Militarized Police Storm Utah Rave, Beat Partygoers

[[Syntax]]

The following article complete with video shows a rave in Utah where police in SWAT gear raid the rave, and proceed to tackle down people. Witnesses claim
they beat some of the people.

The security guards which were privately hired to search ravers for drugs before entry were arrested for possessing the drugs they had confiscated.

The video shows one person being tackled down, and the SWAT going on stage to stop the music.

Was wondering if anyone here from Utah was there, or had heard another side to this story.. as I realize the site where this article is located is not the most reliable source for unbiased material. Someone else pointed it out to me.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...05utahrave.htm

UPDATE: I located the county/states side of the story.
http://www.co.utah.ut.us/News/NewsDetails.asp?ID=17759

[Macavity]

I've got some more data!

Eyewitness report from the 404 Audio Forums:

http://www.404audio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14814

Sean Kennedy reports on the incident in episode #167 of NewsReal:

http://newsreal.rantmedia.ca/downloa...167&bitrate=24 (24k version, about 9.97 megabytes)
http://newsreal.rantmedia.ca/downloa...167&bitrate=64 (64k version, about 25 megabytes)

A video from the event that Sean linked to in his LiveJournal:

http://www.vidking.com/viewvideo.php?id=615

And a couple of "photoshop the Sherriff who ordered the raids" threads:

http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread...21495&cache=30 (Dogs on Acid Forums - NSFW)
http://www.404audio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14933 (404 Audio - nothing much there yet except discussion of the Dogs on Acid thread)

That's all I've got for now, so until next time, that's what Server said!

End of line.

[skroo]

Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight:

- County requires permits and approval for gatherings of more than 250 people. Rave promoters fail to get said permit.

- Cops verify rave is over the 250 limit, show up and expect trouble based on similar run-ins in the past. SWAT and K-9 go in.

- Public drug use and sale is evident, including from two of the event security staff.

- People refuse to disperse when ordered, cops break party up.

Now, as much as I'm not a fan of heavy-handed police action, I can see where they're coming from on this: the same promoter at whose events they've had problems in the past was probably responsible for this one. This means much of the same crowd will likely be turning up, including the same troublemakers. The cops are tired of this shit, and don't even need an excuse to shut it down because the guy fucked up by not getting the proper permits beforehand.

I went to a fair few raves in the early- mid-'90s. Most were around 200-500 people, and in the beginning were held illegally. After a while, the cops started raiding them and shutting them down because the promoters had decided to stick it to the man by not getting permits for them. What this really boiled down to was greed on the promoters' behalf: by not wanting to spend the money on the permit, they fucked us over by ensuring that the party was stopped by midnight. Being able to do drug busts as the event was shut down was just a bonus.

Then the local promoter moved away after a couple of years and a smarter guy took over. He got permits, made sure that there were the required EMS and toilet facilities, and billed the events as 'DJ Concerts'. Guess what - the cops never raided them again, and attendance actually *grew* because people knew that the party would run until dawn.

So yeah, my guess is that the promoter was a tool and pretty much spawned the whole situation by not doing what he should've in the first place. Beating the crap out of some kid with enough bagginess in his pants to hide a boatload of Cambodian refugees because he's getting lippy isn't cool, but I suspect the cops were relatively justified in their actions. These people forget that no matter how fucked-up they may think the law is, it's still the law and you'll never change it by giving it the finger. But, hey, it's not the promoter's fault - The Man was keeping him down by wanting him to file a permit before holding the event.

[pr0zac0x2a]

Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight:

[snip]

But, hey, it's not the promoter's fault - The Man was keeping him down by wanting him to file a permit before holding the event.

I agreed with you after reading the first link, however reading what the DJ who spun wrote, it seems like the promoter had the correct permits and the police still raided the party. As I doubt any of us were involved in anyway, I guess we'll never know. Its always best to assume the police are wrong in situations like this though. At least until shown differently. Otherwise this kind of stuff will never get looked into, and if the police are wrong, it will only open the door for more problems in the future.


Edit: quoted WAAAAAAAAY too much there

[Thorn]

I agreed with you after reading the first link, however reading what the DJ who spun wrote, it seems like the promoter had the correct permits and the police still raided the party. As I doubt any of us were involved in anyway, I guess we'll never know. Its always best to assume the police are wrong in situations like this though. At least until shown differently. Otherwise this kind of stuff will never get looked into, and if the police are wrong, it will only open the door for more problems in the future.


Edit: quoted WAAAAAAAAY too much there

You might want to read through all the stories again. The promoter had apparently obtained some health permit(s) for EMS, toilet facilities, etc., but failed to obtain the gathering/crowd/event permit(s). A lack of all the correct permits means an unlawful assembly. Since there is an unlawful assembly, it is a repeat offense, and prior events had caused multiple problems, the police actions are lawful and justified.

Believe it or not, police do not just decide to take these kinds of actions in a vacuum. Prior bad incidents and a lack of co-operation on the part of promoters usually are the root cause. If a city/town/county has to deal with the problems of unlawful events in the past, the officals and the taxpayers get sick of it quick. The next time such a event occurs they nip the problem in the bud.

[klepto]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wouldn't this fall under that category? 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..

[d3ad1ysp0rk]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wouldn't this fall under that category? 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..

No ones taking the right away, they're just asking them to get a permit first. If towns started denying people permits for no reason, then it'd be time to look into it.

