Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Militarized Police Storm Utah Rave, Beat Partygoers

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

  • Macavity
    replied
    Originally posted by Voltage Spike
    hehe, nice try, but I'm pretty sure you could reasonably convince any logical judge that your intent was merely to skirt the law and the event was still ongoing, even if people were off the property, because you were encouraging them to remain gathered in a single location during the entirety.
    Granted, a lawyer could probably twist such a legal (by the letter of the law) event into an illegal event, but what I was looking at was the letter of the law.

    I'm pretty sure that there are ways to get around such legal gymnastics, but I don't have the brainpower to sort through stacks of incredibly dense meat ge . . .

    Er, incredibly dense legalese to find what I'm looking for - at least, not without about ten or twelve years of law school and forty of practical experience.

    (Note to self: time to take a break from Kingdom of Loathing!)

    Originally posted by Voltage Spike
    Anything else is unreasonable. The difference between the organizer showing up to inspect the property the day before the event and a dozen guys showing up to assemble equipment in peace is minor compared with the arrival of hundreds of off-the-street bums.
    Well, I'd say that Sherriff Tracy was a pretty unreasonable man, myself - but then again, I guess he counts as "anything else".

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltage Spike
    replied
    Originally posted by Macavity
    so while the event may have run for, say, eighteen hours, as long as he broke it up into six-hour blocks with one- to-three hour "event closed for maintenance" breaks(meaning all the attendees have to leave, ostensibly to let portapotty maintenance and trash-collection crews clean the place up in preparation for the next six hours), he still wouldn't have needed a permit. (I could be wrong, though.)
    hehe, nice try, but I'm pretty sure you could reasonably convince any logical judge that your intent was merely to skirt the law and the event was still ongoing, even if people were off the property, because you were encouraging them to remain gathered in a single location during the entirety.

    Originally posted by Macavity
    Oh, one other thing about event length: if I remember correctly, setup and break-down are not considered part of the event.
    Anything else is unreasonable. The difference between the organizer showing up to inspect the property the day before the event and a dozen guys showing up to assemble equipment in peace is minor compared with the arrival of hundreds of off-the-street bums.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macavity
    replied
    Hate to sound like a broken record here, but:

    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, which is the Utah ordinance that relates to this event)


    For the record, the relevant section is this:

    . . . 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 . . .

    It clearly states "which continues/is reasonably expected to continue", not "or continues/is reasonably expected to continue".

    I believe that means that both 250+ people have to be at the event, AND the event has to run for twelve consecutive hours. Since the event was only scheduled to run for nine hours, they didn't need the Commissoner's License - no matter how many people came to the event.

    Also, if I read it correctly, I think there's another loophole - the promoter could easily have run it for twelve hours or more, as long as they weren't consecutive. He could have put in a one-hour break every six or so hours - so while the event may have run for, say, eighteen hours, as long as he broke it up into six-hour blocks with one- to-three hour "event closed for maintenance" breaks(meaning all the attendees have to leave, ostensibly to let portapotty maintenance and trash-collection crews clean the place up in preparation for the next six hours), he still wouldn't have needed a permit. (I could be wrong, though.)

    Oh, one other thing about event length: if I remember correctly, setup and break-down are not considered part of the event. Events are considered to start when their doors open to the public and end when everything's finished up and the event staff begin breaking down the equipment for storage/return to owners.

    (At least, that's how it is in NY, where I live.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Originally posted by jur1st
    For anyone interested in learning more, I highly recommend Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law in the Examples and Explanations series. These books are extremely helpful for those who want to know their Constitutional Rights.
    if anyone is interested, i have the audio book of professor Joshua Dressler's Criminal Procedure which makes for terrific long-ass road trip listening (for those of us political/legal geeky types) PM me if you'd like to check it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • jur1st
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam

    what evidence did the offiers have of illicit drug use at the rave, other than the general assumption that drugs will be present at such an event? if there was not enough evidence of that fact, i don't see how the state could feel it is constitutional for officers to set one foot upon someone's private property in order to break up a party where no one was being harmed. (come to think of it, was a warrant involved during this raid? what evidence was presented to have it issued?
    If this was like any other rave/jam band festival I've been to you don't have to walk far before some Wookie brushes against you saying, "Molly, good doses, sticky greens." Part of the reason that most of these things aren't broken up is that everyone is together, not driving, with access to some medics if you need them. That and the lack of law enforcement personnel required to do such a crackdown.

    And now for the legal part..

    It seems to me that going to the property would be a valid administrative search (where the privacy interest of the person is balanced against the government's regulatory interest) because of the close connection between the policy underlying the permit requirement of ensuring participant safety. There is no warrant requirement for an administrative search.

