Utah Rave(The Patriot Act In Action).

That police dog tore up the kid carrying drugs.. ahhaha crazy video. Thank God, i live in CA where we have RIGHTS.
 
[quote name='Kastides']That police dog tore up the kid carrying drugs.. ahhaha crazy video. Thank God, i live in CA where we have RIGHTS.[/QUOTE]

You don't have rights, there are just too many people for them to go after you for getting high. :lol:
 
[quote name='Quillion']I have rights too. A right to not hear brain-dead ravers bitch on my favorite message board. Next topic.[/QUOTE]

Please STFU you moron.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I have rights too. A right to not hear brain-dead ravers bitch on my favorite message board. Next topic.[/QUOTE]

It's the VS board: it's tailor-made for incessant bitching/whining. Without it, the bitch-whine would be throughout the rest of the forum.

If you don't want to hear it, avoid this part of the forum.

Or, you can keep using your belief that this type of thread is an annoyance as a facade for your belief that what happened at that party was justified.
 
[quote name='Ledhed']It's the VS board: it's tailor-made for incessant bitching/whining. Without it, the bitch-whine would be throughout the rest of the forum.

If you don't want to hear it, avoid this part of the forum.

Or, you can keep using your belief that this type of thread is an annoyance as a facade for your belief that what happened at that party was justified.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. Very well, Led, since I respect you, I'll attempt to write a coherent respose.

It has spread to the rest of the forum, because Kastides felt that it wasn't receiving enough attention here. I didn't want to give it the attention I feel it doesn't deserve for these reasons.

First, there is no indication that the Patriot act had anything to do with this. Despite the bitching/moaning by various types, the Patriot Act is not the cause for all the perceived evils of law enforcement. It's mostly a wiretapping statute.

Second, this is a state matter, and I do not live in Utah. None of my affair.

Third, the account written at several points clashes with the events in the video. One, nobody jumped that cameraman, despite several policemen looking at him. Two, the police completely refrained from using profanity in the video. Three, they calmly approached the stage to shut off the music and break up the party. Four, not a single one of the Policemen ever pointed a firearm at a bystander in the video.

Fourth, the account is obviously biased. They mention that several people had drugs, including the bouncers, but that is glossed over. Obviously there was some justification for the raid if there was illicit drug use going on.

Finally, the account mentions that several legal actions are already in the works. I have faith in the system that justice will be done.

I'll reserve my shock and horror for an event more momentous than some teenagers getting upset that Police are taking their drugs away.
 
Quillion

I'm pretty sure the news reporter was stating that the bouncers had confiscated drugs, therefore they had other people's drugs in their possession because they didn't want the drugs getting into the party.

I agree that out-of-hand police should be no surprise to anyone - for example any party you go to, if a few bad apples are doing drugs in the back room, then everyone is going to jail if the cops bust in.

I think the overkill is what is at stake here - I mean, does the state of Utah have the kind of money to pay for paramilitary gear, a squad of thugs, and a helicopter for the express purpose of shutting down raves? This smells more like the federal government to me, or at least federally funded state police.
 
[quote name='camoor']Quillion

I'm pretty sure the news reporter was stating that the bouncers had confiscated drugs, therefore they had other people's drugs in their possession because they didn't want the drugs getting into the party.[/quote]

Right, they confiscated them, but that's still possession. Whether you take them from someone for the purpose of getting them clean, or getting yourself high, that's still possession.

[quote name='camoor']I agree that out-of-hand police should be no surprise to anyone - for example any party you go to, if a few bad apples are doing drugs in the back room, then everyone is going to jail if the cops bust in.

I think the overkill is what is at stake here - I mean, does the state of Utah have the kind of money to pay for paramilitary gear, a squad of thugs, and a helicopter for the express purpose of shutting down raves? This smells more like the federal government to me, or at least federally funded state police.[/QUOTE]

Well, as someone said in the other thread, the police don't know what tools they're going to need, so they bring them all. Assault rifles, tear gas, helicopters for lighting, etc. State police and SWAT teams can easily afford that sort of equipment.

