UT: Party crashed by SWAT cops

[thorn726]

Ha! And if they had shut the place down the instant it reached 251, we would have cries of jack booted thuggery.

that is so funny and not well thought out, i keep seeing it. duh, no not 251, but how about when it hit 500?? 1550 is WAY over.

they figured the more they let in , the bigger the bust.
"REmember = the bigger the bust, the bigger the boost!" =sgt stedanko

 

[joab]

Yes, the cameraman was arrested after refusing to leave.
The herky jerky motions of the camera was him being taken into custody.

Here's my question.
If they were restraining him to get his camera, why did they not secure his camera?

Why did they not arrest the guy that grabbed up the camera?
There were plenty of cops standing right there, as evidenced in the video.

If I was trying to suppress evidence I would most likely try to gain physical control of the evidence not just the guy holding it.

Some of you LEOs should be able to answer this one.
If you are taking someone into custody, are you required to safeguard items in their hands, that are not pertinent to the arrest.

 

[joab]

1550 is WAY over.

Again one source, the ravers, says 1500
Another, the newspaper, says about 400. Most others say simply more than 250

 

[Coronach]

Some of you LEOs should be able to answer this one.
If you are taking someone into custody, are you required to safeguard items in their hands, that are not pertinent to the arrest.

If at all possible, yes. Absolutely. It is their property. The problem is that in a crowd-control situation, that is not always possible, especially if someone starts discarding property before you have them in custody, or if a riot is going on. Your first concern is to get the person safely in cuffs and out of the area, since their safety is now your responsibility. Since I obviously didn't catch the arrest part of that, I cannot say for sure what happened with the camera. One possibility is that he handed it to a friend, or indicated that the person who did take it could take it. That is completely routine. "Hey, let Bob have my car keys and my wallet."

And Thorn? OK. What number do you personally feel is reasonable for the police to go to before they should bust the illicit gathering? 251? 300? 400? 500? Point is, no matter what arbitrary number you pick, someone is going to think it is too low (and thus the police are being jerks for busting a small gathering that was no problem at all) and some will think it is too large (thus the police let the situation go to hell in a bucket before they did anything).

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Also, let's play our favorite game, Perfectly Reasonable Assumption:

These are assumptions. They are not facts.

Assumption 1. The cops wait until they get a reasonable amount over the 250 limit to make the decision to go in.

Assumption 2. Rather than waste everyone's time and money, they don't dial up and stage the SWAT and multi-agency response until they know they are going to go in.

Assumption 3. While the boys in blue (and surplus woodland camo) are gearing up, which will take a while, people continue to arrive at the Rave.

These assumptions would explain why the decision to bust the gathering might happen at (say) 400, and actually be executed by the time it reached 1000+.

Did that happen? No idea. I wasn't there. My only point is that we don't know a heck of a lot more about this than we do know.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

they figured the more they let in , the bigger the bust.

Actually, the conventional wisdom of this is backwards. If you have 90 cops and 1,500 people, you will end up arresting very few people, because most of your manpower is focused on getting the crowd safely dispersed. You only end up arresting those that are making that task difficult.

If you have 90 cops and 251 people, you can play Drug Warrior a lot better, and snatch up more people for possession and other minor infractions.

So, if they really wanted to just make a huge bust, they would have gone in right away, when you could easily control the crowd, and when all the dealers present still had their maximum weight on them.

Instead, they seemed more concerned about the size and the activity of the crowd than making a massive bust, based upon my (admittedly incomplete) read of the way things went down.

Mike

 

[GigaBuist]

Joab, after going through the video about 20 times today I admit that you are correct with the audio and with the actions of the camera man.

 

[Ian]

The number of people is/was irrelevant, as a permit wasn't apparetnly needed at all, given further study of the statutes:

A county ordinance specifies exactly the circumstances under which a mass gathering permit must be obtained from the Utah County Commission, and when a permit is not required. No person may host a gathering "of an actual or reasonably anticipated assembly of 250 or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for 12 or more consecutive hours" unless the host has a license, the ordinance reads.

The electronic beats at the rave began thumping at 9 p.m. Saturday. We cannot know exactly how long the party would have gone if police hadn't hammered down. But we do know a few things. We know, for example, that the promoter's agreement with the sound technicians was to end the show at 6:30 a.m. Sunday, as dawn approached. Privately contracted security personnel confirmed that they, too, were scheduled for that time period.

So the concert was intended for nine-and-a-half hours, well inside the 12-hour limit. It was a business proposition, and that was the deal.

In painting a picture that the gathering violated county public assembly codes, Tracy misrepresents not only the facts in Diamond Fork but distorts the proper role of law enforcement. We hope he understands his limitations as an officer of civil government.

Tracy said that authorities reasonably anticipated a crowd of thousands and expected partygoers to linger to 9 a.m. and beyond. "People are up all night partying hard and have a camping area," he said. "If you've been up since 9 o'clock the night before, we are assuming you're not going to jump right up and get out of there, and will exceed the 12-hour period."