    Once on the scene, a police officer may detain a person if they have reason to believe that a crime is afoot without a warrant. The law also gives broad discretion to police officers to use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves.

    For anyone interested in learning more, I highly recommend Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law in the Examples and Explanations series. These books are extremely helpful for those who want to know their Constitutional Rights.

    <cue music>

    "The more you know!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Spanners
    replied
    Originally posted by Kibble
    This reminds me of a law that passed in the UK about 13 years ago to stop raves and other such things going on, http://tash.gn.apc.org/cjaview.htm there was a great deal about it at the time, and the protests that came against it were heard on CD's of the artists of the day.
    Very true, but the fear in the UK is simply of losing one's equipment. Prosecution is unlikely (even if caught), and organised gatherings and "pirate" radio stations are not uncommon. They are well organised though.

    Presence of Police In 'elicopter, armed police, and over-cautious crowd control techniques are rare in the UK for such events now-a-days.

    I don't think the UK party scene translates that well to the US scene. I have found very little resemblence between this thread/links/discussions and what goes on in the UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kibble
    replied
    This reminds me of a law that passed in the UK about 13 years ago to stop raves and other such things going on, http://tash.gn.apc.org/cjaview.htm there was a great deal about it at the time, and the protests that came against it were heard on CD's of the artists of the day.

    Leave a comment:


  • skroo
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
    what evidence did the offiers have of illicit drug use at the rave, other than the general assumption that drugs will be present at such an event?
    My understanding (from reading the articles) is that the police had managed to get plainclothes officers to buy drugs at the scene. Knowing that sale and supply was in full swing, they made arrests accordingly.

    Having said that, I really feel that I must reiterate: THIS IS NOT ABOUT DRUGS. The entire drug issue is incidental to the fact that the lack of one permit is what caused the police to move in in the first place.

    if there was not enough evidence of that fact, i don't see how the state could feel it is constitutional for officers to set one foot upon someone's private property in order to break up a party where no one was being harmed.
    At what point does a 'party' become an 'event'? My interpretation would be that parties are usually by invitation, whereas events are publicly-announced and open to anyone. Given that local record shops were selling tickets, it's an event. If it's an event, it has (according to the local laws in this case) to be properly licensed. Again, lack of permits.

    (come to think of it, was a warrant involved during this raid? what evidence was presented to have it issued? i assume these facts will come out soon enough.)
    It probably wasn't necessary.

    the short answer, however, to your question of "what do you expect is going to happen" is... "one could reasonably expect nothing to happen, inasmuch as the affair was taking place on private land and the state needs more than feelings of displeasure at the behavior involved to bust it up."
    Permits, or lack thereof. While I basically agree with what you're saying, this is a considerably different issue to some high school kids having a kegger out in the back 40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Originally posted by astcell
    When I first saw the video I thought it was shot by the police, they do that now to cover their tails.
    i first thought that as well, until i heard the shouts of "put the camera down!!!" and what sounded like "you turn the camera off right now or i'm taking your ass to jail"

    Leave a comment:


  • astcell
    replied
    Google "Photographer's Rights" for details. There are very few times when photographing a LEO is not allowed. Normally you get busted not for photographing them but for getting in their way. Getting in the way is what the trouble is, not the camera. Plus if you use a flash or otherwise distract them, that's a no-no too.

    Do not even think to photograph them in a training location like over the fence at the police academy. That may give away police tactics and defenses as well.

    As for a police officer on the beat, he may be paranoid if you photograph him. This is a normal human reaction but most of them understand they need to move beyond that. Photography happens. If I was at that rave with a video camera and an officer told me to turn it off I would have simply moved well out of his way, like 30 feet back. he has plenty to worry about already. If I was truly there to document I would not pull paparazzi tactics on a guy with a gun.

    When I first saw the video I thought it was shot by the police, they do that now to cover their tails.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Originally posted by Thorn
    In some places, it is illegal for anyone other than those carrying bonefide press ID to film LEOs (and other officials) performing official duties.
    not to sound overly cynical or simply instigational... but why in the name of sweet zombie jesus could such an ordinance be considered constitutional in the USA? more than that... how could such a law ever be thought of as good for the health of a free state?

    i worry that the following statement makes me come across as anti-law-enforcement, and i don't want it to... but i've always felt that not only should video recording of large police activities be legal (and encouraged) but also that the officer's uniforms/riot gear/etc should have their badge numbers or some kind of other identifying information stenciled across their back like a player's name on a sports jersey.

    i know that this is unlikely, given that i've seen maybe about a third or more of the officers at large events using gaffer tape to cover up their name plates and badge numbers. don't know if anyone noticed, but there were alexis park security guards doing this at DefCon this year, as well. i have huge problems with any authority figures who think it's appropriate to act with total anonymity during the execution of their duties.

    while steps should be taken to prevent any person on the street from learning an officer's full name at a glance (and potentially harassing them at a later date via phone, etc) there should always be clear markers which could be used to identify who was who and who did what during a crowded action. i can't count how many of my friends have been beaten, kicked, maced, etc at public events (and we're not just talking college-age kids and such... but rather middle-aged and even retired people, veterans, etc being savaged -- typically by the NYPD -- for failure to follow some impossible request*) where i have loads of photos but no way for them to do much good in court cases since no officers are identifiable.