The Sheriff quoted the rave at >250 people (the legal requirement of the permit statute) and the "reporter" quoted the rave at 1500+. Either size is going to be trouble for a detachment of 90 police even if only a few people in the crowd are armed. So they brought everything they had.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I have faith in the system that justice will be done.[/QUOTE]

Someone needs to listen to Bill Hicks' "Officer (n-word) Hater" from the album "Arizona Bay." It may not change your mind, and it's comedy, so it's not that enlightening, but your statement above made me think of it.

and I always recommend Bill Hicks to everyone. Always.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Someone needs to listen to Bill Hicks' "Officer (n-word) Hater" from the album "Arizona Bay." It may not change your mind, and it's comedy, so it's not that enlightening, but your statement above made me think of it.

and I always recommend Bill Hicks to everyone. Always.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if anyone will come in and claim that he ripped off tool. :lol:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I wonder if anyone will come in and claim that he ripped off tool. :lol:[/QUOTE]

I don't get it. I know Tool were big fans of his, but I don't listen to them. Was he sampled on an album?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't get it. I know Tool were big fans of his, but I don't listen to them. Was he sampled on an album?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there have been clips on their albums. Also Ænema has a strong connection.

Sample lyric:

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Sigh. Very well, Led, since I respect you, I'll attempt to write a coherent respose.

It has spread to the rest of the forum, because Kastides felt that it wasn't receiving enough attention here. I didn't want to give it the attention I feel it doesn't deserve for these reasons.

First, there is no indication that the Patriot act had anything to do with this. Despite the bitching/moaning by various types, the Patriot Act is not the cause for all the perceived evils of law enforcement. It's mostly a wiretapping statute.

Second, this is a state matter, and I do not live in Utah. None of my affair.

Third, the account written at several points clashes with the events in the video. One, nobody jumped that cameraman, despite several policemen looking at him. Two, the police completely refrained from using profanity in the video. Three, they calmly approached the stage to shut off the music and break up the party. Four, not a single one of the Policemen ever pointed a firearm at a bystander in the video.

Fourth, the account is obviously biased. They mention that several people had drugs, including the bouncers, but that is glossed over. Obviously there was some justification for the raid if there was illicit drug use going on.

Finally, the account mentions that several legal actions are already in the works. I have faith in the system that justice will be done.

I'll reserve my shock and horror for an event more momentous than some teenagers getting upset that Police are taking their drugs away.[/QUOTE]

Bravo ! The bust looked completely orderly and, for the most part, non confrontational. I don't even recall seeing a raised weapon. That's probably the least scary drug/party bust I've ever seen. Real fascists would have beat down every possible resistor, shot the black ones, and sent the rest to a labor camp without due process. Utah kids are pussies if they think this is fascism.

And another thing - dope smoking white-boy-gansta-wannabees ain't so tough when a motherfucker with a rifle and a flak jacket gets all in their face, are they?
 
[quote name='Quillion']Sigh. Very well, Led, since I respect you, I'll attempt to write a coherent respose.

It has spread to the rest of the forum, because Kastides felt that it wasn't receiving enough attention here. I didn't want to give it the attention I feel it doesn't deserve for these reasons.

First, there is no indication that the Patriot act had anything to do with this. Despite the bitching/moaning by various types, the Patriot Act is not the cause for all the perceived evils of law enforcement. It's mostly a wiretapping statute.

Second, this is a state matter, and I do not live in Utah. None of my affair.

Third, the account written at several points clashes with the events in the video. One, nobody jumped that cameraman, despite several policemen looking at him. Two, the police completely refrained from using profanity in the video. Three, they calmly approached the stage to shut off the music and break up the party. Four, not a single one of the Policemen ever pointed a firearm at a bystander in the video.

Fourth, the account is obviously biased. They mention that several people had drugs, including the bouncers, but that is glossed over. Obviously there was some justification for the raid if there was illicit drug use going on.

Finally, the account mentions that several legal actions are already in the works. I have faith in the system that justice will be done.

