If you're not outraged...

[juldea]

I have spent the last hour or so reading all of the associated links from this in horror.

The sum up: a rave in Utah, (allegedly, but I really do tend to believe the individuals more than the government on this kind of thing) on private property, was broken up by SWAT police with rifles, who (allegedly) used excessive force to beat, arrest, and otherwise be completely unreasonable in shutting this party down. I'm talking people being mauled by police dogs, false arrests, all the fun stuff.

Please check out the linked amateur video... and the collection of eyewitness accounts.

I wish I could do something to help this. Anything. It makes me sick to my stomach.

gaffman, zenandtheart, please let me know if you know of any ways I can help. I know you're international, but you might know how to get ahold of the right people, or just what I can do from the outside. I guess mr_teem might know some things, too...

Comments

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

You rang?

I read about this first in an account on a Kos diary last night. That diary linked to the Utah County Sherrif's statement about why they took action. According to the statement, "Utah County mass gathering ordinance prohibits the gathering of two hundred and fifty or more persons without a permit, bond, and Utah County Commission approval. Research was conducted and no mass gathering permit had been obtained for this incident. However, a health department permit had been obtained and EMS personnel were contracted to be on scene for first aide."

How thorough the "research" was remains to be seen. The Salt Lake Tribune has their story up.

What pisses me off the most is the thugs police who allegedly attacked attendees trying to film the incident. Claims of excessive force are "disputed," of course.

Sounds like they have a "zero tolerance" thing going on there.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

The first-hand reports (which yes, may be inaccurate) claim that the permit was shown to the police, seized, and ripped up.

And yes... attacking people attempting to film/photo the events... Revolting.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Yeah...the permit allegation bugged me a lot, too. A different story in the Salt Lake Tribune says, "Party promotor Brandon Fullmer said he purchased a mass gathering permit through the Utah County Health Department about three weeks ago. The purchase of that permit, which ensures water, sanitation and medical services, was confirmed by County Health employee Jay Stone. Fullmer did not know that a similar permit, which requires a security plan and event details, needed to be acquired." (emphasis mine)

Yeah, that calls for the black helicopters and a SWAT team. Not.

Unfortunately, there were an awful lot of illegal drugs reportedly seized so, no matter what, the hoipolloi are going to view the operation as a success and the civil proceedings are going to take months, if not years.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Who cares how many teenagers get kicked in stomach, as long as some drugs get seized...

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

<sarcasm>
*ding*
Excellent answer. Now, for $200, what Book should the teenagers have been reading from instead?
</sarcasm>

[juldea.livejournal.com]

It was Utah. SET of books. Well, one book and its sequel.

[sjo.livejournal.com]

I read about that earlier and I am still too stunned even to begin to know what to do about it. Um, hello, right to assemble peaceably? Where are you?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Got arrested and thrown in jail, I guess... :P

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Not that it justifies excessive use of force, but the police claim that informants of theirs had already observed drug activity at the party. So they weren't just breaking down the doors because it was a big party. I don't support the arrest of everyone at the party, but shutting it down in order to arrest individuals with illegal drugs is certainly a necessary step. A lot of these things look worse when you don't consider the mess that you get trying to get 1500 people under control. If there wasn't the drug issue, sure, this would be outrageous. As it is this is a pretty normal consequence of recreational drug use being illegal, about which I have trouble summoning fresh outrage.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I don't mind the shut down of the party.

I mind the MEANS of shutting down the party.

Getting 1500 people to leave doesn't require a SWAT team. Even IF some of them are high.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Apparently it does. Note that they tried to shut down a similar party a couple of months ago and failed due to insufficient manpower. It sounds like they did a poor job of cleanly taking control of the situation, but the reactions to this are massively overblown.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

People gotta draw the line somewhere. Generally, when they do, it's already past where they had planned on drawing it in the first place, and that tends to intensify reactions.

[siderea]

???