    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.
    what evidence did the offiers have of illicit drug use at the rave, other than the general assumption that drugs will be present at such an event? if there was not enough evidence of that fact, i don't see how the state could feel it is constitutional for officers to set one foot upon someone's private property in order to break up a party where no one was being harmed. (come to think of it, was a warrant involved during this raid? what evidence was presented to have it issued? i assume these facts will come out soon enough.)

    the short answer, however, to your question of "what do you expect is going to happen" is... "one could reasonably expect nothing to happen, inasmuch as the affair was taking place on private land and the state needs more than feelings of displeasure at the behavior involved to bust it up."

    - -- ----- ----------

    * i'm not being arrogant when phrasing it like that... often we'd be penned in on all three sides and pressed against a row of buildings with horse-mounted officers in the street screaming at the crowd to "disperse" even as cordons of riot police pressed inward at either end of the block. whomever didn't get crushed by the mass of people falling all over themselves, blinded by pepper spray typically had a good chance of getting trod under the hooves of the horses as they were charged into the crowd.
    Last edited by Deviant Ollam; August 30, 2005, 14:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • ch0l0man
    replied
    Originally posted by jur1st
    Both time and attendance numbers are elements which must be present, otherwise any time that more than 3 people got together for a camping trip for a couple days they would need a permit.

    Funny I need a permit when I have gone camping to Chilao, CA.

    Leave a comment:


  • jur1st
    replied
    Originally posted by sys-error
    What I read from the law cited, was that it did not require both to be applicable. As in, it was either 12 hours OR 250(+) people.
    Both time and attendance numbers are elements which must be present, otherwise any time that more than 3 people got together for a camping trip for a couple days they would need a permit.

    This is a broad statute because it uses the term "reasonably anticipated" for both the time and attendance requirement. This means that a person could be subjected to some kind of penalty, even if they were only negligent in planning the party.

    I think in this case it is clear that if you have a rave in the desert a reasonable person could easily anticipate more than 250 people coming, and that the event from set up to clean up lasting more than 12 hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • sys-error
    replied
    Originally posted by pr0zac0x2a
    [chop]
    Also, I do not see how I misinterpreted the statute I posted. To me it reads (and feel free to correct me if I'm missing something) that any event greater than 12 hours with 250 or more people requires this specific permit. [chop]
    What I read from the law cited, was that it did not require both to be applicable. As in, it was either 12 hours OR 250(+) people.

    Scenerio 1 - The event lasting more than 12 hours but only has 100 people on the premises. Yes, the permit would be required.

    Scenerio 2 - The event lasting 9 hours but has more than 250 people on the premises. Yes the permit would be required.

    Scenerio 2 was similar to what had happened in this case, but there are other factors involved here which were already spoken about above (which all contributed to the decision to take action, I'm sure).
    [edit]mistpeled event too tymes[/edit]

    Leave a comment:


  • pr0zac0x2a
    replied
    Guess I set off more alarms than I meant to. At no point did I mean to be disrespectful, yes rereading what I wrote I do see why I could have come off that way. That was not my intention however.

    To the topic at hand.

    First off, I wasn't attempting the claim the rave had the correct licenses, I even mentioned my own doubts about that. I was just pointing out that the law is not black and white as far as the permits go. I also feel greatly the laws regarding the legality of the concert in that sense is much more relevant than whether or not there were drugs there, as drugs are a given as far as music goes. I'm sorry if I didn't make that more clear. Yes people were on drugs, and yes they deserved to be arrested, but no, I don't think its a reason to shut down the concert (IF it had legal rights to operate).

    Also, I do not see how I misinterpreted the statute I posted. To me it reads (and feel free to correct me if I'm missing something) that any event greater than 12 hours with 250 or more people requires this specific permit. Now yes, I understand setting up the event takes more than 12 hours. I do not think it requires more than 250 people. I also have my doubts whether the setup counts as the event itself. So sure the permit might have only cost $100, but if it wasn't applicable, why purchase it?

    I really haven't done much searching or reading as far as this thing goes, beyond reading the links others have posted, but would be interested in reading anything anyone else finds related to the legality of the issue. Once again, I apologize theprez98 if I offended you. Just playing devil's advocate more than anything really.

    -zac

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X