UT: Party crashed by SWAT cops

[Ian]

Rave parties by definition involve drugs

Um, no, actually they don't.

If an undercover cop can buy some drugs on a street corner, is the standard response shutting down the street?

The issue isn't drugs, the issue is that a helicopter and 90 cops in battle gear and rifles were called in to shut down a dance party. It doesn't matter if big parties have "gotten out of hand" before, because of the theoretical assumption of innocence until someone is proven guilty of something. Plenty of political party conventions have "gotten out of hand", but you don't see them being shut down preemptively, do you?

 

[Shane333]

Getting out of hand? Sure. For example, when the police broke up this rave party at Diamond Fork they found a girl who had OD'd on drugs.

Fortunately, there have been relatively few raves in Utah County. Most of them take place north of us in Salt Lake County.

The problem with rave parties are:
1. Drugs. Most of us parents don't want our kids going to parties where illegal drugs are openly distributed.

2. Usually there is a large number of underage kids (under 18) who are present at these events. Besides the drugs there is the problem of alcohol being administered to minors.

3. Rave parties are notorious for sexual misconduct. By that I'm referring to many forms of sexual assault ranging from uninvited fondling to outright rape.


I understand that for many people on this forum the three things I mentioned above aren't important...at least, they don't feel that they merit law enforcement. I, however, feel that the reasons I mentioned do merit law enforcement. The vast majority of the Utah County community agree with me.

I am not defending brutal police tactics, if any. All I'm saying is that rave parties are bad news and should be shut down where possible. One strong indicator that rave parties aren't benign is the fact that the location of these parties is kept secret until the last minute. If it was a "public gathering" they'd be broadcasting the location as early as possible, not hiding it like it's a dirty secret (which it is).

 

[Shane333]

Ian, your answer shows your ignorance regarding "rave parties". This wasn't a dance party, it was a rave party. There's a difference and you don't seem to know about it.

If an undercover cop finds a drug dealer they don't have to shut down the street, just shut down the dealer and possibly arrest the customers for posession.

If an officer finds an illegal brothel, they shut down the brothel and can arrest the pimps, prostitutes and the "johns".

If police find a rave they can arrest the drug dealers/rave organizers, and arrest any of the rave attendees who are found in posession of illegal drugs. They can also arrest the attendees who intentionally interfere with shutting down the rave.

Clearing up any?

Also, as to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, do you really think that the police didn't have observers at the party to take note of the drug activities before sending in the swat team? Also, the police waited until the size of the gathering broke county business laws. There was plenty of probable cause going on when the police took action. Not seeing this obvious fact shows a severe lack of understanding.

 

[joab]

The police had undercover at the event(according to a previous poster) they also have surveillance tape, they also have the lack of permit to party on public property(not peacefully assemble for a redress of grievances)

The raid could quite probably/possibly been planned contingent on the undercover finding illegal activities going on.
If none was found then they could have gone in and simply shut the party down.

No. It's just my usual, cop hating, inane drivel.

Then there is no need for further discussion

 

[Coronach]

Also, as to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, do you really think that the police didn't have observers at the party to take note of the drug activities before sending in the swat team?

Actually, one of the links detailed them doing just that. Point is, assuming all that info is correct, they had probable cause coming out of their wazoo to take action.

The next question is, should they? This is where the history of similar events comes into play.

If you know there are a bunch of stoners in a house with drugs and they're not bothering anyone, never have and probably never will, it's probably a poor idea to raid the house. Are they breaking the law? Yes. Does anyone care? Pretty much, no. Let sleeping dogs get the munchies.

If you know you have a massive gathering that has reliably in the past lead to sexual assaults, overdoses of children (yes, yes, for the children), violence, injury-accidents from intoxicated driving, near-fatal shootings (a cite), and other problems, I'm gonna go with yes, you probably should shut it down.

