Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Militarized Police Storm Utah Rave, Beat Partygoers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    *hands you all the message board for the Utah Rave Group that were involved*

    Story from the horses mouth so to speak. . . .

    UTRave.org
    Go catch a falling star.

    Comment


    • #17
      Now theres a horse involved? What kind of party was this?!?

      Seriously though, something to take into consideration. 'straight from the horses mouth' and 'accurate' arent always the same thing. I'm sure whats going on over at the UTRaves site is a lot of 'we were doing nothing wrong and the cops showed up for no reason and beat us up', which while their side of the story, may not be the whole picture.

      I return whatever i wish . Its called FREEDOWM OF RANDOMNESS IN A HECK . CLUSTERED DEFEATED CORn FORUM . Welcome to me

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by klepto
        I have heard of cops giving tickets/arresting "protestors" though. But seriously, I heard noawadays you need a permit just to freakin protest something...Ridiculous..
        one of my favorite quotes is from the libertarian party... "If you ask the government for permission to protest it, you deserve to be told no"

        i have a huge problem with cities pretending that citizens do not have the right to gather together for any peaceful and lawful purpose. once again, the distinction was made concerning large, installed type events with stages or PA systems, etc. but when the edict comes down that "no more than ten people may march along a street or sidewalk or stand together in a public park" (a rule i've seen stated and enforced a LOT in places like new york, etc, during protests) i just want to laugh and/or cry.

        i have proudly defied such directives as often as possible and plan to continue to do so in the future.

        Originally posted by Thorn
        The problem is likely that they had no legal authority to confiscate and the drugs, even if they had the best of intentions.
        do persons have the right to inform security guards that they do not consent to a search? (i suppose the other side of this coin is that they can choose to be denied entry)

        then, if a person consents to a search as a condition of entry and has something illicit discovered on them (drugs, a weapon, etc) what is the legal ability of the security staff? they can turn them away but cannot confiscate the illicit materials? that would sound correct to me... just making sure.

        Originally posted by Thorn
        Most of the officers where in a ready state, but not doing more than observing the crowd actions.
        something about videos like this where i have a problem (and i appreciate your insight into law enforcement matters) is that in almost every single recording of a police raid / mass arrest i have seen, officers are clearly visible and audible shouting at the camera operators to "stop recording!!" and so forth. i cannot count the number of my friends who have had all their gear confiscated and smashed on the street right in front of them for recording officers at protests or other events. (sometimes, when the officers want to "punish" the documenters but don't want to blatantly destroy their gear, they'll tackle a person, dump all their press bags all over the ground, and then arrest them on a made-up charge, leaving the posessions laying all over the sidewalk to be stolen five minutes after they leave.)

        i am in full agreement with you over the fact that the officers (desipte being rather over-armed) were in ready-state and not pointing weapons at people. i further agree that no gas masks were deployed. but undeniable is my sheer disgust with the shouted commands of "get that camera off!" and so forth. most bulletin board threads on the net where people are talking about this specific raid have numerous accounts of people having cameras and/or camera phones taken, etc. that sets of tons of alarms in my mind. officers may instruct citizens to back up, disperse, etc... but they are never allowed (as far as i can see it) to demand that video recording equipment be turned off so long as a person has a legal right to be where they are.
        "I'll admit I had an OiNK account and frequented it quite often… What made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store… iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc... OiNK it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
        - Trent Reznor

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
          something about videos like this where i have a problem (and i appreciate your insight into law enforcement matters) is that in almost every single recording of a police raid / mass arrest i have seen, officers are clearly visible and audible shouting at the camera operators to "stop recording!!" and so forth. i cannot count the number of my friends who have had all their gear confiscated and smashed on the street right in front of them for recording officers at protests or other events. (sometimes, when the officers want to "punish" the documenters but don't want to blatantly destroy their gear, they'll tackle a person, dump all their press bags all over the ground, and then arrest them on a made-up charge, leaving the posessions laying all over the sidewalk to be stolen five minutes after they leave.)

          i am in full agreement with you over the fact that the officers (desipte being rather over-armed) were in ready-state and not pointing weapons at people. i further agree that no gas masks were deployed. but undeniable is my sheer disgust with the shouted commands of "get that camera off!" and so forth. most bulletin board threads on the net where people are talking about this specific raid have numerous accounts of people having cameras and/or camera phones taken, etc. that sets of tons of alarms in my mind. officers may instruct citizens to back up, disperse, etc... but they are never allowed (as far as i can see it) to demand that video recording equipment be turned off so long as a person has a legal right to be where they are.
          This is also my biggest concern in issues like this. I remember a trip to East Berlin when I was about 12 or so, not even a year before the fall of the wall. One of the kids in my class had his camera yanked from his hand and smashed into the sidewalk for taking photos of things you weren't supposed to. To see this happening in the US is very disturbing. In a place where we supposedly have freedom of press and where taking long-range shots of naked TV stars has been defended in court as being constitutional, it upsets me to see police becoming violent about people recording. If they're acting with appropriate force, what are they afraid of?
          the fresh princess of 1338

          What did I do to make you think I give a shit?