A SWAT team is a paramilitary force for handling exceptionally dangerous situations, like those with heavily armed criminals. AFAIK, SWAT teams aren't even trained for crowd/riot control, which is a completely different thing. Bringing a SWAT team to subdue a rave is like... well, actually, it is bringing a team of snipers to subdue a party. "Wrong tool for the job" doesn't even begin to cover it.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

Ok, its lunch and I'm bored. Lets sit back and read thru the article without your outrage over police OMGWTFBBQ'ing the supposed rights here.
First, private property is NOT a haven from law enforcement. You do not have a right to have a party with drugs, sexual assualts, or underage drinking or worse. You do have every right to peaceful assembly, provided those assembling are not committing illegal actions. The police had been investigating these parties since the start of the season, I'm pretty sure they could have obtained warrents to invade that party without the arguement of improper forms being filed. That pretext just makes it easier for them to get thru the system. So, based on that article, the police did not break and laws/rules or regulations that would restrict them normally.
Ok, so yer upset over the number and methods of the police there. Well, lets do some math. 1500 drunken/doped or just having fun party goers vs 100 police. At 150 to 1 odds, do you blame the police for coming loaded for bear? Dogs, helicopters, guns and tear gas sound about right. The second thing you want to consider is that in order to catch the criminals, SPEED is required. Hi, my name is Jonny Drugseller. I see the cops coming, I throw the drugs away, and walk out scott free. Given that speed is needed amoung drunken/doped partiers, I think you can safely assume that all politeness will be tossed aside. For all the innocents at this party... From the article, it states that many of those coming, knew drugs would be there. If you know criminal activities are going on around you, you also burden of being rounded up with them. You may be innocent, and should walk away innocent, but if caught up with criminals, you should also expect to have to go thru the process of proving innocence.(Or at least the process of police attempting to prove your guilt) And you know very well the allure of criminal activity (rave/bad party image) and the availability of drinks of those underaged is the single biggest selling issue for this party. It was NOT a private party, but rather a commercially thrown party to generate cash for the hoster. If you go to a party knowing that large amounts of criminal activity will be occuring, you kinda assume the risk of being face down in the mud, with a slavering doberman 6 inches from your face. For those who were truely naive and unaware of the activities, those I do feel compassion for. The person being repeated kicked in the ribs does sound to be police brutality, and should be investigated as such. However, the tackles I would tend to discount. I doubt most of those tackled were simply standing or walking around. The police were in a position in which they could not reasonably fire a gun in an attempt to drop a running person. (misses into a crowd are bad m'kay?) Tackling sounds like the next best alternative. The last issue regarding excessive force, the police had attempted to use a smaller force in a previous rave party. It was ineffective. Are the police only allowed to use effective or if needed, overwhelming force against crimes YOU approve of?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I have been to a rave. I had no interest in doing drugs. That was not why I, or the people I was with, were there. It was fun to dress up and dance to the music.

If police had come to that rave and tried to shut it down, yes they would've encountered upset people who would probably yell and bitch and moan and shuffle their feet and not want to leave. But the way these cops acted, and the way YOU are talking, it's as if the partygoers were expected to suddenly swarm on, and beat down, the law officials. I am sad that you share this viewpoint.

The argument, "They could have gotten warrants," is null. They didn't have them. That means they broke the rules. We have a law enforcement SYSTEM for a reason, and that reason is NOT so that it can be ignored when it is convenient.

I am sad that you think that the police would need guns, dogs, and tear gas to deal with a crowd of partiers. I am sad that you consider these things acceptable practices for American citizens.

you should also expect to have to go thru the process of proving innocence.
Fuck no. The rules are innocent until proven guilty.

From the article, it states that many of those coming, knew drugs would be there.
Actually, it states that many of those coming, knew there were multiple security checkpoints checking people as they came in.

And you know very well the allure of criminal activity (rave/bad party image) and the availability of drinks of those underaged is the single biggest selling issue for this party.
Not when I went. I went because, once again, it was fun to dress up and dance to music. I didn't even drink, and I was legal to at the time. I mean, shit, if I had drank alcohol, I might've died of dehydration. I had to chug water. and in the Utah desert? Oh yeah.

Are the police only allowed to use effective or if needed, overwhelming force against crimes YOU approve of?
If force is going to be overwhelming, it is not effective. The point of force is to stop a crime from happening, not to perform one yourself.

"Force," in the physical sense, should only be used for physical crimes, and only if ABSOLUTELY necessary. I do not believe in widespread physical crime at this rave, nor do I believe that any of the tactics I have read about were absolutely necessary.