It's not a presumption of guilt, it is an awareness of the potential problem coupled with an observation of actual violations of law. If anyone said "we should shut down that party because they've been bad in the past, even though we have no violations of law now", that'd be different. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Mike

 

[Shane333]

Coronach,

Now I see why you're a moderator. You have a lot more tact than I do. Sorry to everyone for the temper. I'm usually more relaxed but I've had a stressful week.

 

[SLCDave]

The issue isn't drugs, the issue is that a helicopter and 90 cops in battle gear and rifles were called in to shut down a dance party. It doesn't matter if big parties have "gotten out of hand" before, because of the theoretical assumption of innocence until someone is proven guilty of something.

Ok, the police observed illegal activity, such as drugs being sold, and a large private gathering without the proper permits. They don't have to use the excuse that things have gotten out of hand before. They witnessed things get out of hand. How can you argue their innocence? I'm assuming the police can count, and as I stated before, they obtained 3 types of illegal drugs within 15 minutes of entering into the illegal gathering. Obviously, even IF the proper permits were in place, security wasn't adequate (which IS a requirement for a gathering this large), so based on even just these 2 infractions, I have no problem with them shutting the event down.

As to the matter of the "helicopter and 90 cops in battle gear", are you familiar with the area? It isn't exactly a well-lit parking lot. The helicopter can be used to help illuminate the area, provide surveilance to the officers on the ground, etc. If the complaint is "more than 250 people without proper permits, I am forced to assume there were more than 250 people there. How many officers is the correct amount to send in this instance, if 90 is too many? If things get out of hand, and too few officers are sent, they get ridiculed for that, if they send too many, they get ridiculed for it anyway. Better to be prepared than not. Maybe the big show of force limited the amount of resistance by the crowd, and saved some lives?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

SLCDave: I think the issue was with troops carrying select-fire rifles, LBE's, kevlar helmets, fully hydration kits, and wearing baclava's (sp?) to cover their faces. Some claim tear gas was used (but then, others claim they saw AK-47's -- don't depend on accurate descriptions of what went down from intimidated and startled kids...)

It's got a different feel than 30 cop cars with uniformed cops would have. Personally, I still have issues with the "good guys" going out of their way to hide their faces. But that's me...

 

[Ian]

Yee-ha, let's ban all partying. After all, it often coincides with drugs, alcohol, and sex. It's for the children y'know...those helpless 17-year-old minors (who we always argue are mature enough to be charged as adults when they do something violent).

I'm getting pissed about the whole issue as well, Shane, so I think it'd be best if I dropped it altogether. There's no progress to be made here.

 

[joab]

I saw the same claim of tear gas, but wouldn't the officers have had gas masks.
The sheriff claims that there were no (full) automatic weapons.
Face covers are pretty common here, they claim that it is for officer protection as some go under cover.
I think it is often for the intimidation factor.

 

[Coronach]

The reasons for the use of helicopters are several-fold:

1. Everyone looks up at the helicopter. It gets one's attention.

2. The PA system in the helicopter is REALLY loud. It is used to make dispersal announcements. You need to tell the people what they are required to do, you can't just expect them to know to leave the area. Furthermore, you need to give the order to disperse and give the crowd a chance to comply prior to using crowd-control ordnance (which, apparently, they didn't have to use). The sound from the helicopter's PA system can reach the whole area, whereas PA systems on the ground are often blocked by structures and even the crowd itself, thus decreasing its range.

3. The chopper is in an excellent position to observe the whole scene. This makes spotting problems and dangerous situations a lot easier.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Yee-ha, let's ban all partying. After all, it often coincides with drugs, alcohol, and sex. It's for the children y'know...those helpless 17-year-old minors (who we always argue are mature enough to be charged as adults when they do something violent).

It is convenient to your position to ignore different portions of the argument for police action at different times, as you have just done here.

First, you ignored the fact that they had current violations of law, preferring to frame the argument as a one of prior history prompting police action.

Now, you ignore the prior history part of this, and characterize the arguments for action as being ones of going after violations of law with no regard to the potential problem the situation causes.

The truth remains that it is both considerations, taken together, that prompt most (I'd never claim all) police responses to such events. Your straw men aside, I still support the general idea of the police acting in these instances, in general. I don't know about in this case in particular.