I'll reserve my shock and horror for an event more momentous than some teenagers getting upset that Police are taking their drugs away.[/QUOTE]

Jeez did you even pay attention to the end of the video man? They DID try to take it away.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Bravo ! The bust looked completely orderly and, for the most part, non confrontational. I don't even recall seeing a raised weapon. That's probably the least scary drug/party bust I've ever seen. Real fascists would have beat down every possible resistor, shot the black ones, and sent the rest to a labor camp without due process. Utah kids are pussies if they think this is fascism.

And another thing - dope smoking white-boy-gansta-wannabees ain't so tough when a motherfucker with a rifle and a flak jacket gets all in their face, are they?[/QUOTE]

Spoken like the jerk you are. Have you ever been to a rave, there are very few "dope smoking white-boy-gansta-wannabees" - it's more about just having a good time, celebrating peace, love, and doing whatever you want (I guess a conservative hawk like you would label it as a "hippie party")

Anyway - I don't want real fascists or regular police using some fascist tactics - police should protect the public, but if a bunch of kids want to gather in a field on private property in the middle of nowhere then they should be allowed, whether it's for a big Mormon prayer meeting, a country music sing-along, or a rave.
 
I clearly saw two people on the ground getting beaten by soldiers in that video.

The fuckers who say this was in any way justifiable or a peaceful breakup is obviously so oblivious they believe that everything the government does is right and has never heard of our constitutionally garaunteed right to peaceful assembly.
 
[quote name='camoor']Spoken like the jerk you are. Have you ever been to a rave, there are very few "dope smoking white-boy-gansta-wannabees" - it's more about just having a good time, celebrating peace, love, and doing whatever you want (I guess a conservative hawk like you would label it as a "hippie party")

Anyway - I don't want real fascists or regular police using some fascist tactics - police should protect the public, but if a bunch of kids want to gather in a field on private property in the middle of nowhere then they should be allowed, whether it's for a big Mormon prayer meeting, a country music sing-along, or a rave.[/QUOTE]

Not that I care for raves or electronic music (eurotrash like Pet Shop Boys notwithstanding), but why always with the raves? Why can't the cops kick the fuck out of fans at a Van Halen concert?

I mean, coooome ooooonn!
 
BMullet should go fornicate him/herself with an ironstick.

Apparently the organizer got the wrong permit.

Thats it, that is all the wrongdoing the organizer or the vast majority of guests were involved with.

As for the drugs any large grouping of people a few will have drugs on them. Up to and including church services, weddings and funerals.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not that I care for raves or electronic music (eurotrash like Pet Shop Boys notwithstanding), but why always with the raves? Why can't the cops kick the fuck out of fans at a Van Halen concert?

I mean, coooome ooooonn![/QUOTE]

I know whenever I hear "Panama" I want to use my foot to apply a certain amount of pressure (which some might call obscene) to the back of some mullets. :bomb: :lol:
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I clearly saw two people on the ground getting beaten by soldiers in that video.

The fuckers who say this was in any way justifiable or a peaceful breakup is obviously so oblivious they believe that everything the government does is right and has never heard of our constitutionally garaunteed right to peaceful assembly.[/QUOTE]

I can't fathom how anyone can take a stance against a totally legal drug bust.
 
[quote name='Rich']I can't fathom how anyone can take a stance against a totally legal drug bust.[/QUOTE]

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it was carried out properly.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it was carried out properly.[/QUOTE]

fuck that. You want to bring drugs into a rave, you don't deserve any rights.
 
[quote name='Rich']fuck that. You want to bring drugs into a rave, you don't deserve any rights.[/QUOTE]

If that were true, what do you do about the people who were abused but didn't bring or take drugs?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If that were true, what do you do about the people who were abused but didn't bring or take drugs?[/QUOTE]

Laugh at their horrible taste in music...and how much of a pussy they were that they refused drugs at a rave.
 
[quote name='Rich']Laugh at their horrible taste in music...and how much of a pussy they were that they refused drugs at a rave.[/QUOTE]

Every time you start to seem half decent, you say something like that to sound like a total douche...
 
[quote name='Kayden']Every time you start to seem half decent, you say something like that to sound like a total douche...[/QUOTE]

:lol:
 
[quote name='Kayden']Every time you start to seem half decent, you say something like that to sound like a total douche...[/QUOTE]

I must have missed his "half decent" statement.
 