I really hope you're playing devil's advocate there.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

Actually, if the police had required a warrant, and did not have one, I'm damned sure there would have been far more outrage and complaints on that issue. The article does not even bring up the issue of warrants, which implies they had one. From the sounds of it, the police followed the exact letter of the law in this regard.
As far as the issue of prior knowledge of drug use, these parties have been going on all summer. Those kids knew DAMNED well what type of party it was. Credit those 2-4 years younger than you with a brain, please? And stop pretending the average 16-25 year old is innocent regarding these issues. Yes, most people prob did just go to dance and have fun, but the size of the crowd would definately attract the criminal elements.
I believe I acknowledged innocence until proven guilty in the ()'s right after that. Regardless of innocence or not, if you are on the scene of a crime, the police may attempt to prove you are guilty in some way. It is their job, and you will have to go thru the motions of the process.
As far as excessive force. Why don't you PLAN how to remove the criminals from the innocents in a 1500 man party. Then explain how 90 cops are going to contain and seperate innocents from the guilty. Then prepare for the worst case, which is yes, the crowd turning on the cops, in a full scale riot. Don't think it can happen, do a few keyword searches on riots hmmm? Oh, when you are finished with this plan, present it to 90 cops who WANT to see RETIREMENT. As a cop, you do NOT fuck around, you prepare for the worst at ALL times.
Prevent Crime? Thats impossible. It would require an existance that would make 1982 a joke. Add into the fact that some criminals do run/fight. Force becomes required. Incidentally, overwhelming force usually creates faster surrender, thus lessening injuries overall. Like it or not, force or the threat of force is required in most arrests.
Lastly, I think you overstate the effects of dehydration. At a commercial party, I'm damned sure there were enough fluids since otherwise they would be at risk of prosecution. Stop thinking of just your opinion, and start thinking from the viewpoints of the host/partygoers and police. What as host, are you going to do to make sure your party is attractive to the college set, and how to avoid liability lawsuits. How, and where as a drug pusher are you going to sell your goods and get away with it. How are you as a police captain, going to catch these drug pushers inside of a mob, while ensuring the safety of YOUR officers?
The amount of force required to capture criminals is going to be under debate for as long as there are crimes to commit. In this case, I think the police acted as they needed to, they had already attempted to use a lesser amount of force and failed. It's interesting to note, that out of roughly 1500 people, only 60 arrests were made. Yeah, they really applied a massive beatdown to the crowd here. I already said the allegations of direct police brutality needed to be investigated, and I'm wondering why they chose to use tear gas. Beyond that, I think the police did what they had to do.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

It is not the police's job to prove guilt. That's the job of the district attorney. They may have probable cause to arrest you and even charge you with a crime but they better be able to prove that in a court of law. It would be instructive to know the exact breakdown of the charges and what percentage--I expect to be a clear majority--were for "resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, and disorderly conduct." That's the catchall in many draconian demonstrations of police activity and it can take months to clear one's name. (Since, believe it or not, police can and do lie.)

Deciding to "shut it down, shut it down" and start stomping on rave-goers is a shock and awe tactic that caused more chaos than a more controlled operation would have been. There were informants among the crowd? Fine. Ring the area with teams of police officers and start flashing badges and making arrests during the rave. Stop anyone who runs away from the event for probable cause. You won't catch everyone that way but it sure isn't clear they caught everyone the way they did it, either. You don't have to turn the scene into a riot, which is what they did. Tear gas? Fuck--their operation was designed to stop the rave first and catch criminals second. Read the head thug's sheriff's release.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

True, the police dont prosecute. It's their job to collect the evidence to provide to the DA. The two are so closely tied that you might as well say the police are going to attempt to prove guilt, before presenting the evidence to the DA. Agreed on the request to see breakdown on arrests. But I would like to remind you that those arrested can also lie. At this point, it boils down to "We don't know."
To ring a 1500 person party as you described would require how many people? Did the cops even have enough to do even a partial ring? Reading some of the firsthand accounts, this party appears to have been alot larger than many of its type. The majority of complaints seems to have been about the rifles the police were using. Well yeah, 150 to 1 odds, I'm taking a gun. Now if the things I've picked up over time are right, the military teaches you not to drop a gun because of the possibility of accidental firing upon impact. Please tell me why police would then apply rifle butts as bludgeons? Not saying it did not happen, as I was not there. But I do suspect that much of the police actions have been over sensationalized and exaggerated for outrage or effect. Hell, the police are probably over exaggerating the amount of drug use. It's difficult to decide how much force is excessive. The people believe it was excessive. The police may believe they didn't use enough. Who is right? I don't know. But I'm willing to reserve opinion until I'm responsible for knocking on someone's door at 3am to inform them their son/daughter died the previous night while 1499 people danced around them. Both sides had valid reasons and arguements, and unless you are willing to acknowledge that, you are just feeding the flames.
I just think that the fact that the police did try to break up a party earlier with lesser force, and failed, is the strongest arguement for their proceeding with the second raid.
Where is a link to the sheriff's release?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I want to know more details about this "previous party." It's being used as an excuse, but why? How did its lack of shutdown magically turn into permission to use excessive force at this party?

