(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Utah National Guard break up a legal, insured rave - and when the crowd do not resist and begin to disperse quietly, they release dogs, fire tear gas, and begin beating anyone taking pictures and confiscating the cameras.

They didn't get them all.

Hey, look, eyewitness accounts and the official version in the Salt Lake City Tribune, courtesy of (surprise, surprise) Fox News Channel 13.

But, hey, just watch the video.

Comments

Recompressed the video, plus utah contacts

[(Anonymous)]

Hi all,

I've re-compressed the video as a smaller mpg and hosted it on my own site, along with contact information for utah decision makers in case anyone else wants to make a stink.

My feeling is that if the Utah County Sheriff's Office knows that the World Is Watching, they (and other rural law enforcement jurisdictions) won't try to pull this sort of backwoods heavy-handed crap.

http://www.queviva.net/utah2005

[speck.livejournal.com]

:(

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Ah ... the smell of fascism in the afternoon ...

[a-invi.livejournal.com]

That is a really cool icon ;:)

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Big deal. Based on the footage shown? Big deal.

Any reason for the people being restrained was not caught on camera. The camera turned, and they were being restrained. More than likely, they took a shot at the guys with guns. Legal and insured means nothing, if you start passing around drugs.

I know folks who go to those types of raves. They're the types who claim 'police brutality', if a cop gives them a passing glance. I would call bullshit on 95 percent of the stories coming out of this. Excessive? Maybe. But people who are into drugs are criminals. And many of these people frequent raves. A show of force to discourage criminals from being violent and taking lives is perfectly acceptable.

[surrealestate22.livejournal.com]

i've been to plenty of illegal parties that get shut down (it happens quite often, but hey, whatever) for one reason or another, and let me tell you it NEVER takes assualt rifles, swat gear, and tear gas. you don't see them swarming the red zone for coke or rock concerts for pot...

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Why? Is it unreasonable to expect that criminals (drug users) might be armed, and use force to try and escape capture? When law enforcement or military (referring to the military as it is being used in a domestic capacity - not an actual military operation) raid a place, they do it with overwhelming force and speed. They do that so that they DON'T have to resort to lethal force - by giving the criminals an opportunity to react.

They shout. They put people on the ground and in handcuffs. It is a valid psychological tactic to keep things as non-lethal as possible. It's unfortunate that some innocent citizens got caught up in the raid. But I'm fairly certain that almost everyone there was likely aware of illegal activities that might have been going on.

[surrealestate22.livejournal.com]

no point in repeating myself. see above.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Read some material regarding LE tactics (from a reputable source, please). Then come back and try again. You don't know what you're talking about.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm not questioning that what they did was good tactics, given the desire to raid a rave and arrest dangerous criminals.

I'm questioning the assertion that there *were* dangerous criminals, that the raid was planned and executed based on a real belief that there were dangerous criminals, that the force was justified and only applied to people resisting - and when the official story contains verifiable lies AND there's evidence that the cops did further illegal things to try to make sure their story was the only one, I feel that this questioning is entirely justified.

[surrealestate22.livejournal.com]

and you were able to gather that from such a short reply? amazing.

i guess the swat team should come *every* time there's a criminal who might be perceived as a threat. i'm sure mr. board director won't come nicely after he's embezzled millions from his shareholders!

[a-invi.livejournal.com]

Where is your evidence that anyone at the rave other than the cops were being violent? There is none.
I happen to go to raves, occasinally, and i'd say that the vast majority of people who frequent such places are going to dance and have a good time, peacefully and in harmony with naturee and their fellows.
Man, that is such a blight. Gotta wipe it out.
I've also had friends who were police officers. We are all part of the same human family.
Oh and that dreaded marijuana. grows in ditches, and... causes the munchies?? Also the study that claimed ecstacy causes holes in the brain has been withdrawn. Of course that didn't get the mass coverage of the original, faulty story. i'm sure federally approved stuff like vioxx and aspartame is much better for ya. (because the tv tells you so)
But yeah these kids are a real threat to our sovereignity. We should lock up anyone who likes to liquid to techno. Gosh-durned freeks. They are gonna bring the walls of tha yoonaverse itsalf down apon us.
...If you jaywalk or go 5 over you are technically a criminal too. i'm sure that despite your best intentions, you too, my friend, have broken a law or two in your existence.
..As if a criminal who is set on taking a life would be dissuaded by seeing some cops bust up an outdoor dance party. Oh yEah Man,sure...!

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Where is your evidence that the police used unreasonable force? There is none. They were not running around beating people. They were using reasonable restraint techniques. Also, there was no plan to use tear gas - as none of them are wearing gas masks or other protective gear. Shoving a cop is violence. Spitting on them, tossing stuff on them, etc, are all considered assault. Whenever a group of people claiming that they are assembling in 'peace and harmony' get together, you can bet that there are idiots amongst them who will engage in those types of activities.