Rich is scum, pure and simple. You can talk to him about games but don't try to talk to him about anything else. Well I correct myself, don't talk to him about Politics, he's TOTALLY intolerant.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Rich is scum, pure and simple. You can talk to him about games but don't try to talk to him about anything else. Well I correct myself, don't talk to him about Politics, he's TOTALLY intolerant.[/QUOTE]

I'm amused.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I clearly saw two people on the ground getting beaten by soldiers in that video.

The fuckers who say this was in any way justifiable or a peaceful breakup is obviously so oblivious they believe that everything the government does is right and has never heard of our constitutionally garaunteed right to peaceful assembly.[/QUOTE]

You clearly saw two people being restrained and taken into custody. Of course, any arrest by "fascists" would be looked at by you as a beating, wouldn't it?
You are such a tool.

Watch the video again. And, yes, when force of that magnitude is displayed, there's usually a need for overwhelming force to avoid casualties. When some motherfucker dangles an m-16 you know he means business and you are less likely to do anything stupid like run, attack, or try to gang up on a better armed gang.

You have no idea who was at that party. They could have been looking for 2 persons suspected of fabricating and distributing meth. There could have been an underage drug death from a previous night. Would that be justifiable? Of course not becuase in your mind, police use of authority and display of force is always a bad thing. Guess what? The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to break the law or resist arrest.


[quote name='"mslut77"']BMullet should go fornicate him/herself with an ironstick.

Apparently the organizer got the wrong permit.

Thats it, that is all the wrongdoing the organizer or the vast majority of guests were involved with.

As for the drugs any large grouping of people a few will have drugs on them. Up to and including church services, weddings and funerals.[/QUOTE]

You must have been fornicating yourself with an iron rod when you typed that beucase it sounds like nonsensical orgasm-speak.

So, in any large group of young people with loud music known as "raves" where drug activity is commonly known to occurr frequently, cops shouldn't bother to arrest suspected drug users because "[in] any large grouping of people a few will have drugs on them". That's great logic there.

In any large population there are murders too. Perhaps the police shouldn't bother arresting the most likely people who may have committed murder becuase, well, that's just something that happens in any large group. You're insane.

And, BTW lets see the links that show no illegal activity was happening at this party. It's easy to throw that "fascism" label around. Although what they usually mean is Gestapo, as in gestapo tactics, not fascism itself.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If that were true, what do you do about the people who were abused but didn't bring or take drugs?[/QUOTE]

It would fall in line with our other laws. I'm sure most of you are aware of the use of RICO in drug cases? If someone is in your car with drugs, even if you have no idea that they have drugs, your car can be confiscated. Same thing with any other possessions like your house. I guess this is just the next step. :roll:

And as for there not being cursing or beating, it clearly shows both on the video. One cop threatens to "haul your ass to jail" and a couple people are thrown to the ground and kicked. Looks like they went overboard to me, although the description is obviously presenting only one very biased side of the story.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']So, in any large group of young people with loud music known as "raves" where drug activity is commonly known to occurr frequently, cops shouldn't bother to arrest suspected drug users because "[in] any large grouping of people a few will have drugs on them". That's great logic there.[/QUOTE]

How do you pinpoint the users? Do you go after users or dealers? At what point is it abuse of civil rights to gather together in order to bust one person who maybe might have drugs? Again, I don't care about raves, and "rave" and "drugs" do go together, but show me a concert or other musical event where this is not happening.

Why don't we follow your rationale, then: if, at a given musical event where people are suspected of selling and using drugs police interference is justified, why not bust *every* concert ever (except perhaps the occasional Earth Crisis show)? You're guaranteed to catch a handful of people in any event, whether it's DJ PoopyPants or Earth, Wind, and Fire, right?

At what point is it a gross misuse of public funds to bust a party? At what point is it a gross abuse of civil liberties to threaten, interfere, or otherwise control a civil gathering with the purpose of maybe finding some people with drugs? How many people must be caught possessing to make it worth your time?

