Homer_Rice Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 [url="http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/utah.cfm"]Link[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 [u][quote]Community Rallies After Outrageous Rave Raid Thursday, September 1, 2005[/u] After an egregious assault on the rights of dance music lovers, the community is fighting back. The promoters of a Utah rave that was raided by SWAT teams in August have responded by hiring a lawyer, establishing a website to organize information about the rave, and encouraging people who were there to report abuses. The Alliance is also fighting back with an action alert to put pressure on state politicians to look into what happened. At 11:30 PM on August 20, police officers and SWAT team members stormed Versus II, a legal party being held on private land in Utah County. The county sheriff's office made clear that it was targeting this event because it was a rave. In a statement after the raid, Sheriff James Tracy, Jr. said, "From several previous experiences with Rave parties of this size, a large amount of drug use and underage consumption of alcohol occur. In addition [there are] reports of sexual assaults, overdoses, firearm violations, vehicle burglaries, and numerous individuals drive from the party under the influence of alcohol and or drugs." In order to protect citizens from these alleged grave dangers, the county sent in 90 officers from local and state SWAT teams, along with dogs and at least one helicopter. Attendees were intimidated by heavily armed officers in fatigues, and several eyewitness reports describe people being tackled and kicked, though they did not resist arrest. To add to its justification for the raid, the sheriff's office said that the event was illegal because not all the correct permits had been obtained - a claim which has been called into doubt. The promoters explain on their website, "[The law] states that if the party was to exceed 250 people and go over 12 consecutive hours we would have needed to clear it with the county commissioner. The fact is, that although the party was to exceed 250 people, it was NOT to go over 12 hours." The event started at 9 PM, and contracts with the audio crew and security indicated that it was to end at 6:30 AM. The sheriff said that police raided the party when they did because they anticipated high attendance - 700 tickets were sold in advance - and were afraid it would get out of hand. Undercover officers at the party allegedly observed "illegal use of drugs, distribution of drugs, and underage consumption of alcohol," but any concerns about illegal activity could have been handled on a case-by-case basis rather than with a gross display of force. You can speak out against what happened, even if you are not from Utah. Because a tarnished image hurts tourism revenue, the state Office of Tourism and the Governor will be very interested to hear that this display of brutality is making you think twice about Utah as a vacation destination. Put pressure on politicians by hitting their wallets![/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 As someone who has been to a rave or two in my time Raves are usually a big spot for Extacy (MDMA) so I can see the use of cops, but this is a bit excessive. Also in all my time (and Ive been to alot of them, granted all at the same club) Ive never seen anything like this, so I think saying that it's the future is a bit out of hand. Here is another link [url="http://media.putfile.com/utah-spanish-fork-canyon-rave-bust"]http://media.putfile.com/utah-spanish-fork-canyon-rave-bust[/url] Edit: Ravers are usually a pretty peacefull bunch as the efects of MDMA dont make you viloent, so Im supprised as to the response of the cops here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 Juxtapose with this [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09132005.html"]commentary.[/url] And also consider how troops are acting up down in NOLA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:39 PM']Juxtapose with this [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09132005.html"]commentary.[/url] And also consider how troops are acting up down in NOLA. [right][post="148943"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Finally read this as yesterday was pretty busy, Homer really? The Stalingrad Effect?? While Im a bit uncomfortable at the reaction of the Swat team here, I think your reaching. This seems to be in isolated incadent by the Utah police. The troops in NOLA were put into a situation where [b]some[/b] have been shooting at people, a bit of security has to be establised so help can be given, if the situation was one where they just went down there to play GI JOE Id agree with you, but thats not what we have. ( [url="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php"]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php[/url] ) And also connecting the two is a reach in tearms of the idea that one states police swat team and one states national guard troops are given the same marching orders by the same people, we both know thats not the case, and untill I see otherwise I dont think Ill make the jump you are. Now as far as the rave, Im going to hold my judgment on it untill more details come out, other than what Ive said about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted September 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 While it's nothing new in our history to see troops (or specialized law enforcement agencies) deployed in heavy-handed ways, there are some disturbing aspects to recent trends. That, combined with with central thesis of the commentary I linked to, represents, imho, some potentially unhealthy trends for the future, unless we as citizens take steps to meliorate these developments. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act are two of the main bulwarks which limit the powers of the federal government to employ military force against its citizens. Some folks would like to see them watered down. That's why some folks worry about the Patriot Act, btw. The thesis of the article strikes me as being relatively accurate, especially with respect to the passivity of our younger population (proportionally speaking) and the trend towards unreason among the "true believers." I'm not sure how old you are, but I suspect that those among us who remember the Civil Rights/Vietnam period puzzle about the differences in the level of "engagement" that youngsters have now in comparison with that time. Also, it's worth noting that when federal troops were deployed regarding Civil Rights events, it was generally to protect citizens from attack and not to attack them. On the other hand, when National Guard troops were called out around Vietnam events, is was generally to contain or suppress the activists of the period. It's the shift that gives me pause. If unreasonable folks who do not have a well-defined understanding of truthfulness are creating and supporting policy and if our youth, which ought to compose our most naturally activist demographic, are "unnaturally" passive, then the door opens for potential abuse, the likes of which may not be very pleasant if events turn sour. A disclaimer: I'm not advocating any particular policy orientation in my observations here, though I will say that I'm not a fan of drug decriminalization organizations, which is where the original video came from. On a side note, with respect to "the Stalingrad Effect" as the author describes it: I think it is true that it was the Soviet Army that broke the back of the German Army during WWII. This is not to demean the efforts of the US, but simply to place them in proper context. Even though the father of one of my best friends was among those who climbed Point du Hac (sp?) in Normandy, an act of bravery that simply astounds me whenever I think of it, I tend to think that we have overglamorized D-Day to the detriment of other campaigns in that war. A friend and mentor of mine when I was in my early 20s was a junior officer in Darby's Rangers. Knowing him, rest his soul, offered me insights into the Italian campaign of Gen. Clark. I have always thought those troops got less than their due when disussing WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mongoloido Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 ...Amazing what effect a shaky camera, ambient noise, ominous music, and shock captioning can create. Turn off your speakers, cover the captioning and you see drug dealers getting busted just like on COPS, only with crappier camera work. The night vision pan of the rave was funny. Some rave promoter has thrown together a video because he's pissed his party got broken. The "legal" status of the party is restricted to permits, not the activities being carried out. As someone who forgot most weekends of his twenties going to raves, I think this video is crap. Cops checked out the party and busted some dealers. The rave probably got shut down. The promoter is pissed and taking cheapshots over the internet. As for the captioning: "They've got guns" -Yes. They are the police, after all. "Is this a raid on Al Qaeda?" -No, it's a drug bust. "A hostage rescue?" -No, it's still a drug bust "Are they beating a terrorist?" -No, they're busting a drug dealer or ten. "A rapist? A murderer?" -Hard to say. The drug dealers I knew back in the day were shady motherfuckers who usually did too much of their own shit. And you sure as hell didn't want to see a chick you knew with them, cuz the chick was gonna get rufie-fucked if she didn't watch her drink. Tweaked out dealers throwing punches at cops were never uncommon. "Are these people rioting? Looting" -Nope. Most of them didn't know anything was going on til the music stopped either. "Fighting?" -Nope, that's why they weren't all arrested. "Is this raid in Iraq?" -I'm still gonna have to say no. There'd be gunfire if it was. "Afghanistan?" -Still on the wrong hemisphere, but thanks for the melodrama. "On Saturday, August 20, 2005, police and a SWAT team, with assault rifles and paramilitary gear raided a peaceful dance party near Salt Lake City, Utah." -If I were going to bust dealers at a rave, I'd bring as many cops as I could too. That's a lot of people at that party. -SWAT carry assault rifles and paramilitary gear. It's kind of their job. -Peaceful dance parties also don't imply that felonies are being commited all over the place, and people can get real unpeaceful when faced with getting arrested or deciding they don't want to get arrested. "The event was legal." -That means the event had the proper city permits to exist. It doesn't mean the conduct of the people inside the rave was legal. "Dozens of people were threatened, injuried, and arrested." -That's pleasantly vague. What constituted a threat and who was threatened? Who was injured and what were the circumstances? Were they injured by police, people fleeing the police, or just injured and tossed into the video for emphasis? And of course people were arrested. It was a drug raid. "What were these people doing?" -My guess is what most people do at a rave. Buying, selling, or ingesting as many toxins as possible in as loud, vibrant, and body writhing (that was my favorite ) an environment as possible. "DANCING" -Holy crap, I was right!!!!! "What do you think?" -I think if you play the game long enough, you get burned. Accept responsibility for your actions and move on. You partied, you sold drugs, you got busted. It was a fun ride. You took the big risks, got some big rewards, and got caught. "Should a SWAT team in paramilitary gear be used to raid a peaceful dance party?" -Again with the paramilitary gear. It sounds menacing, but it's a SWAT team. They have a uniform just like anybody else. With that many people, I'd send in SWAT too. Besides, look at the video. They busted some dealers. They did not teargas a couple thousand kids, hose the crowd, and wade in with billy clubs swinging. -peaceful dance party... Don't pretend it's something it isn't. Raves were a ton of fun, but they weren't church dances. Acid, XTC, meth, coke, ruffies, heroin, K, and everything else under the sun makes for an interesting environment. I beat the piss out of a couple people trying to daterape chicks at raves, so leave off the peaceful dance party stuff. "Or is it never EVER okay for police to trample on the rights and bodies of innocent Americans who are doing no harm to others?" -I saw a shaky camera view of policing arresting some people. I saw no tramplings. -Doing no harm to others in this situation makes for a great libertarian debate, but has little to do with the current laws. Jeez. You threw a rave that got busted. Maybe you're in some hot water yourself. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted September 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Coupla quick points: It's not a rave promoter, it's worse public relations-wise--it's an organization that wants to decriminalize drugs, and if I am not mistaken, this particular one is heavily funded by George Soros. I agree with you re: drugs and getting busted. Shit happens. But, in the context I described, there's reason to be concerned. The tendency towards the use of excessive force isn't a local, specific affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mongoloido Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 15 2005, 12:54 PM']Coupla quick points: It's not a rave promoter, it's worse public relations-wise--it's an organization that wants to decriminalize drugs, and if I am not mistaken, this particular one is heavily funded by George Soros. I agree with you re: drugs and getting busted. Shit happens. But, in the context I described, there's reason to be concerned. The tendency towards the use of excessive force isn't a local, specific affair. [right][post="149344"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] What tendency towards excessive force are you talking about? The kids getting arrested? The pressence of SWAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Homer I appreate the concern and share the concern about excessive force if and when it does happen, but this video is a bit hard to make out exactly what did happen, watch the one I posted, its very choppy, you see them attempting to shut down the DJ, and then two kids are on the ground surrrounded by SWAT, but it doesnt appear they are getting beaten (at least from what I can tell). My gut tells me this is probablly some kids with a video camera trying to make it out to be more that it was. This was a drug bust in an outdoor setting, had it been at a club I doubt very much that you would have seen SWAT. At the same time being a casual raver myself, not all the people there use E, Im quite sure there were alot there just to dance, but the video doesnt really tell a whole story, so Im trying to withhold judgement untill I know more. So far as NOLA (and again I think these are seperate incadents), I believe you to be a good man of moral charcter, so I dont think that Id be jumping to conclusions to say your probablly a bit concern at the actions of those doing the shootings at the people that are supposed to be there to help them. You served and have some knowledge of the subject, in that situtation what is the alternative course? Although Im saying this stuff about raving and well probably find out this was one of those Rave for Jesus thing and Ill be taking the egg off my face then. [url="http://www.christianraves.com/"]http://www.christianraves.com/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted September 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Jamie, I was a squid. In the Navy, so long as you could hit the ocean when you fired your weapon, you were qualified! (Not counting the Seals, Seabees or navy spooks.) If this were an isolated incident, then I would be less concerned. But I perceive this as part of a trend to resort to the use of excessive force where such force may not be needed. I don't have any objections to cops piling up on someone if they perceive an immediate threat, in fact, I hope they do so long as they don't go Rodney King. What I am concerned about is the convergence of three trends: the passivity of the population, in general, and of our youth in particular; the "true believer" syndrome, i.e. the lowering of standards for developing and communicating well-thought out policy (on both sides of the aisle); and the increasing use of violence/force to remedy perceived problems. I'm not a libertarian nor am I an ACLU'er, but I am concerned about how these vectors could potentially create a climate in which your phone could be tapped, your door kicked in, your lawful assembly being disrupted, etc... not on the basis of the rule of law, but at the whim of whomever happens to hold power at any given moment. I do not exempt either "party" from being capable of this kind of activity. This particular incident is probably as Mongo described it, except there are anecdotal reports of tear gas being used and excessive force being used, as well as anecdotal reports of how this were not necessary. In itself, perhaps just another clusterfuck of a bust with all its attendant confuszion. As an incident in a trend, as described, something to be watched for in an environment where some individual protections under the law are being eroded. Review some of the anecdotal evidence coming out of NOLA (keeping in mind that it is anecdotal), consider that citizens can now be detained without being charged, consider that private security groups are acting more and more like paramilitaries--even in CONUS. What I am saying is that if young folks want to have a future that is based on the rule of law, they had better wake up or they might find it to be too late. Not now, maybe not five years from now, but almost certainly within your lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted September 16, 2005 Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 14 2005, 04:06 PM']This is the Future..., ...if you aren't diligent [right][post="148920"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Isn't it the fact that it happened mean it's in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted September 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 Sometimes the past is the past, sometimes it's foreshadowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted September 16, 2005 Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 OooOooOoOOooo... freaky, man. I grok what you're saying. Yes, drugs are illegal. But was the excessive force used necessary? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.