The drugs are illegal, period. If you use them, you're a criminal. If you traffic in them, you're trash. Pot is harmless? Right. So then why are there so many gang killings and law enforcement killings connected to it? Can you get me drunk by having a beer while standing next to me? Because potheads smoking up can potentially get me high. That is assault, as far as I'm concerned I'll make you a deal: You can be a pothead, and I can punch you in the head in self-defense if I so much as smell it on you. Fair?

Ooooh. Ecstasy is harmless! Hyperthermia isn't a familiar term for you, is it? Neurotoxicity of the drug hasn't been proven, or disproven. But all signs of testing in non-human primates indicates that the drug is extremely unsafe.

Of course I have broken laws. But there are different classes of laws for a reason. Taking drugs is a serious offence, because you put not only yourself but others at risk as well. Drugs are also the direct cause of many violent acts. Home invasions to steal drugs and other items to pay for their drugs. I've seen potheads and people who take ecstasy regularly. They aren't all there.

Criminals panic. If they see the police coming and they feel cornered, they will likely take rash actions. If the LE unit comes in hard and fast and takes people down before they have the chance to react, that threat is inherently reduced. Criminals don't normally go after police officers. But if they feel that they'll go to jail for a good long time, they will often try and fight or run. You're advocating that LE units should be nice and fluffy and friendly to criminals, just on the off chance that they aren't violent? Convenient, since it isn't your life on the line every day, working for a drug interdiction team.

[a-invi.livejournal.com]

You're blaming gang killings on pot? Wow.
You obviosly are basing all your beliefs upon what you see on your filtered news networks instead of personal experience. Anyone who knows anything will tell you that pot mellows people out. There are many much, much more hazardous drugs, legal through prescription, that cause much worse distortions of reality. Alcohol is responsible for millions of deaths yet is still legal. WHy the double standards.
Because the drug war is a front.
All the problems you speak of, which are valid, are easier solved with legalisation. It's been proven time and time again. If you do your research, you will find that our country was founded on hemp and ganja was demonized by government propoganda at the behe$t of big biusiness (namely duPont) because of a bill that was going to transfer all paper production to hemp (more economical in many ways) thereby rendering duPont's treepaper business passe.
And i still don't buy that some ecstacy dealer is going to confront a slew of officers with violence. What's with the preemptive strike mindset everywhere? (do before done unto)

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. I'm basing it on the firsthand experience of a former DEA drug interdiction officer, who has been shot at more times than you can imagine. The guy is now a tactical firearms instructor, and has far more insight into this particular topic than anyone else I have seen comment on it.

There are numerous home invasions, killings, and violence when it comes to pot. Organized crime is so heavily involved in it, that it isn't funny. I don't buy the whole conspiracy thing when it comes to pot.

I agree that alcohol abuse and other forms of drug abuse are a problem. But they are legal. Once pot is legal, talk to me again. As far as I'm concerned, people who use illegal drugs are criminals. People who traffic in them are worse. I've seen what 'harmless' drugs like pot and ecstasy do to people. The 'harmless' arguement is BS.

You don't buy that a criminal who is happily breaking some fairly stringent laws might carry a weapon and use it to try and evade capture? Really? Because it happens with drug dealers and LEOs during raids all of the time. If it were a pre-emptive strike, they'd put bullets in peoples heads. Here, they are just taking precautions.

[(Anonymous)]

One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/22/13030/7546

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

*Laughs*

Yeah, dude. That's an unbiased 'article', alright. And it is full of bullshit. In groups of one or two? Yeah, I could see some inappropriate conduct from the police. 90 LE professionals, many with tactical training? Bullshit. The promoter is spewing bullshit from his mouth, because he knows that people will buy into it. I might have had /some/ sympathy for him before this.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> But people who are into drugs are criminals. And many of these people
> frequent raves. A show of force to discourage criminals from being violent
> and taking lives is perfectly acceptable.

When was the last time you saw a violent *raver*? When was the last time you heard of a 50 Cent concert being raided, when they *know* a good chunk of the audience is high, dealing, *and* armed?

And when the official story contains verifiable falsehoods (we didn't swear at them, nobody was kicked, the owner of the property called to report 400 trespassers) and includes such gems as arresting the security guards for confiscating drugs and confiscating cameras belonging to people who have not committed crimes - and beating the people who use them?

