NavyDave Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I was being sarcastic as well And I've been to raves, techo parties while in europe rock, gogo parties here and bad behaviour isnt limited to music genre, though I dont think there will be alot of drunken fight fighs or shootouts at places where classical music or some christian revival revue is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Dont break the law, obey the police, problem solved Yeah, words to live by - uh-huh. Especially if 1) Someone had no idea if they were, or were not, "breaking the law," and 2) Are obeying the police and still get arrested. Especially for the people who were camping at the site, drinking, were ordered to leave, then arrested for drinking and driving. It may come as a shock to some of you, but the police are not correct 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 though I dont think there will be alot of drunken fight fighs or shootouts at places where classical music or some christian revival revueis going on. :laugh: :laugh: I think you might be right! Can you imagine the headline "opera ends in bloodshed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 And I've been to raves, techo parties while in europe rock, gogo parties here and bad behaviour isnt limited to music genre, though I dont think there will be alot of drunken fight fighs or shootouts at places where classical music or some christian revival revueis going on. That is probably true, but those are rather sedate settings. And I admit, I'd find things to be a bit boring if that was our choice of social gatherings. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I wasnt aware that the type, wealth, and class of people was depicted in that article Des, could you point that out to me? Bac, if the police tell someone to cease, or tell them to get on the ground, and that person doesnt do it? Yes, they deserve any beating the police give them. Girls, guys, small, big doesnt matter. Now, if if IF the police went in and simply started swinging the nightsticks without giving people a chance to obey them, then the police should be charged with assault. A good example. I was in Myrtle Beach about 10 years ago and a huge gathering of people got roudy at a collection clubs. The police came (by the dozens) and told everyone to leave. A buddy of mine decided to be a smart ass and yelled "Riot". And was promptly hit with a stick and arrested. And he deserved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I wasnt aware that the type, wealth, and class of people was depicted in that article Des, could you point that out to me?I never claimed it was. Nice strawman though, trying to cry classism to avoid my point. Had this been a event attended by people of means and sufficient age to command credibility.....they'd have been asked nicely to leave....and good luck searching all of them without cause. Bac, if the police tell someone to cease, or tell them to get on the ground, and that person doesnt do it? Yes, they deserve any beating the police give them. Girls, guys, small, big doesnt matter. When a police dog is attacking you, it's likely that you are so concerned with that fact that you don't hear anything else. This is called "reality" but I appreciate the need for little fun to say slogans like "you didn't obey!" that make sense only to people who have never been in situations they now pass judgement on. Also grown men beating a girl that isn't attacking them is an act of cowardice. If it were up to men that did so woudl be immediately found unfit to serve and fired in disgrace....if you could even call them "men" to begin with. Now, if if IF the police went in and simply started swinging the nightsticks without giving people a chance to obey them, then the police should be charged with assault. A good example. I was in Myrtle Beach about 10 years ago and a huge gathering of people got roudy at a collection clubs. The police came (by the dozens) and told everyone to leave. A buddy of mine decided to be a smart ass and yelled "Riot". And was promptly hit with a stick and arrested. And he deserved it. Those cops came in to break up a party, these came to make arrests which means they didn't want people to leave and started tackling people......panic is the easily predictable result of such a tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Bac, if the police tell someone to cease, or tell them to get on the ground, and that person doesnt do it? Yes, they deserve any beating the police give them. Girls, guys, small, big doesnt matter. Kilmer, the police simply can't "beat" someone even for those reasons. And you don't seem to be getting it: Some of the folks who were assaulted didn't do anything, whether it is non-compliance or other wise. I don't care, but you don't wrestle people to the ground, punch them in the head or kick them in the stomach unless they have a weapon or some such. This happened to people who were standing there a second too long or even asked questions of the police officers. And not to mention the tear gas being thrown into the crowd. A couple of quotes from a previously linked page: "I also was witness to the blunt beatings using shoulder rests of weapons. My friend Katie Mercer was hit in the side of the head with an MP5 because a soldier took her camera, and she was trying to recover it from him." The police were grabbing cameras from the hands of people, refusing to return them, then arresting anyone that asked for their camera or cell phone. Hmm, I wonder why they didn't want to be recorded? "Another girl next to me