Mike

 

[R.H. Lee]

I think LEO's have gotten soft. I remember the days when ONE LAPD officer would stop a car full of yahoos and pull them out thru the windwing if they resisted. Times have changed.

 

[Car Knocker]

Yeah, cars don't have wing windows anymore!

 

[GigaBuist]

When I saw this I went on a hunt for information like a Hoover vaccum goes after dirt. Much has been said, but here's what I know at this point:

- The party throwers thought they had the right permits.

- Turns out they had SOME of the permits, lacking the one for a 250+ gathering. Police knew that ahead of time.

- The party was on private land, or was supposed to be.

- The police said the party spilled out onto public land. In the desert -- minor point, but probably has some legal implications.

- Art's Grammaw, forgive me, but after viewing the video the police were not screaming "Shut it down now or I'll take your ass to jail." It was: "Shut it down not or I'll kick your ass in jail."

- In the video you can see the helicopter light come onto the scene, the confusion by the DJ's, and you can't hear anything from the helicopter because of the music. You end up with guys in camo on stage with rifles pronto screaming the above. When they yank the plugs the audio becomes more clear.

- The police didn't wait until it was over 250 people to bust in. It was about 1500 people deep before they went in.

- 60 arrests were made out of 1500 people. That's 4% of participants. Good luck finding any college party with less than that percentage involved in underage drinking.

- There were reports of weapons on the premise, hence their well armed response. No idea of the number of weapons reported, and for all we know at this point it could have been a drug and alcohol free guy that liked the music with a CCW that was spotted. Not saying that's likely, just possible.

- The officers were NOT marked with "POLICE" anywhere on their uniforms -- which looked more like military BDU's to me. Some people there thought it was a joke at first it seems. Can't blame them, I've never seen a military response to a party myself. Until now.

- Within 60 seconds or less of the initial presense of police on the scene they had a woman on the ground with 3 men on top of her. It didn't look good.

- The camera man was backing away from the stage and headed toward the direction the police were pointing him to until he saw the woman on the ground. At that point he BACKS AWAY from it and then you see the fellow in the Baclava telling him to drop the camera. To clarify, if the camera man was facing north taping the stage the police directed him south for a bit and then immediately west. When he saw the girl on the ground he backed up 10-15 feet east to keep his own butt out of the fray -- then he got the "put the camera away" order. Video ends shortly after.

- Question: Why are the police wearing woodland camo in the desert? I know the answer, but you should ask yourself that question I think.

- The "drug of choice" for such activities is MDMA/X/Ecstacy but even then it is (I'm told) a very small number of people that engage in taking it at these things. In all likelyhood the "overdose" of MDMA was actually a regular dose taken by somebody that didn't know enough to keep themselves hydrated while dancing like a fool. It increases your core body temperature, and while dancing on it you obviously sweat a lot. Stupid mistake, really. Not an overdose. Considering the stuff goes for $30-$40 a pill, it's kinda hard to overdose accidentally unless you've got money and a desire to do something stupid.

- MDMA is a serotonin uptake inhibitor, much like the anti-depressants people are so much infatuted with these days. It doesn't make you nuts, just makes you really freaking happy for a while. If there's anybody a cop ever wants to deal with -- it's somebody on THAT stuff. No need for an AR -- just hand them a shiny object while you take them to jail. Seriously.

Carry on.

 

[c_yeager]

The problem with rave parties are:

1. Drugs. Most of us parents don't want our kids going to parties where illegal drugs are openly distributed.

As parents keeping control of your children is YOUR PROBLEM

2. Usually there is a large number of underage kids (under 18) who are present at these events. Besides the drugs there is the problem of alcohol being administered to minors.

see number 1

3. Rave parties are notorious for sexual misconduct. By that I'm referring to many forms of sexual assault ranging from uninvited fondling to outright rape.

Legitimate issue, of course sexual assault and rape are already illegal.