          Comment


          • #20
            http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/21.html#1

            If you desire some interesting reading on the history of the right to assemble and its interpretation in the courts.
            "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
              do persons have the right to inform security guards that they do not consent to a search? (i suppose the other side of this coin is that they can choose to be denied entry)

              then, if a person consents to a search as a condition of entry and has something illicit discovered on them (drugs, a weapon, etc) what is the legal ability of the security staff? they can turn them away but cannot confiscate the illicit materials? that would sound correct to me... just making sure.
              By entering such an area, most places have an implied consent to search. It's usually on the fine print of the tickets or perhaps on a small sign at the point of entry. Since the event security* staff probably do not have any power under the law to collect evidence, seize property, etc., the most that they can do would be to deny entry to the attendee.

              I would make an educated guess that you are correct. If the security staff has no power to seize contraband, they would only be able to turn the person away. It is not unknown for event promoters in many places to hire off-duty officers to circumvent exactly these kinds of liabilties.

              *Some state's extend limited powers to licensed/certified guards. Those powers vary greatly depending on a given state's laws and certification requirments.

              Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
              something about videos like this where i have a problem (and i appreciate your insight into law enforcement matters) is that in almost every single recording of a police raid / mass arrest i have seen, officers are clearly visible and audible shouting at the camera operators to "stop recording!!" and so forth. i cannot count the number of my friends who have had all their gear confiscated and smashed on the street right in front of them for recording officers at protests or other events. (sometimes, when the officers want to "punish" the documenters but don't want to blatantly destroy their gear, they'll tackle a person, dump all their press bags all over the ground, and then arrest them on a made-up charge, leaving the posessions laying all over the sidewalk to be stolen five minutes after they leave.)

              i am in full agreement with you over the fact that the officers (desipte being rather over-armed) were in ready-state and not pointing weapons at people. i further agree that no gas masks were deployed. but undeniable is my sheer disgust with the shouted commands of "get that camera off!" and so forth. most bulletin board threads on the net where people are talking about this specific raid have numerous accounts of people having cameras and/or camera phones taken, etc. that sets of tons of alarms in my mind. officers may instruct citizens to back up, disperse, etc... but they are never allowed (as far as i can see it) to demand that video recording equipment be turned off so long as a person has a legal right to be where they are.
              Again, laws vary on this from place to place, so it's hard to say exactly what can and can't happen in a given state. As previously stated, I have no knowledge of the laws in Utah, so I can only give some generalites. In someplaces, it is illegal for anyone other than those carrying bonefide press ID to film LEOs (and other officials) performing official duties. In other places, the photography isn't illegal per se, but there is an attempt of the officers to control all aspects of the situation: The reasoning is if you're not an member of the press and you're recording/photographing, then you're not complying with the order to disperse.

              By the way, an observation about the police being "over-armed": Yes, assuming the police had no prior information regarding armed people at the event, the police probably are over-armed for the raid, but there is a good reason. One of the best weapons an officer has is the psychological advantage in a show of force. The point is to just get people to follow the order to disperse without the attendees acting as a mob and doing something stupid.
              Last edited by Thorn; August 28, 2005, 17:31. Reason: Typos - sigh
              Thorn
              "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #22
                Next time hire off duty police for security. Ought to help in many ways.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by astcell
                  Next time hire off duty police for security. Ought to help in many ways.
                  Maybe the police did this because they were not hired! A sort of anti-union-busting thing where they go after scabs.

                  Conspiracy! ]:>

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    More fuel for the fire:

                    (http://www.utahcountyonline.com/app...ATTY/Chap13.pdf)

                    in Section 13-4-2-1:

                    No person shall permit, maintain, promote, conduct,
                    advertise, act as entrepreneur, undertake, organize,
                    manage, or sell or give tickets to an actual or
                    reasonably anticipated assembly of two hundred fifty
                    (250) or more people which continues or can
                    reasonably be expected to continue for twelve (12) or
                    more consecutive hours, whether on public or private
                    property unless a license to hold the assembly has
                    first been issued by the County Commissioners. (Ord.
                    No. 1971-4, Section 2, 7-7-71) (emphasis added)

                    Unless the rave was over 12 hours long they didn't even require a permit.

                    I found this in this thread through the link Import posted btw:
                    http://www.utrave.org/showthread.php?t=20630
                    Lest I be accused of searching too much on this.