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

No, I will not say that. Police in the United States act on probable cause, collect evidence and bear witness. They do not attempt to prove guilt. Crossing that line leads to a police state.

Here's the link to the link Utah County Sherrif's statement.

The tactics reflect the goal. The goal of this operation was shutting down the rave not capturing those using illegal drugs. Anyone at the rave was treated as a criminal and, at the slightest provocation, they had their belongings confiscated at best, possibly arrested, or were thrown to the ground, beaten or attacked by dogs, then arrested, according to eyewitnesses. They used the force that they did because they didn't want that rave to get as large as the one that they couldn't "control".

The Provo Daily Herald has a story up.

Josh Witbeck, one of the security staff hired by organizers for the event, has interacted with police at several similar events during three years as a bouncer in Salt Lake-area nightclubs, but police hostility, like he said he observed Saturday night, is rare.

"I was trying to keep the crowds as calm as possible. I knew better than to interfere with the cops, but we all got treated pretty poorly," he said. "I'm not going to place all the blame on the police, but they treated every person here like a criminal."

If you agree that the goal should be stop all raves anywhere at anytime using overwhelming force because there is the possibility that some fraction of people there might possess or be using illegal substances, then I assume you would support equivalent and frequent raids on high schools, sporting events and fireworks shows, to name three.

Oh, and you want to know something? People die. A 23-year old 49ers' lineman collapsed after a game this Sunday. Their stated justifications do not match the facts on the ground revealed so far. Wanting to give the benefit of the doubt about such behavior because someone might die is a facile rationalization. You might as well say they should have been studying the Book of Mormon.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

If you agree that the goal should be stop all raves anywhere at anytime using overwhelming force because there is the possibility that some fraction of people there might possess or be using illegal substances, then I assume you would support equivalent and frequent raids on high schools, sporting events and fireworks shows, to name three.
Come to think of it, imagine a similar thing happening at your average OMP (gathering that crimson5 and I have attended in the past)... Certainly I knew of a lot of recreation drug use and underage drinking at those. Imagine SWAT folks kicking the doors of the conference room down and holding a gun to Tensor's head. :P

Ok, yeah, I'm being far-fetched. But that kind of impossibility is what happened to those people last weekend.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

I'll reply to your and Juldea's posts at the same time. These raves had been observed to have high prevalance of drug use throughout the entire summer. This was NOT oh hey, there's a rave, lets go beatdown some kids. You know what, there is a very large amount of precedence for observing a reoccuring event, in which illegal activities occur. Then proceeding to raid the next event in order to shut it down, arrest those they can, and curtail future events of the same type. And yes Juldea, if a cop went undercover to an OMP, found and documented underage drinking and drug use, I would fully expect a team to show up to arrest people at an OMP. I would not expect a SWAT force, because you don't have 1500 people at an OMP. However, if the police knocked on the door, were refused entry, or otherwise thwarted in their attempts the first year, I would expect them to kick the door in, and come in with guns drawn the next year.
Having read the sherrif's dispatch, the goal was not to stop raves. But to stop this variety of raves. Essentially, you had someone commercially sponsering and advertising raves to make a buck. Similar to using a small tax violation to take down a drug kingpin, they used the permit to break up this party. I feel the police were attempting to end this host's commercial parties, and not raves as a whole.
People do die yes. Does that mean we shouldnt wear seatbelts? The arguement of prevention of deaths swings both ways. From everything the police have said about previous parties, this particular version was getting completely out of control. 1500 people is not a small crowd in a nightclub where it can be shutdown with a few cops and a handgun.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

ALL raves are commercially sponsored. How else can one raise the money for all those lights, the electronics, the decorations, the space? There's nothing wrong at all with a sponsored, profitable event.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I feel the police were attempting to end this host's commercial parties, and not raves as a whole.