Face covers are pretty common here, they claim that it is for officer protection as some go under cover.
I think it is often for the intimidation factor.

Did you see those three officers on top of that one girl? Could you pick them out of a lineup? Me neither. Cops wear masks for the *exact* same reason as the guy who robs 7-11.

 

[aryfrosty]

Rave??

It is good to understand who one is talking things around with. I have long held that gun folks were good folks. I suspect I may have been too optimistic in that.
It really doesn't matter what sort of label folks hang around their neck. Call yourself libertarian, liberal, conservative...whatever you like. I believe that really is personal business. When you or I cross the line into the "do whatever you want as long as you don't mess with me" mindset we become something different in this world.
I have never seen anything good or useful happen as a result of criminal activity. "Sport" use of illegal drugs is a criminal act. Those of you who call yourselves "libertarian" are always running off at the mouth about how your weak kneed attitudes toward laws are going to save the world. Always you're spouting off about how you are going to pack an area with like-minded people and force political change. Yet you are seldom, if ever, able to wait for your strength to build so that you can make changes...you have to jump right on into what your rights are and how right you are. Put your money where your mouths are. Do your political machinations and then force laws to change to suit your views. I don't believe you'll ever do that because there are too many real believers in freedom who understand that a criminal is a criminal no matter what label he fixes to his lapel.
You folks do have a lot of rights. You have a right to attack my point of view as you wish until your butts fall off. I really don't care. My pride in being a part of a culture which holds freedom dear took a major hit when I saw the many responses posted by "senior members" supporting the dopers who are whining about having their fun stopped.
I have lived my life during some really hard times. I cherish those times...I don't brag about what I did, or what I do...but every hard time has brought a lesson. One of the very first I learned as a young adult was that people who use sport drugs are useless as defenders of any principle or right. They are useless as "watchers" in bad country. They can't be trusted to carry their share of a security or safety load because their life is dedicated to whatever they wany to swallow, inject or inhale. Nearly every time you need to depend on dopers to help in any way they can be found re-dedicating their lives to getting high.
Use your silly dope. Support others who use it. But stay away from me and mine. I despise every one of you who think like that.

 

[joab]

GigaBuist
I think we must have watched different videos

"Shut it down now or I'll take your ass to jail."

"Shut it down not or I'll kick your ass in jail."

Now honestly, which one of these remarks are most likely to be said by a LEO. Hint number 2 sounds too stupid for a 6th grader to utter. actually what I heard was "Shut Up now or I'll take your ass to jail" but I've wrong before

The camera man was backing away from the stage and headed toward the direction the police were pointing him to until he saw the woman on the ground.

No he wasn't after he left the stage he was stationary filming the raid and the cops were ignoring him although they obviously saw him taping

To clarify, if the camera man was facing north taping the stage the police directed him south for a bit and then immediately west.

This was after he waded into the arrest not before

When he saw the girl on the ground he backed up 10-15 feet east to keep his own butt out of the fray

No he didn't he waded into the fray practically. I really couldn't tell if it was a girl,but what I see is the same type of arrest take down you see on cops by cops without masks

Why are the police wearing woodland camo in the desert? I know the answer, but you should ask yourself that question I think.

They got a good deal on surplus uniforms from the army, they ain't using that pattern anymore

60 arrests were made out of 1500 people. That's 4% of participants. Good luck finding any college party with less than that percentage involved in underage drinking.

The ravers say 1500 other sources say 400 Every other source only says more than 250. And not all the arrests were for drinking some were drugs and some for illegal weapons. And not all the people with drugs were arrested, according to officials, drugs were found laying on the ground afterwards

But
If you freeze frame you can clearly see one of the officers arresting the guy on the left has a retractable baton, although it does not look to me like he is beating the guy as is alleged by the ravers, it does prove that the sheriff was wrong about the batons.