No, they needed to clobber the DANGEROUS harmless unarmed people to get a couple of people who might be criminals - and take all the cameras watching.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

When someone is high on drugs (I don't care whether it is pot or ecstasy), they aren't thinking straight. Raves (not all, I'm sure - but enough) have a lot of drug dealing going on. If you can nail the dealers to the wall and track down the suppliers, then excellent.

I look at this like I look at the techniques used for hostage rescue. You restrain the hostages (innocent ravers), because you don't know if the HT(s) (drug dealers) are trying to conceal themselves amongst the crowd. Until people are searched and cleared, the area and people in it remain a threat.

How do you know that they're harmless? It looked like a fairly large crowd, in low-light conditions. Could you see if one of them was carrying a pistol? What about any of them? I sure wouldn't be able to.

Obviously, something caused this raid to be initiated. You don't assemble expensive tactical operations for kicks. So randomly going in to concerts is a poor comparison. I'm sure that if they had sufficient probable cause, or a specific tip to go on, that they'd do it. And rightfully so.

And again, I didn't see much clobbering going on. I saw people resisting arrest, which required multiple personnel to help restrain them with minimal force. And they weren't going after large groups. They were going after specific individuals, suggesting strongly that those individuals had done something to deserve it. Assault, blatantly having drugs displayed, etc.

[sadslacker.livejournal.com]

I notice in your replies, you seem to avoid discussing the illegal suppression of filming and the illegal confiscation of said film. Police have no right to interfere with the citizens not directly under arrest if they choose to stand off to the side and film. It is not obstructing justice in any way(the excuse I've personally heard a columbus cop try to use) nor does it violate any rights of those being arrested. The only legal reason they could have to confiscate film is if it is possible that it could be evidence and only if the filmer was being arrested. I sincerely doubt that anyone was selling drugs while they were pinned to the ground, so the footage really can't be seen that way as well.
The very fact that the authorities in this situation attempted to suppress footage that would stand legally in court as evidence of the arrests themselves leads me to distrust their motives, techniques and execution. If what they are doing was legal and proper, taping it would do nothing but further protect them if any of the arrestees complained after the fact of wrong doing. Much like the surveillance cameras placed in cruisers now.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. Folks are allowed to film if they want and aren't interfering. But as you mentioned, the videos likely contain footage of illegal activities. And actually, they /can/ seize that type of thing without arresting the person carrying it. At least in Canada. There merely needs to be reason to believe that the footage contains illegal activities that are related to the investigation.

[sadslacker.livejournal.com]

I did some checking, the news report is a definite farce. Here is the booking records for the 24 hour period that the rave occured during. Notice the lack of weapons charges or even rampant drugs charges for that matter? This was certainly a dangerous event that required armed troops to raid.
http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Sheriff/BookingDateSearchResults.asp?date=08212005&Submit2=Submit

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Armed LEOs. And I wouldn't be surprised if suspects were booked elsewhere.

[sadslacker.livejournal.com]

Half the people on that list were rave goers. That is the county sheriff's office. I find it difficult to believe that in a rural county, there would be more than one place large enough to book multiple people, or that they would ship people to another county to book them, considering that would be a different jurisdiction.
To cut down on replies, I will address your other post here too. The US has pretty strict controls even in the Bush Age concerning unlawful search and seizure. Also speaking of Bush, I find it pretty coincendental that a day before a Bush visit to that area, the local law enforcement is making a big show of force against a crowd. Especially when the GRAMA records indicate only two felony arrests and 60 total arrests out of hundreds of people there. Especially interesting is 75% of all charges are for disorderly conduct (umm..dancing on private property?) and/or they were arrested for resisting arrest(say that three times out loud and see if it begins to sound wierd). I don't know about Canada but in the US those charges are typically what you end up with when you really haven't done anything, but they want to arrest you. It's impossible to really prove your innocence as it's generally your word vrs theirs. In the recent past, you will find alot of Legal Observers being arrested for that and their camera equipment confiscated. Legal Observers are individuals, often studying to be or are lawyers, who will appear during planned demonstrations. They stand well away from the demonstrators, wear big signs that declare what they are, avoid any contact with said demonstrators but chronicle how the police deal with the demonstrators using film.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

It depends. They might not have the prisoner intake capacity to do it all themselves. I don't know the details regarding their specific system, so I cannot really comment.

Resisting arrest is sometimes abused in Canada as well. But often it is warranted. People who offer resistance to them are resisting. Police officers are human beings at the end of the day, and don't appreciate people who are making their jobs more difficult - any more than a clerk in a store who is dealing with an abusive customer.

I'm not saying that police powers are /never/ abused. Or that police actions are /always/ warranted. Merely that people feel comfortable always assigning full blame for any incident to LEOs. Do you think that any of the ravers who tossed stuff at the police or had drugs are going to tell the truth about the incident?