What about stopping you on the way to work, because people smoke weed in their car? There are a number of ways that this police action can be interpreted; allowing them to disrupt and end a peaceful gathering based on a *suspicion* creates quite the slippery slope, does it not?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How do you pinpoint the users? Do you go after users or dealers? At what point is it abuse of civil rights to gather together in order to bust one person who maybe might have drugs? [/Quote]
With police canines, the account discussed that. Yes. They rounded up 60 arrests. Not one, sixty. It was a gathering reported between 250 and 1500 people, violating permit laws. (If they did have a permit, that will come out in court).
[quote name='mykevermin']Again, I don't care about raves, and "rave" and "drugs" do go together, but show me a concert or other musical event where this is not happening.[/quote]
Show me another musical event without a proper permit.
[quote name='mykevermin']Why don't we follow your rationale, then: if, at a given musical event where people are suspected of selling and using drugs police interference is justified, why not bust *every* concert ever (except perhaps the occasional Earth Crisis show)? You're guaranteed to catch a handful of people in any event, whether it's DJ PoopyPants or Earth, Wind, and Fire, right?[/quote]
Right, but most big concerts have a permit.
[quote name='mykevermin']At what point is it a gross misuse of public funds to bust a party? At what point is it a gross abuse of civil liberties to threaten, interfere, or otherwise control a civil gathering with the purpose of maybe finding some people with drugs? How many people must be caught possessing to make it worth your time?[/quote]
When the party is legal. Drug and weapons arrests are secondary.
[quote name='mykevermin']What about stopping you on the way to work, because people smoke weed in their car?[/quote]
If the weed is smelled in a routine traffic stop then sieze the car, prosecute the driver. Police can effect a traffic stop for any reason. Even if they see you smoking a joint.
[quote name='mykevermin']There are a number of ways that this police action can be interpreted; allowing them to disrupt and end a peaceful gathering based on a *suspicion* creates quite the slippery slope, does it not?[/QUOTE]
They suspected drug possession and dealing at an illegal gathering. Say you have a "Picnic at the Pops" concert you have failed to acquire the proper permits for, and someone is suspected of dealing drugs there. Is it alright to bust that? Absolutely.
 
[quote name='Quillion']With police canines, the account discussed that. Yes. They rounded up 60 arrests. Not one, sixty. It was a gathering reported between 250 and 1500 people, violating permit laws. (If they did have a permit, that will come out in court)./QUOTE]

As someone else mentioned, the lack of a permit was a technicality, was it not? Also, I'm not sure what your logic is here.

"legal" party + drug users = no bust.

"illegal" party + drug users = busted.

However, the discussion being had here about arresting and prosecuting drug offenders, which is independent from the promoters of the party. Thus, any drug users busted should be residual after ending an illegal party, right?

With that in mind, if the police force wanted to end the party, they should have focused on the stage area, instead of getting into the crowd so soon. Notice that I'm not picking on their choice of fashion or transportation, but that while they did go for the stage, as the camera panned, they were already in the crowd busting people (which, if we follow the logic of "it's ok to bust a party if it's held illegally," the emphasis and effort should be on ending the party.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
As someone else mentioned, the lack of a permit was a technicality, was it not? Also, I'm not sure what your logic is here.

"legal" party + drug users = no bust.

"illegal" party + drug users = busted.

However, the discussion being had here about arresting and prosecuting drug offenders, which is independent from the promoters of the party. Thus, any drug users busted should be residual after ending an illegal party, right?

With that in mind, if the police force wanted to end the party, they should have focused on the stage area, instead of getting into the crowd so soon. Notice that I'm not picking on their choice of fashion or transportation, but that while they did go for the stage, as the camera panned, they were already in the crowd busting people (which, if we follow the logic of "it's ok to bust a party if it's held illegally," the emphasis and effort should be on ending the party.[/QUOTE]

I suppose the best way to summarize my point would be: "If you are assembling in violation of local, state, or federal laws, don't expect law enforcement to respect the right to assembly." I firmly believe in civil disobedience; however, until the law is changed, if you're violating it, expect the punishment.