There may very well have been police abuse but this video so far does not support that claim and trying to make it will only trivialize future cases of real abuse if it turns out to be miscreants crying about being treated like miscreants

 

[thorn726]

oh so this is THR material, ok. i posted it on APS a few days ago.

if it is ok for this action at this party, it is ok at almost every sporting event and concert.

im kinda burnt on the topic myself, but really good to see most of you realize this is JBT at its finest/

 

[thorn726]

i better at least add- really, you some of you are believing a bunch of nonsense and outright lies about these parties.

funny how gun myths are myths , but all rave myths are fact.

Also, have you guys had problems with these things getting out of hand, Shane?

I am having such a hard time imagine a party getting "out of hand" what the heck IS that?? i guess that's what happens at parties where people drink beer and have a drunken brawl.

maybe things are different in Utah, but having been to parties on both coasts, even in NYC they are the LEAST likely to have a problem bigger than the sound system messing up.

its just not that kind of crowd. there is nothing to get in a fight about.
i dont know how to put it other than this whole "out of control:" thing
BAffles me.

tough for most people to believe, but i would equate a rave getting out of control crazy to a ballet getting out of control crazy.
inconceivable.

the worst i have ever seen is ONe person in a party of 1200 loses it and either leaves pretty fast or people calm them down

 

[Coronach]

I am having such a hard time imagine a party getting "out of hand" what the heck IS that?? i guess that's what happens at parties where people drink beer and have a drunken brawl.

I've been to parties where cars have ended up on their roofs. And no, the cars did not belong to the people who flipped them over. I think that would fit any reasonable person's definition of "out of hand." When you have a drug and alcohol soaked revel that creates a hazard of physical harm to persons or property and involves obvious violations of law, the police have a duty and an obligation to act.

Note: this is a sidebar, based upon Thorn's question. It does not directly address the events of this Rave.

Within 60 seconds or less of the initial presense of police on the scene they had a woman on the ground with 3 men on top of her. It didn't look good.

I assume we're all looking at the same video?

1. You cannot tell from the video when the initial arrival of the police is. I also didn't bother to time it, but 60 seconds seems a bit quick. A minor point, though.

2. I saw two individuals on the ground who were not complying with verbal commands (you could not make out what was being shouted, but it was most likely some version of "put your hands behind your back" or "give me your hands"). I saw no strikes whatsoever. Assuming that the person was arrestable and that they actively resisted (pulling away, wrestling), grounding them and using grappling techniques to place them in handcuffs is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't matter how it looks...multiple cops on one resister is actually far safer for the resister because you can get them under control and cuffed quickly. The longer a wrestling match goes on, the more likely it is that someone gets hurt. Contrary to popular belief, cops really like to avoid that. It's just plain better for everyone.

While an after action review would have to be conducted to determine if the techniques employed were proper, there was nothing on the video that I saw that stood out as being excessive on its face.

3. I missed the baton, but I would not doubt that it was out. I have pulled my baton multiple times on riot duty, but have never struck anyone with it in that context. Also, if someone dives a hand under their body and you cannot get it out for handcuffing, the baton can be used to pry the arm out. Dunno if that is what was going on or not. Also, baton or flashlight?

Mike

 

[joab]

I missed the baton, but I would not doubt that it was out

You have to go almost frame by frame to see it may be the cleaned up DVD quality version will show it better.

It's right after the camera pans over to the people on the ground

 

[thorn726]

OK cars turned over and such??? NEVER at any party ive been to.
these are not violent people. again,. picture a ballet or symphony=
do they erupt into drunken orgies of violence? NOT. netiher do these, if they do , it is incredibly rare, i have never heard of it.
i would think in NYC, where there were occasionally some rude people , that would be some of the wrost. Oakland, CA same thing. worst thing is maybe some gagnster idiot comes thru and steal people's coats.
THAT's how these parties are= you set something on the ground , it is there when you get back!!

well what bothers me most is them screaming "turn the camera off!" at an observer. this is not exactly legal,
they try to make it right by arresting cameraman for something else, but even then, why are they turning off the camera? why is this IMmediately their biggest concern?