Read that carefully again, with particular attention to "we are assuming." Tracy is saying that the 12-hour ordinance was violated because law enforcement, not the event host, anticipated the gathering would last more than 12 hours. This is an unjustified and even dangerous view.

http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=63032

 

[beerslurpy]

Ah good, the lawyers have gotten involved.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In his defense, he probably was unaware that the officer said that. You cannot hear what everyone says at these things. And reporting your errant use of the word "ass" is pretty low on the list of things to do post event.

True.

But as a professional police officer (the chief, no less), should he not know better than to make a definitive statement about which he does not have first hand knowledge? It's one thing to state "We train our officers not to use profanity." That may be true, and if so can be documented.

When there are 90 officers from different agencies participating, and the chief was either on the sidelines, in a command vehicle, or (more likely) home having a beer, he clearly could not have been observing every officer's conduct for the entire duration of the incident. To then make a blanket, unequivocal statement that "no officer used profanity" is ... to put it plainly ... STUPID

 

[Aguila Blanca]

1. The festival organizer states that he was unaware of the need for a certain permit. That's not necessarily the truth. People have been known to try and just fly under radar. Yes, including applying for some but not all required permits, and relying on the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. C'mon. This is government, after all. That's probably a pretty safe bet.

I disagree.

Coronach, this is well below your normal standard of reason. I don't see this as a "safe bet" at all. Various jurisdictions all over this country have all kinds of arcane and esoteric regulations, and it's unfair to expect ordinary citizens to know what those regulations are and how they overlap and intermesh. Government officials, on the other hand, should have at least some passing knowledge of such things. If a promotor shows up and takes out a permit for an event, I don't think it's unreasonable that if another office or department requires a parallel or overlapping permit, someone in office number one should TELL him he needs another permit.

I also think that if the police knew, or thought they knew, that a permit was required and had not been procured, the reasonable thing to do would be to pick up the phone and inform the promotor that he was lacking a required permit, and that he would not be allowed to hold the event unless/until he procured the required permit.

Remember that pesky Constitution thing a bunch of old guys wrote a number of years ago? There's something in there about a presumption of innocence. Particularly when someone has gone to the trouble of securing one permit for an event, I don't think there is any justification whatsoever (in the absence of any evidence) to assume that he deliberately failed to procure a parallel permit for the same event from some other office or agency.

 

[Coronach]

My comment about the festival organizer "claiming" ignorance over the permit issue was meant to display that this was a claim, and little more. It's his side of the story. It is just as possible that he was informed by the issuing authorities that he needed other permits, said "Yeah, I'll get right on that" and never did. It's also possible that he never knew at all.

The "safe bet" comment was merely meant to poke fun at the tendency of government to be disorganized and for one department to have no clue what other departments were doing. I was saying it was a safe bet for the organizer to get one permit and not the other, because people in governments tend to take the "it's not my job" position and never communicate anything to anyone unless required to do so.

Given Ian's latest cite, I'm now curious how they intend to make PC for the permit violation, period. It would require a pretty proven track record of these events to violate the 12 hour window when scheduled to stop at 9.5 hours, and possibly might even require a track record of events organized by this particular organizer doing so. Note that, IIRC, cases such as this are determined by preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Any lawyers want to chime in?

Mike

 

[MechAg94]

There can be a lot money in running parties like this. The organizer could have found out about the regulations easily enough. Ignorance is no excuse. They were planning this for quite a while. (assuming they didn't have what they needed)

Regardless of the permit, if the police had undercover officers confirm illegal activity going on, there was still pleny of justification to shut down the party and make arrests. I have no problem with that. EVERYONE affected by police in a situation like this ALWAYS cries foul and claims abuse.

I am or was with a group that put on parties a couple times a year in Houston. We always hired off-duty police officers in uniform to run security. If anyone is causing problems, you have the people on site to take care of it. It always worked well for us. Of course, those parties were mostly a young professional crowd not a teenager event.

 

[thorn726]

Point is, no matter what arbitrary number you pick, someone is going to think it is too low

i just dont buy that, in particular that it matters if someone thinks the # is too low. if they are right, they are right.
there had to be something more reasonable- however, if the number present really was only 400, well ok, that actually sounds fair so maybe they did handle it about right. i would guess the actualy # present to be in between for error. the promoters would know for sure because they Always count, helps keep track of the $$. but they might lie at this point.

legally, since that is all that matters anyway, Law- why nOT just go in at 251?

wouldnt that have brought less publicity/ problems than this mess?

really funny LEs are worried about argueing over how many over the limit, but NOT worried about aruging why they were so heavy with their actions.......
again, seems like htey figure , well we let this thing get huge, then we will be justified going in all JBT. seems a common govt tactic...........

 

[Coronach]

But as a professional police officer (the chief, no less), should he not know better than to make a definitive statement about which he does not have first hand knowledge? It's one thing to state "We train our officers not to use profanity." That may be true, and if so can be documented.