They brought in drug-sniffing canines, who indicated as they were heading to the stage, that certain people were in possession of contraband. Those people they took into custody. They didn't slowly circulate in plain clothes, and pick people out of the crowd. They didn't lock everyone up and search them all. It looked like a party bust to me.
 
To be honest, the party probably forgot to pay off the police.

Oops - I think it's phrased as paying to have off-duty police officers acting as part of the party's security force. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How do you pinpoint the users? Do you go after users or dealers? At what point is it abuse of civil rights to gather together in order to bust one person who maybe might have drugs? Again, I don't care about raves, and "rave" and "drugs" do go together, but show me a concert or other musical event where this is not happening.

Why don't we follow your rationale, then: if, at a given musical event where people are suspected of selling and using drugs police interference is justified, why not bust *every* concert ever (except perhaps the occasional Earth Crisis show)? You're guaranteed to catch a handful of people in any event, whether it's DJ PoopyPants or Earth, Wind, and Fire, right?

At what point is it a gross misuse of public funds to bust a party? At what point is it a gross abuse of civil liberties to threaten, interfere, or otherwise control a civil gathering with the purpose of maybe finding some people with drugs? How many people must be caught possessing to make it worth your time?

What about stopping you on the way to work, because people smoke weed in their car? There are a number of ways that this police action can be interpreted; allowing them to disrupt and end a peaceful gathering based on a *suspicion* creates quite the slippery slope, does it not?[/QUOTE]

Let's follow your rationale, where things like 'probable cause' do not exist and police are forbidden to stop people for any reason, forbidden to search, question, detain, or arrest anyone or anything because there is no proof of anything. Guess what happens then? Nothing. Criminals roam free unless they are caught in the act. We have always let the police utilize a judgement when dealing with suspected criminals. That judgement is called probable cause.

And who said this gathering was peaceful? We don't know that. You only assume. Perhaps there was surveillance well before this event of suspected drug dealers who went to the party. Perhaps there was information or witnesses that gave information to the police which allowed them to obtain a warrant. We don't know all the details, so we cannot assume the police were in the wrong, as SOME people seem to do at ANY police action.


We also have things called warrants issued by judges. Does anyone know if there was a warrant issued for the organizers of this party? The point is that cops don't just do shit like this for no reason, at least not frequently. Why you ask? Becuase there is a legal system here that protects our rights. Police can still be sued for doing the 'wrong' thing and frequently are. They are often sued for violating civil rights and sometimes they lose. Is this fascism? No, the fact that we have a redress of grievance it is the antihisis of fascism.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Let's follow your rationale, where things like 'probable cause' do not exist and police are forbidden to stop people for any reason, forbidden to search, question, detain, or arrest anyone or anything because there is no proof of anything. Guess what happens then? Nothing. Criminals roam free unless they are caught in the act. We have always let the police utilize a judgement when dealing with suspected criminals. That judgement is called probable cause.

And who said this gathering was peaceful? We don't know that. You only assume. Perhaps there was surveillance well before this event of suspected drug dealers who went to the party. Perhaps there was information or witnesses that gave information to the police which allowed them to obtain a warrant. We don't know all the details, so we cannot assume the police were in the wrong, as SOME people seem to do at ANY police action.

We also have things called warrants issued by judges. Does anyone know if there was a warrant issued for the organizers of this party? The point is that cops don't just do shit like this for no reason, at least not frequently. Why you ask? Becuase there is a legal system here that protects our rights. Police can still be sued for doing the 'wrong' thing and frequently are. They are often sued for violating civil rights and sometimes they lose. Is this fascism? No, the fact that we have a redress of grievance it is the antihisis of fascism.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, we don't know more because the police confiscated all of the cameras that were videotaping the event (you can see them doing this on the one tape that was smuggled out)

Now I ask you, as a rational human being, why are the police putting up a wall of media censorship on a raid if they aren't going to beat down first and ask questions later?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Let's follow your rationale, where things like 'probable cause' do not exist and police are forbidden to stop people for any reason, forbidden to search, question, detain, or arrest anyone or anything because there is no proof of anything. Guess what happens then? Nothing. Criminals roam free unless they are caught in the act. We have always let the police utilize a judgement when dealing with suspected criminals. That judgement is called probable cause.[/quote]

We've been here before; there is probable cause that there are lots of drugs at most any given concert (with few exceptions) on any given night. That having been said, as I mentioned earlier, why aren't cops kicking the fuck out of Van Halen fans, if we want to use "probable cause" as an excuse?