Wow. Let me dwell on that sentence for a moment.

...

So, the police weren't intent on shutting down this type of activity, they were after the individual who claims he obtained the necessary permits throw an event at which he might have made a little money. Damned capitalists. They're working hand-in-hand with the drug users.

Seriously, I have to disagree with you: I read the sheriff's statement as a clear statement that they want to shut down raves because some people at them committ illegal acts. Of course they found a pretext but the ends do not justify the means. And there was no indication that this rave, or any previous one, had gotten "out of control", except in the sense that they didn't have enough manpower to actually break it up. And even twice the number of SWAT team members wouldn't necessarily have prevented a death.

By the way, I live in New Hampshire. We don't have a mandatory adult seatbelt law. Live Free or Die.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

So wait, undercover officers with visual evidence of prevalent drug use at previous parties by said host, is irrelevant? The fact that cops check out the current party and reported high evidence of drug use is irrelevant? Sounds to me like the cops did some leg work before attempting to bust these parties. I personally think the host only gave lip service to following proper procedures. How much of this could have been prevented by requesting cops cover the party? There were alternatives. You said the cops are attempting to shut down all raves? How many other raves have they shut down using these methods? Or do they only have raves every 1-2 months out in Utah? I don't object to making money, but expect to get shutdown if illegal activities become part of your event. As host, its your responsibility to do your best to ensure that criminal activity does not occur.

Incidentally, the reference to preventing a death, was the option of leaving the party unchecked.

It's pretty late for me, so for my last post of the evening, I'll just state that I think we both have valid arguements, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. I do not think either of us is in possesion of the complete information required to determine which opinion is most applicable in this situation. Until either of us gathered that information, and convinced the other they truely had such information, we will argue till doomday on this subject. But what the hell, life would be boring if everyone shared the same opinions. ;)

Good luck on the seatbealt thing, the Federal Goverment sometimes convinces states to comply with Fed decisions by attatching important funding to states having certain laws on the books. I think drinking age=21 was once of those. Seatbelts strikes me as being another likely candidate.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Or do they only have raves every 1-2 months out in Utah?
This sounds feasible to me, but I'm only supposing... heh

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's been stated or alleged that the "host"--and whether you mean "landowner" or "organizer" is unclear to me--has held parties before with prevalent drug use. Those other events could have been organized by others and using different venues. I never implied evidence gathered onsite was irrelevant. I'm arguing the tactics chosen, not whether or not the police were right to attempt to arrest actual lawbreakers. If in fact the permits were out of order, then the event should have been shut down. Neither require helicopters, tear gas, or armed SWAT teams except to terrorize innocent attendees.

(And, you again seem to be implying that all raves inevitably lead to one or more deaths. I still find that argument facile.)

As for the seatbelt law, Congress tried with the SAFE-TEA act a year or so ago and failed to require such linkage thanks to the hard work of our senior Senator and what remains of states' rights policy in the GOP.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

The article does not even bring up the issue of warrants, which implies they had one.

I read about the lack of warrant somewhere in the maze of links I followed from there. I know I saw it mentioned multiple times. Sadly, I don't have time right now at work to look it up (wasting enough time just posting!)

Those kids knew DAMNED well what type of party it was.
Sure. But I'm sure they didn't expect to be beaten because someone ELSE was going to be breaking the law.

As far as excessive force. Why don't you PLAN how to remove the criminals from the innocents in a 1500 man party. Then explain how 90 cops are going to contain and seperate innocents from the guilty. Then prepare for the worst case, which is yes, the crowd turning on the cops, in a full scale riot. Don't think it can happen, do a few keyword searches on riots hmmm? Oh, when you are finished with this plan, present it to 90 cops who WANT to see RETIREMENT. As a cop, you do NOT fuck around, you prepare for the worst at ALL times.
There's a difference between being in riot gear with helmets and billy clubs and shields, and being in camo swat uniforms with tasers and assault rifles and tackling people. Defense, or offense?