said to one of the soldiers that she didn't know how to get home as they had just arrested her friend. The soldier told her to walk home. My friend tried to grab her to bring her with us, but the soldier began yelling that she had touched him (which she hadn't). WIthin seconds, five soldiers had jumped on her and were literally beating the crap out of this innocent women. She was punched in the face, thrown to the ground, and kicked while down. All for worrying how to get home safely. She is now suing." There IS such a thing as necessary force, Kilmer, inspite of what you believe. This was simply unnecessary force. Now, if if IF the police went in and simply started swinging the nightsticks without giving people a chance to obey them, then the police should be charged with assault. Eyewitnesses said that this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Des, you were the one who opened up that can of worms, not me. So prove it, or just admit you were wrong to say it. The people beat up could have been young, old, wealthy, poor etc. Only YOU were trying to make it a class issue. Bac. If the police hit anyone without reason, they should be held accountable. But I think we all know what happened, and the eye witness accounts are certainly biased. How many people in prison claim they are innocent? I understand that the cops might have been wrong in some cases, why cant you accept that they might have acted appropriately in others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Moral of the story stick to skating rinks and chucky cheese til you are old enough to go to legit social gatherings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 The police are brutal, overbearing, malicious, badge heavy, out of control, coming down way too hard on a peaceful gathering of kids just trying to spend a friendly evening of fun together. Until of course it's your child that OD's, gets raped, killed riding with a drunk driver, etc. Then of course the police aren't doing anything about gatherings like these. I'd rather have proactive than reactive police any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 But I think we all know what happened, and the eye witness accounts are certainly biased. How many people in prison claim they are innocent?I understand that the cops might have been wrong in some cases, why cant you accept that they might have acted appropriately in others? Some folks have footage to support their claims, and multiple eyewitnesses are making the same claims. My problem, Kilmer, from the beginning is that they were raiding a legal gathering. And not only that, but the amount of force they brought with them was overbearing, bound to cause problems, and possibly even make their job more difficult. (And never mind the fact that officers are sworn to uphold the our civil liberties.) I cannot say if they acted appropriately, since such actions would easily get mixed up with all of their other strong-arm tactics. I will concede that, in some cases, there is always a chance they were acting appropriately, but that is outweighed by the reported acts upon other citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 They should beat people just for listening to that music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I am on the side of this argument Baculus. Let's see, 1500 people at a party in the desert in a place called Spanish Fork canyon which is an hour outside of Salt Lake City. That is a somewhat deserted area in the desert if my memory serves me. The party was on private property named Child's Ranch and everyone had the express permission from the owner of the property to be there. Yeah, I am sure they were checking ID's at the gate, had "no guns" signs posted and strickly enforced the no drugs policy they put into place just for the event. Please don't tell me that no criminal activity was going on. Anytime you put 1500 young people together for a party illegal activity is going to happen. And, I agree with Code, would never let any child of mine attend an event like this. Concerning whether these people had money or not probably really didn't matter. Concerning the police beating people, we have to wait for the dust to settle to determine what really happened. Early reports in the media are sometimes not accurate in situations like this. We also don't know if people resisted arrest, were on drugs at time or were attempting to flee arrest. Lastly, how do you know the rave parties in Utah are the same as the ones you attended in this area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Bac, Unless the owner of the property called the police, there were NO unlawful actvities, prehaps activities that the warlord of Utah did not like. Since the government thugs actions seemed intent on enforcing unlawful ordinance, the thugs needed to be protected from any lawful resistence by the property owner or his proxies. Of course, since these particular thugs were the henchmen of the biggest and badest warlord, any lawful resistence will be met with the exercise of the warlord's monopoly on aggressive coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 You guys have to realize all the negative publicity that limelight recieved back in the 90s has had some lasting effects on the way police handle raves. Besides, who still goes to raves??? I'd beat them too-- Its so uncool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 You guys have to realize all the negative publicity that limelight recieved back in the 90s has had some lasting effects on the way police handle raves. Besides, who still goes