And who said this gathering was peaceful? We don't know that. You only assume. Perhaps there was surveillance well before this event of suspected drug dealers who went to the party. Perhaps there was information or witnesses that gave information to the police which allowed them to obtain a warrant. We don't know all the details, so we cannot assume the police were in the wrong, as SOME people seem to do at ANY police action.
Click to expand...

As camoor pointed out, if everything was in the straight and narrow, there ought be no need for the authorities to be so secretive about it. That they were/are arouses suspicion, don't you think?

We also have things called warrants issued by judges. Does anyone know if there was a warrant issued for the organizers of this party? The point is that cops don't just do shit like this for no reason, at least not frequently. Why you ask? Becuase there is a legal system here that protects our rights. Police can still be sued for doing the 'wrong' thing and frequently are. They are often sued for violating civil rights and sometimes they lose. Is this fascism? No, the fact that we have a redress of grievance it is the antihisis of fascism.
Click to expand...

See previous answer; please don't try to attack my arguments assumptions, then follow up by assembling some assumptions of your own as a defense of the police action. It looks poor.
 
As camoor pointed out, if everything was in the straight and narrow, there ought be no need for the authorities to be so secretive about it. That they were/are arouses suspicion, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I generally agree with your argument, but honestly, how often do police give out all the info for a raid? There isn't national attention on this or anything.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I generally agree with your argument, but honestly, how often do police give out all the info for a raid? There isn't national attention on this or anything.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between the police holding a press conference about each raid and having the authorities actively telling each person with a camera to "shut it off, and give me the tape".
 
[quote name='camoor']There is a difference between the police holding a press conference about each raid and having the authorities actively telling each person with a camera to "shut it off, and give me the tape".[/QUOTE]

But I think he was talking about why they've been so quiet after the raid.
 
[quote name='camoor']There is a difference between the police holding a press conference about each raid and having the authorities actively telling each person with a camera to "shut it off, and give me the tape".[/QUOTE]

I was intending to stay out of this all together, but you do realize that if cameras were filming during the party, which I'm only assuming most were, it can be seized as evidence and review the tape for any potential illegal activities. Also I only watched the thing once or twice and don't recall anyone saying that, but even so my guess that is a cell phone camera or something of the sort, because for any modern camcorder that's some pretty bad resolution.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I was intending to stay out of this all together, but you do realize that if cameras were filming during the party, which I'm only assuming most were, it can be seized as evidence and review the tape for any potential illegal activities. Also I only watched the thing once or twice and don't recall anyone saying that, but even so my guess that is a cell phone camera or something of the sort, because for any modern camcorder that's some pretty bad resolution.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the State always finds a way to justify it's tactics. I'm sure the police "requests" had nothing to do with the "Rodney King" phenomenon.

All I'm saying is that if it is necessary to use force to quell a violent riot (of which there is NO evidence of in the tape), then shouldn't the police be so busy that they don't have time to worry about evidence gathering?
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes, the State always finds a way to justify it's tactics. I'm sure the police "requests" had nothing to do with the "Rodney King" phenomenon.

All I'm saying is that if it is necessary to use force to quell a violent riot (of which there is NO evidence of in the tape), then shouldn't the police be so busy that they don't have time to worry about evidence gathering?[/QUOTE]

Heh, well, it doesn't matter anymore at this point as cops who arrested a man for videotaping them were ordered by a federal judge to pay $35,000 in compensatory and $6000 in punitive damages. According to the article (as well as the linked PDF file), the court found the guy's first/fourth amendment right were violated.

It states "The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny...Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002.... Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech....We find that defendants are liable under § 1983 for violating Robinson's Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unlawful seizure..."

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/26/cops_have_to_pay_41k.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top