Like it or not, force or the threat of force is required in most arrests.
Yes, I realize that the police can't say, "Hey, drug sellers, will you please come over here and be arrested?" But I believe in a world where it's more ethical to err on the side of LESS violence.

It's interesting to note, that out of roughly 1500 people, only 60 arrests were made. Yeah, they really applied a massive beatdown to the crowd here.
I don't care if only one person was arrested. If he was tackled to the ground, mauled by a dog, and kicked in the stomach, unless he was attempting to shoot officers the entire time, his arrest was WRONG.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

part 2 since there is a limit on post size....

The issue was brought up in the articles regarding the video camera confiscation. Well yes, if you have a video camera operating during the party, I'm sure the police would be interested in it. Just as the video records from an ATM machine can be requested and used in the prosecution of a burglary across the street, your camera at a raided party can be used as Exhibit A during the prosecution of druggies from this party.(was that one sentence?) Sounds like a valid standard operating procedure for police during this type of raid.
The host of the party had created an environment in which some criminal activities were prospering. A raid was expected, in fact anticipated due to the fact an attorney was present. The previous raid was unsuccessful due to insufficient force, so escalation is required. The attraction for criminal activities to such an event is undeniable, and is probably the primary reason these kind of parties are not more commonplace across the country. I would want the allegations of police brutality more thoroughly checked, but I don't feel that the police used excessive force as a whole. I simply can not muster outrage at the police doing their job, and doing it in the face of a 1500 person mostly drunken mob.(not drunk? what planet do you live on?)
Anyways, sorry for the length of this post, but as I said, I'm at work and bored. Let's see, most of Juldea's friends lean towards the liberal schools of thought... *Dons flame retardent suit*

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Liberal school of thought, yeah, but also a grad student in Criminal Jusitce. I think you're on the right track with this ramble.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

As I feel I'll have to say many times over, I don't object to people committing crimes being arrested for them. I don't object to that party being shut down, if it really was overrun with criminal activity.

But, I don't feel that what I have seen/read about/etc constitutes acceptable use of police force. I don't like fearing for a boot to the head and a criminal record if I want to go to a party and hear some good music.

[tpau]

not even remotely liberal... you make sence

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Wait... we agree on something vaguely political?

World's ending, people. Sorry about that. ::Grins::

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I am saddened by your stereotyping.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

Since when is reading and observing the opinions of others over time stereotyping? Stating all whites are bigots is stereotyping. But having read the opinions of your commentors over the years, I think I am allowed to form the opinion that many of them fall under the category of liberal leanings. Categories, and descriptions to describe things exist for a blasted reason. Attempting to remove all stereotyping from the english language is exceeding foolish and unrealistic. There should be however, an exceptable level of stereotyping and discrimination. (I prefer redheads over blondes......) Where this line is, I sure as hell don't know. I don't believe that my joke about many of your friends appearing to be liberal's is out of line. So please climb down from your moral pedestal and have a rational discussion about the other issue here?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Er, sorry, that was totally a miscommunication on both of our parts. I did not mean to insinuate that your comment about my friends is stereotyping - it's true. ;) Most of my friends ARE liberals. That was not out of line at all.

It was the "ravers = druggies" stereotypes that got to me. I guess it's hard being friends with people who are the minority... but I know enough straight-edge kandi kids that I get irked when it's insinuated that the only reason one would go to a rave is to do lots of drugs. :P

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

My apologies for jumping all over you then :/ I didn't mean to imply that ALL ravers are druggies, but that given a large enough gathering, there WILL be a drug presence. Given the age group of most ravers, I stand by the drinking/drunken kids comments. I know damned well there is a difference between drinking a few beers and getting doped up.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Still, though. Even if there is a drug presence, that presence does NOT mandate SWAT groups, assault rifles, snarling attack dogs, tackling, shouting, "Get out of here or I'll throw your ass in jail," confiscating personal property... DRUG USE & ABUSE IS NOT TERRORISM. Yes, they're illegal. Yes, they should expect to be arrested. But not treated as enemy combatants.