When there are 90 officers from different agencies participating, and the chief was either on the sidelines, in a command vehicle, or (more likely) home having a beer, he clearly could not have been observing every officer's conduct for the entire duration of the incident. To then make a blanket, unequivocal statement that "no officer used profanity" is ... to put it plainly ... STUPID

Agreed.

 

[thorn726]

ha- i have to admit the whole profanity issue makes me laugh, especially as a NYer. i know in some places there are laws etc, but really, i just laugh at the idea of that being anything.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

My youngest brother is a cop, so don't take this a cop bashing. I live in Utah, about 25-30 miles from where this party was, and am very familiair with the area.

Regardless of your personal thoughts on drug legalization and partying, this was WAY overdone. 90 officers in swat gear against 250 teenagers? Nice, real nice.

The very next trip to the local range, what do I see but the local SWAT team(in full gear) practicing on targets depicting women as the bad guys. EVERYONE in the gunstore saw the not-so-funny angle to this. First minors-now women, nice once again.

At the very least our county officials have a PR nightmare. If what I am reading and hearing turns out correct, the county sherriff may just have lost his next election.

Sad- My grandfather was a "peace officer", now officers are "law enforcement". There is a BIG difference.

 

[Coronach]

really funny LEs are worried about argueing over how many over the limit, but NOT worried about aruging why they were so heavy with their actions.......

They're two separate issues. The decision to bust the party and the tactics used to do it are two distinct (though related) matters. I have no practical experience with making the decision to shut down an event like this (I'm so far down the food chain I have plankton bites on my arse). But, thanks to our local college campus and a few high publicity events, I have more experience than I would really like to have in actually executing the decision to shut down an out-of-control party.

As such, I have no problems defending the actions of the police in their choice of tactics, as it all seems rather sound from where I sit (new information could change that). Where I will freely admit there is room for debate is in the decision to go in at all. As such, discussions of numbers over a permit limit are very on-point.

Mike

 

[gunsmith]

every Raver I have met votes for the police state

I have never met a Raver who didn't think it was ok for "regular" people to own & carry guns, 99.9% of the "ravers" who got out to vote ended up voting for Kerry.
I have yet to meet a "raver" who is in favor of the 2nd amendment.
Idiot ravers got exactly what they voted for!
They're all for gun control, well guess what kiddies? gun control minus gun equals control.
If you vote for control then don't whine when you get it.

 

[thorn726]

Gunsmith i think you might have worded the first sentence wrong there or what???

anyway, well - there are probably about 4 of us, no really, a few more than you think.

"I have yet to meet a "raver" who is in favor of the 2nd amendment."

ive gotten a few people to think about it a little, that's about all.

Where I will freely admit there is room for debate is in the decision to go in at all. As such, discussions of numbers over a permit limit are very on-point.

yeah ok, anyway i still would hold that it makes more sense to go in as soon as they possibly could regardless of public opinion.

but at this point i want to see did they really violate the terms= quite an argument here, the music, the actual event , was only for 9 hours. THAT is what people paid for.

so it comes to the police ASSUMED these people "would probably not go home" and eventually break the law.

NICE. hey- that guy with the guns in his house, he MIGHT shoot someone some day! better go get him!

at some point the "out of control" needs to be dropped. this party was not out of control. unless every large group of people is by definition out of control?

where are the injuries they were giving each other, the pre cops riot? it was just a big party.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Where was all this Police power at Woodstock Gee UTis bating a 100% using swat and choppers to chase teen age shop lifters and this. Great state, Somebody better reel in these JBT This is getting out of hand. What ever happened to Protect and Serve. Hilter may be dead but his troops are alive and well

 

[thorn726]

actually i cant say i wouldnt laugh a whole lot if the cops decided to come down on the burning man thing going on right now in NV-

by UT standards, they pretty much have reason, only there are about 35000 there

 

[joab]

Where was all this Police power at Woodstock

Woodstock wasn't held in Utah, if it was then maybe there would have been no incident to inspire your comment.

Hilter may be dead but his troops are alive and well

And of course the obligatory credibility diminishing Nazi storm trooper reference

 

[beerslurpy]

There is obviously a problem here, but I dont think that it rises to the level of facism just yet.

I dont think the riot gear or the dogs were necessary. I can countenance sniffing dogs but not attacking dogs in this situation. Then again, I am not the chief of police, and I will not have my feet held in the fire when the lawyers counterattack.

This last stage of repercussions is what separates us from facism. Police here can behave in stormtrooperesque fashion, but eventually the buck stops somewhere- just ask the Houston Chief of Police.

 

[Coronach]

but at this point i want to see did they really violate the terms= quite an argument here, the music, the actual event , was only for 9 hours. THAT is what people paid for.

so it comes to the police ASSUMED these people "would probably not go home" and eventually break the law.

I want to see the case for that as well. I think that you might be able to articulate it, provided you have enough evidence of similar events being "planned" for 9 hours but going for 12+ (assuming the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence...I don't think you'll even get close if it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt), but I agree that they really undermine their case if the rave was only scheduled for 9 hours.

Mike