to raves??? I'd beat them too-- Its so uncool.What the hell don't the police handle violently these days? Maybe I just have really bad experiences with cops but they are either extremely violent, or completely unhelpful and rude. It used to be them putting their lives at risk for us. Now it's going more and more towards them putting our lives at risk because it's unfiar to ask "americas finest" to risk their lives. This isn't even mentioning the trend towards thinking a civilian accidentally killed is his fault for being in a bad situation. This country really is developing a warped view of "service" and the role of government. Suddenly it's civilans who have to bend over backwards to make those choosing to serve have an easier time of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Yeah, words to live by - uh-huh. Especially if 1) Someone had no idea if they were, or were not, "breaking the law," and 2) Are obeying the police and still get arrested. Especially for the people who were camping at the site, drinking, were ordered to leave, then arrested for drinking and driving.It may come as a shock to some of you, but the police are not correct 100% of the time. 1)Ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law. 2) the cops told them to leave. They chose the method by which to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I've read a bunch of the witness accounts and I'd love to know why it seems that the police seemed to be making a point of going after everyone that had cameras there.......that seems a bit strange....unless of course all those witnesses are lying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Kilmer, your argument holds absolutely no water, and you take the other side just to get under people's skin. If you really did think the way you imply, then you'd be a perfect fit for a totalitarian regime. . . Hey, I think the government in Cuba is looking for some recruits, you should go there, you'd fit right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 They should beat people just for listening to that music. amen :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 My only question...Well, not my only question, but probably will result in my opinion on this matter is, why did they take people's cameras and cell phones? I mean, if they're worried about a riot breaking out, why is this a priority? Sounds to me like the police are pissed off from the last time they tried to break up one of these raves unsuccessfully, and went way overboard trying to send a message out to future rave hosts. I don't doubt that there may have been some in the crowd that deserved an a$$ whooping, but I doubt a girl asking for her cell phone back would constitute such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Illegal activity is bound to happen with a large gathering of people, and not just youngsters. Heck, I am sure at a Redskins tailgate you have a few people who are carrying some sort of drug - would you want your tailgate broken up because someone nearby may be smoking a joint (or doing whatever they may be doing)? Especially if you weren't doing it yourself and made sure none of your passengers were carrying or doing it either? In free societies, that is one of the downsides from the perspective of Law and Order: We have no idea if someone in privacy is breaking a law. But that is why we have the Bill of Rights to ideally protect us from overzealous government who want to make that determination with force. That is the good and bad that we get with the idea of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." People go to raves because they are fun, have good electronic music, and there are some nice looking women (from a guy's perspective) in attendence. One person's entertainment is another person's boring evening. Actually, Fred, they did have security there who were confiscating drugs that they saw in use. Also, the only person that is reported to have been arrested for firearms was one of the landowners (who was on private property). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 1)Ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law.2) the cops told them to leave. They chose the method by which to leave. Neither of these give carte blanche to use the means that were described or reported. Darth Tater used the correct term: aggressive coercion. And, regarding the cameras, I ask the same question: Why did the police want them confiscated? That immediately raises suspsicion, at least to me, to why they wouldn't want their actions to be recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 According to the police, they didnt have the necessary permits AND were on public land (at least partially).So the police were right to break it up. And if people decided to resist, they deserved any beatings they got. Dont break the law, obey the police, problem solved. Citizen, where are your papers? He is delaying. Administer the beatings. The one thing that didn't really get touched on is the FAR OUT right wing moral superiority of a lot of folks living in Utah. Would love further comment on this by some board members that live out that way. Loved "a good armored hippie stomp." Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Baculus, I will concede that we are talking about law enforcement officials in Utah. I have no idea if they are good, bad or ugly. Considering what type of people live in the state one has to wonder. However, I will point out that media reports are many time inaccurate concerning these events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.