[tank182.livejournal.com]

That's the most fucked up thing I've read this week! Something must be done.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

The video I saw was of someone leaving without bitching and harrassing, and of in fact a whole crowd of people doing the same thing. Most of the eyewitness accounts claim that the crowd pretty much was attempting to leave upon seeing the cops and guns... Although sometimes wanting to ask either what was up (gasp!) or wanting to get their personal property (GASP!) or looking after friends (GASP!). These things should not be putting cops in uber-defensive modes.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

Interesting story my Dad told me about when Reagan got shot. An undercover police officer was in the hospital when Reagon was being brought in. He had a handgun on him. Apparently one of the secret service guys noticed the gun. The cop said out of nowhere, the barrel of a gun was placed at the back of his head. The undercover cop informed the person that he was undercover, and his badge was inside his jacket. The SS officer requested the person reach inside and get his badge. The cop replied "No, YOU get the badge." Moral of the story? There are times to make rational requests of cops, and there are times you do not argue and simply comply. I think a raid by cops bearing rifles is one of the times you don't argue.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Questioning is not arguing.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Um, if the moral is to simply comply, why didn't the undercover cop get out his own badge like he was told to?

[I think I've heard that story before on Paul Harvey's radio show in 84 or 85. And I always have my salt shaker handy when listening to him.]

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Because a twitchy Secret Sevice Agent (even one who was not actually involved in the "conversation") might have seen the guy going into his jacket, freaked out, yelled "GUN!" and shot him. And believe me, the President had just been shot. They were *all* twitchy. It was safer for the undercover cop to say, "You get my badge. It's in my right front pocket."

It's the same reason that, on the two occassions I've been pulled over (and for the record, I'm a Nice Looking White Girl) I tell the cops "My liscense in my bag right there, and the registration is in my glove compartment." and just tell them what I'm going to do before I do it. It keeps them much calmer. And I want them calm.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

comply v. act in accordance with someone's rules, commands, or wishes

I don't disagree there are times you need to act very, very carefully when a gun is pointed at you. It's nearly bladder-emptying when it happens. Really. However, my comment was directed at the moral that was inferred from the story. The story was "here's a situation: blah blah blah blah blah, then he didn't do A but B". The moral was given as "in such a situation do A".

[gaffman.livejournal.com]

OK, im not going to get involved in the arguing because I dont want to get worked up, but heres my $0.02

The US govt is shit scared of drugs. Drugs use/users tend to represent what they fear most - people who like to think for themselves. The only way they have to combat their rising popularity is cram ocean loads of 'drugs are bad' propaganda down your throat, pass over the top legislation and react with excesive force. Apparently you can get 20 years in prison for possession of marijuana in the US, while people convicted of murder are getting out in 12. That is the kind of lopsided, misguided stupidity that is driving the kinds of actions talked about in that article. Your government is creating a culture of fear amongst the population where drug users are worse than murderers.

You may remember something called the RAVE act from a few years back. Bacially some nuts wanted to pass legislation saying that if you were a club owners or party prmomoter, if someone got caught using drugs then YOU would get fined $125k. People went ape shit about it because the legislation was targeted specifically at 'events where electronic or repetative music is being played'. Basically the govt was trying to illegalise dance parties without blatantly coming out and saying so (probably because such a law would be deemed unconsititutional). Anyway the RAVE act never passed, eventho they attempted it like 5 times. But a year or so ago someone tacked pretty much the same legislation onto some other completely unrelated bill at the last minute. I cant remember if it got thru or not unfortunately, but these are the sorts or measures your government is prepared to take in order to quash what it percieves as a threat.

What can you do about it? Well im not really familiar enough with your political system, but I'd say writing letters to your parliamentary representatives and following up with lots of phone calls is probably about all you can do. Unfortunately since youre likley to be supporting and unpopular viewpoint and arent backing up your concerns with thousands of dollars in campaign donations id say its likely your complaints will go unanswred or ignored. You might try contacting dancesafe, theyre a US based harm reduction group, they can probably keep you up to date on whats happening...

Unfortunatley america has pretty much already become a police state, most americans just dont realise it yet because theyre too busy cowering in fear from 'terrorists'... You want to lead an alternative lifestyle, move to an alternative country ;P

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Thanks for all the info, hon. *hugs*

[zenandtheart.livejournal.com]

Interesting arguments. Wish I knew more about the scene over there... but really I'm just glad I'm not over there. I can't imagine a scene like that anywhere else in the world - for that reason, anyhow.
Good luck!

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Apparently there was something similar in Czechoslovakia recently...