[klepto]

Then whats the point of a permit if they have to issue it according to the amendment? If they deny it? That shouldn't be even considered in the first place. Furthermore, permits cost money.

[TheCotMan]

New topics good. Politics bad.

Frankenstein from SNL: "Hrmmmmm! Fire bad! Hrmmmmmm!"

Some people offer suggestion for exception to "no politics" like the EFF, issues with FCC/Broadcast Flag, and laws restricting ability to cope with security issues, or disclose findings to help peers protect themselves-- things hacker-related, but what about this direction for this thread?

[Thorn]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wouldn't this fall under that category? 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..

No, the First Amendment doesn't apply. The right to assemble isn't the issue.

Laws involving this type of thing are constitutional because they cover planned, staged events (whether raves or marches.) Since any resulting mess usually ends up costing the city/town/county/state to pick up the pieces, and they are usually the focus of any resulting lawsuits if thing go awry, the political entity has a direct interest and is justified under the law in having a permit process. The criteria for the permits are usually to make sure that the promoters/event hosts can adaquetly handle the health and public safety needs of the event goers.

[astcell]

Then whats the point of a permit if they have to issue it according to the amendment? If they deny it? That shouldn't be even considered in the first place. Furthermore, permits cost money.

The permit $ goes to inspectors who make sure you have everything nice and in order so A) you do not get sued and B) the city does not get sued. Well you still may be sued, and with all the drugs there I am sure this promoter will be sued by parents of the kids there.

Permits cost money. EVERYTHING csts money. Welcome to earth. The only thing free is SPAM.

[[Syntax]]

Theres 2 sides to this story and the two sides are like black and white. One side said they had permits, the other said they didnt, one said security had drugs they confiscated, the other said security was selling drugs.

I didnt originally post the story to debate who was right or wrong, I just thought that was some interesting video to watch. You dont see SWAT raid a rave everyday and proceed to kick a guy in the guts on camera. At least I dont.

[klepto]

\ Since any resulting mess usually ends up costing the city/town/county/state to pick up the pieces, and they are usually the focus of any resulting lawsuits if thing go awry, the political entity has a direct interest and is justified under the law in having a permit process.

Well, this is not a personal attack on you but basically the city is shit out of luck, I thought the Amendment came first, not the city.

The permit $ goes to inspectors who make sure you have everything nice and in order so A) you do not get sued and B) the city does not get sued. Well you still may be sued, and with all the drugs there I am sure this promoter will be sued by parents of the kids there.

Heh, when was the last time the government cares about the individual getting sued for anything? But honestly I don't see how the city can get sued? Im truly trying to see your side of things so can you think of such a scenario where the city would get sued?

[skroo]

I thought the Amendment came first, not the city.

Yes and no. Remember that the Constitution is a framework for defining the laws that we're governed by - it's not a legal document unto itself per se. The thing is that when you get into definition and enforcement of the law, it becomes highly interpretative. If it weren't, we'd basically be living by the Code of Hammurabi. As always, there are pros and cons to this. However, this thread probably isn't the place to get into them.

Heh, when was the last time the government cares about the individual getting sued for anything?

Hopefully never. Government's job should not be to care about people, but rather to live in fear of and serve them - and in this context, 'serve' does not mean 'wait hand and foot upon'. It should do the things that we as individuals cannot accomplish - build the roads, establish and maintain a treasury and reserves, secure the borders, print the money, and so forth.

I forget the origin of the quote, but it goes something like this: 'I don't want my government to care about me - if it's spending time caring about me, it's not spending time running the country.'

But honestly I don't see how the city can get sued? Im truly trying to see your side of things so can you think of such a scenario where the city would get sued?

Simple. Someone will bring a lawsuit (frivolous or otherwise) on the basis of <insert reason here>. You can sue for any reason you may like, but that doesn't mean the court will permit the case to be heard.

[Thorn]

Theres 2 sides to this story and the two sides are like black and white. One side said they had permits, the other said they didnt, one said security had drugs they confiscated, the other said security was selling drugs.

Agreed, there are two sides, although it is easy to check the facts as to whether all the required permits were or were not obtained. Permits are public records.

As to the drug issue, I suspect it will be a bit gray. What I read indicated event security staff has charged with possession, after they had taken the drugs from attendees. The problem is likely that they had no legal authority to confiscate and (and therefore possess) the drugs, even if they had the best of intentions. I don't know what the laws are in Utah regarding this, but I suspect that only LEOs are allowed to function in such a manner.

I didnt originally post the story to debate who was right or wrong, I just thought that was some interesting video to watch.

Understood.

You dont see SWAT raid a rave everyday and proceed to kick a guy in the guts on camera. At least I dont.

A couple of observations about the video I saw, which may or may not have been the same one you watched:
A) Most of the officers where in a ready state, but not doing more than observing the crowd actions.
B) The majority if the crowd seemed to be following the police orders to disperse without any problem. Two subjects were apparently resisting arrest.
C) I didn't see anyone getting "kicked" in the "guts". What I did see was that the officers involved in subduing the subjects were using reasonable force, according to standard police training. (eg. Pain compliance techniques such as a knee in the back while handcuffing.)
D) Despite some reports of use of tear gas, the officers were not wearing gas masks. Most seemed to have their goggles up on their helmets, which would indicate that not even capsium spray was being used.