                    -zac
                    %54%68%69%73%20%69%73%20%6E%6F%74%20%68%65%78

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      This was not a political demonstration of peaceful demonstrators who were beat down by "the man", this was a rave where drugs and other illegal activity was going on and people failed to disperse. What do you expect is going to happen.
                      "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by theprez98
                        This was not a political demonstration of peaceful demonstrators who were beat down by "the man", this was a rave where drugs and other illegal activity was going on and people failed to disperse. What do you expect is going to happen.

                        I expect the police to NOT break up a legal concert in the first place. You act like pretty much every concert on earth doesn't involve drug use. No offense but saying "there were drugs there, it should have been broken up" is pretty ignorant. Feel free to argue whether or not the concert had the correct permits in the first place, as I still have my doubts if it did, but please don't bring morals into something where they have no place.

                        -zac
                        %54%68%69%73%20%69%73%20%6E%6F%74%20%68%65%78

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pr0zac0x2a
                          I expect the police to NOT break up a legal concert in the first place. You act like pretty much every concert on earth doesn't involve drug use. No offense but saying "there were drugs there, it should have been broken up" is pretty ignorant. Feel free to argue whether or not the concert had the correct permits in the first place, as I still have my doubts if it did, but please don't bring morals into something where they have no place.

                          -zac
                          You are assuming that the concert was legal with respects to mass gathering licensing. Your assumption is false. While you did find the right statute, you have failed to interpret it as a reasonable person.

                          The key phrase in the statute is the following

                          "which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for twelve (12) or
                          more consecutive hours"

                          I don't know how many raves you have been to, but here in Southern California, I've seen raves go to 6 in the morning (and beyond). Now I know what you are thinking, "Ha, I got him, because the newspapers say the rave started at 9PM. So that's only 9 hours."

                          If you watch the video, you will see sound equipment, lots of it, how long does it take to set up? Not only set up, but to tear down? XLR Cables, speakers, gaffers tape galore, mixers, etc etc. I bet it took more than 3 hours.. not only that, but how long do you think people have been lining up?

                          As the organizers of Defcon, Black Hat, and countless other conventions can attest to, you don't just snap your fingers and magically have portapotties, crowd control officers and parking structures appear. The assembly permit only costs $100 and it ensures that the organizer has set up the appropriate bond, parking, and bathroom facilities. Is the permit process additional beauracracy? Sure, but a worthwhile one, that ensures the organizer has their shit together. (You can continue reading the very statute that you cited to see other facilities that the organizer must set up).

                          theprez98 has been more than respectful in this thread. I suggest you do the same.
                          Last edited by not5150; August 29, 2005, 13:24.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by not5150
                            theprez98 has been more than respectful in this thread. I suggest you do the same.

                            Where is the lack of respect?

                            I speak out with a passion regarding police abuse, but from the video I did not really see any or maybe I missed it. Sometimes force is need because some people just don't want to listen.

                            The only thing I can see that is distrubing is what Deviant Ollam and octalpus have pointed out.
                            "so many books, so little time"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              No one who adamantly breaks the law (drugs) can really cry that the police (or anyone for that matter) are not following the letter of the law. The term is "hypocrite."

                              Reminds me of my brother who kept getting out of trouble on legal technicalities. Never went to jail but should have. Then one day he finds himself the victim of a crime. He calls the police, and the person who assaulted my brother got off on a technicality. Now my brother is livid. Funny how it's okay when he beats the rap but when he is the victim he expects the guilty to pay.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pr0zac0x2a
                                I expect the police to NOT break up a legal concert in the first place. You act like pretty much every concert on earth doesn't involve drug use. No offense but saying "there were drugs there, it should have been broken up" is pretty ignorant.
                                I don't believe that he was saying either of those things, at least not from my reading of his post. Cops know that drug use is fairly common at concerts and what to expect from the crowds:

                                - Heavy Metal: weed, speed, acid, beer
                                - Country: Budweiser, veterinary medications
                                - Boy Bands: peach schnapps, roofies

                                Let's be honest here: this isn't about drugs, or being busted for them. Cops overlook a *serious* amount of drug stuff when it comes to events like this unless it's so completely blatant that it'd be dangerous or stupid to ignore it. The promoter fucked up in not getting the permits, people refused to comply with the order to disperse when it was shut down, cops responded in kind.

                                Feel free to argue whether or not the concert had the correct permits in the first place, as I still have my doubts if it did, but please don't bring morals into something where they have no place.
                                It didn't look as though anyone was bringing morals into it, but rather the legality of being in posession of controlled substances. If people were dumb enough to be caught by the cops with drugs on them, then they were breaking the law plain and simple. Nothing to do with morals, everything to do with the law.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X