of view which, frankly, in the final analysis, leave me with more questions than answers about that fateful day. Truth be told, we will probably never know the real full story of what happened, even those of us who were there or have watched and/or read much of the material on this subject. What we do know is that the prime suspect was tried and the self-defense theory held up in the American legal system. Just as with the Kennedy assassination and other turning points in history, there is still much doubt that all the facts came out or ever will come out - I personally believe that there were very likely other HA who also stabbed Hunter that day but only one was charged, and there was conflicting evidence as to which wound proved fatal and much speculation as to who delivered it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hunter's gun is clearly visible against a white back-ground in the film. Patty Bredahoff said, "Don't shoot any one." Her remark implies that Hunter had a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.187 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
She was also grabbing both his arms. This implies that Hunter had a weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.187 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/hells_angels/index.html

This shows Hunter holding a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.51.112 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"This shows Hunter holding a gun." Um, sorry no. I've looked through all those photos and they do not clearly show any such thing. The best evidence for the existence of a gun, at the scene, in the possession of Hunter prior to his death, was the film. And of course the statements by the Angels who were nearby. And yes there was a gun produced several days later by individuals who had a conflict of interest and who claimed it was the gun. I agree that odds are good that Hunter did have a gun, but the evidence is not 100% conclusive, only plausible. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v9WcwTbErw shows the incident.
Yep, it sure looks like a gun in that video. Was Hunter left-handed? Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Founding Date and location?

Okay, I know there are varying accounts of how the early groups formed, and what, if any, knowledge they initially had of each other, but we need to have the article reflect the best consensus for which was the first chapter and when it was founded. This article currently states it was 1948 in Fontana and other sources I've been reading say it was 1948 (some sources say 1947) in "Berdoo" (San Bernardino). Which is it? Is this just my limited knowledge of California geography coming through or is there a current debate as to which was the earliest chapter, what year it was founded, and where? Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acquittals and convictions

While we certainly don't want this article to devolve into a list of all the court cases won and lost by the many lawyers who represent the HA members and their associates, it is important to include the most important ones. I would like to thank user Macutty for adding the most recent info and references from the BC case, much appreciated, however I have removed the last sentence he added because it struck me as being both inaccurate, and neither properly cited or NPOV. Law enforcement officials and the Canadian legal system have already established the Hells Angels in Canada to be a criminal organization. Yes, the decision in this case was a set back for law enforcement and the law abiding general public, but only from the perspective that the Crown did not produce enough evidence to convict the HA member of the primary crime he was charged with, so logically he could not be convicted on the secondary charge on its own. The purpose of the criminal organization label in both Canadian law (Bill C-95) and American law (RICO) is not to gain convictions in and of themselves for simply being a member or an associate, but to be able to give stiffer sentences when members of these organizations are convicted of crimes and have shown a pattern of being involved in organized criminal activity. A better route (IMHO) would be for us to simply do a better job of toughening up sentencing for the actual crimes committed, regardless of who commits them, whether you are talking about HA members or associates or just another generic pack of shiftless street punks, the sentences need to be reflective of the crimes, the circumstances, and take into consideration the criminal histories of each perp, not be overly concerned with what logo they happened to have on the backs of their jackets at the particular point in time when they are arrested. To do anything else is discriminatory - in my opinion a punk who is a member of a native gang and commits a violent murder or shoots a two-year old in a drive-by incident should certainly get at least as hefty of a sentence as a HA member who knowingly blows up an 11-year old with a car bomb. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Garth. I encourage you to read the citations provided as it was within the actual media report that the last statement was sourced (about the blow to law enforcement), not from my own research or opinion. I also think we need to revert the title back to its original as the main issue which made this case significant is not that of trying a particular member of the club, but rather the fact that the Crown had attempted to establish the Hells Angels as a criminal organization in BC and failed to do so. Additionally, I think you will find that the previous conviction (Lindsey/Bonner) does not in fact designate the Hells Angels as a criminal organization across Canada. There are even questions around whether it will hold in Ontario. Further, the justice since has declared that this classification does not remove the burden on the crown to prove this circumstance in each and every case with which the crown attempts to try an individual under this statute.Macutty (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Macutty. I've given this further thought and I believe a quote from another contributor is relevant here (you may recognize this): "Look. The material I removed was not referenced. Period." If it was included in the material you refer to as citations then add the reference, and add the content back. The sentence I removed was not referenced. And the heading you chose for this section was perhaps appropriate for selling (some shade of yellow) newspapers, but not for an encyclopedia. It was inaccurate, and untrue, and I stand by this position. Unless/until the anti-gang laws are struck from the books, and/or this specific organization is removed from the lists, the Hells Angels in Canada remain a criminal organization as per law and legal definition. What was in question in this case was, did the crown produce enough evidence to convict the member in question of the crime he was accused of committing - the legal answer was "no" so the secondary charge of possession for the benefit of a criminal organization also logically needed to be an acquittal. I do however also want to re-iterate that I did take your point that the talk pages are intended for discussions specific to improving the quality of the articles so in future I will do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion and stick to just discussing the proposed changes or additions to the article and what additional actions, if any, would best improve them, and which would not. Good day.Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I’m a little concerned with your position on this subject as from your statements (pretty much using the talk page as a soap box) it is clear that you are not NPOV on this subject and I worry this POV is leaking in to your edits if even subconsciously. This page has had serious issues with public opinion affecting the content rather than the subjective facts that are appropriate here on Wikipedia. We need to ensure personal views, thoughts, opinions are not having any impact on the content added or removed.Macutty (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular position on this subject; just a passing interest like many motorcycle enthusiasts; perhaps I should go as far as to say it was a path contemplated but not fully traveled. Currently, I'm neither a member of law enforcement nor of the outlaw biker subculture. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about my contributions, although I do understand your position, because I do tend to keep my opinions confined to the talk pages, with the intent of encouraging the kind of debate we see there, precisely for the reason of keeping personal opinions out of the articles and to debate proposed major changes prior to them being made. If you actually checked the history, you'd find I've made very few contributions to this particular article (it was in pretty good shape before I came on the scene) and the contributions I have made have tended to be pretty minor ones - correcting spelling, grammar and some of the word usage. I have removed the neutrality tag (believing it to be added by you or someone seeing our back and forth here) and have decided to keep this article on my watchlist but only for the primary purpose of vandalism patrol. If the tag was added by anyone else for another reason then please forgive me and add it back. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)