WHY did the police need to restrain anyone?

is there any real reason for any of it???

the whole action was so ludicrous, how else could it end but in this kind of craziness. the cops are just grabbing randomly at people, no real reason to any of it.
they wanted a melee. the permit was for 250 people. they wait until there are what 1500>? and then go in, Angry.

in SF, we've had cops show up plenty of times.
WE shut off the music. we hang around, wait for them to decide what is gonna happen, if they tell us to leave , we leave.

we had a guy freak out once on drugs, he runs crazy and hurts himself, they call an ambulance so the cops come in, look around, we all go home.
end of story./

5 cops handle 500 people.

 

[Coronach]

well what bothers me most is them screaming "turn the camera off!" at an observer. this is not exactly legal,
they try to make it right by arresting cameraman for something else, but even then, why are they turning off the camera? why is this IMmediately their biggest concern?

If you read through the thread above, you'll see that this was already discussed. The camera man was allowed to film for quite some time, unmolested. It was not until he started to move towards a group of police wrestling with two people that he was told to leave. He then remained in place, and was finally told to turn off the camera.

The whole point of the police being there is to clear the area. If you are standing in place filming, you are, by definition, not doing the one thing you are required to do at that moment, namely "leaving." Furthermore, the police will not allow someone to stand close by while they are fighting with someone, because every cop who has been on the street for any length of time has experienced the Buddy BackUp, where the drunk and stupid friend of the guy you are currently rodeoing jumps into the fray to Fight The Man and liberate his friend. Then two people go to jail, and sometimes people go to the hospital. That's doubleplusungood.

Also, if he had managed to catch a beat down, the whole "oooh, they made him turn the camera off" angle might sound like it has some merit. What he seemed to catch was a routine grounding and handcuffing of two arrestees. Yawn.

WHY did the police need to restrain anyone?

Because they were placed under arrest. If you read the text of the cites, you'll see that multiple people were arrested for multiple violations. Alas, there are many times when the police place someone under arrest and the arrestee decides that he does not agree with the police, and decides to resist that arrest. There's not much you can do besides grab them and put them in cuffs.

is there any real reason for any of it???

See above.

the whole action was so ludicrous, how else could it end but in this kind of craziness. the cops are just grabbing randomly at people, no real reason to any of it.

Oh, you were there? OK. Please give us your version of what happened. I only saw the film, but in that film I only saw the police grabbing at three people, two of whom were under arrest, and one (the cameraman) who was not following lawful orders to leave the area, and probably could have been arrested, but he suddenly got with the program, said "ok, I'm going" and went. Hardly sounds like a bunch of cops just grabbing at people randomly.

they wanted a melee. the permit was for 250 people. they wait until there are what 1500>? and then go in, Angry.

Ha! And if they had shut the place down the instant it reached 251, we would have cries of jack booted thuggery. They waited until they had an illegally large gathering and took a barometer of that gathering before going in. This would seem to be something that you would want the police to do, tailoring their response or non-response to the actual event, rather than marching around like a bunch of gestapo and shutting down every gathering that doesn't meet the strict letter of the law (read Ian's "lets shut down all partying" comments). But, when they actually do that, they were just letting it get big and large and out of hand, so they could have a brawl.

As usual, the cops are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

in SF, we've had cops show up plenty of times.
WE shut off the music. we hang around, wait for them to decide what is gonna happen, if they tell us to leave , we leave.

we had a guy freak out once on drugs, he runs crazy and hurts himself, they call an ambulance so the cops come in, look around, we all go home.
end of story./

5 cops handle 500 people.

Good for you. That pretty much ensures that the police don't end up arresting you. Sounds like a pretty reasonable response on both sides. In this instance, they had a much larger group of people and a much larger group of cops. The group of cops was larger because they knew that there was going to be a gathering beforehand. Your parties probably got called in when they got loud. If you had elected to not leave, or throw bottles, or start a riot, you would, without a doubt, have seen a different police response.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Hmm. Upon a reread...did they arrest the cameraman? I was under the impression that they didn't, but that they could have. He was well aware of the requirement to leave the area and chose to remain.

Mike