posted
This is just not right. Here are the Google searches for it, so you can see it's real. Here is the video
Knick of Evol intent puts the night's events into his own words::
Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.
So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool. It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site, the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...
At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the person I was with. I wasn't far off.
The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle. At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on . A few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started yelling that everyone "get the f**k out of here or go to jail". This is where it got really sticky.
No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1), and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of ****ing TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene.
Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other accounts of the night. Now this isnt gossip I heard from some candy raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters mouth..
- 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.
- The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure to be more footage.
- The police were rounding up the staff of the party and the main promoter went up to them with the permit for the show and said "here, I have the permit." The police then said, "no you don't" and ripped the permit out of his hand. Then, they put an assault rifle to his forehead and said "get the f**k out of here right now."
Now.. let's get the facts straight here.
This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.
Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant. The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!! Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE most conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a gross violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this party shut down, so they made it happen. Even though everything about this event was legal. The promoters spent over $ 20,000 on this show and did everything they had to to make it legit, only to have it taken away from them by a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.
This was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed in person. I can't even begin to describe how surreal it was. Helicopters, assault rifles, tear gas, camoflauge-wearing soldiers.... why? Was that really necessary?
This needs to be big news across the USofA. At least in our music scene (edm as a whole)... this could happen to any of us at any time. When we're losing the right to gather peacefully, we're also letting the police set a standard of what we can get away with. And I think that's BULLS***T!
The system f**cked up last night... They broke up a party that was 100% legal and they physically hurt a lot of people there at the same time. The promoters already have 6 lawsuits ready to file with their lawyers and the ACLU is already involved.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rerely agree with the ACLU, but it does appear that civil liberties were seriously violated in this bust. There need to be serious repurcussions towards anyone responsible for this behavior.
I do take offense at the word "neo-con" being thrown about as an epithet towards those the author disagrees with politically. It is kinda like the word "homophobe." It started out meaning one thing, but has since been hijacked and is often used for something completely different.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now the Utah County law enforcement is a bunch of neo-con soldiers?
Also, this is important to note:
quote:Police planned the bust when they discovered that the rave's promoters had not filed for a mass gathering permit through the County Commission office. To have more than 250 at an event without that permit is a violation of the law, [Utah County Sheriff's Sgt. Darren ] Gilbert said.
posted
They did have a permit, Sarcasm: (they say)
Brandon Fullmer, manager of the Uprock Records company that promoted the event, argues that he also obtained the mass gathering permit. He said authorities were denying him a copy of it for proof, but a county official agreed to write a letter verifying it.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and before the annoyance with the word "neo-con" gets too severe...The person who wrote this is just a guy who was there. I really just wanted everyone to get a first hand account of it and then see the news articles. The only reason I think what this guy has to say is important is because he was there-his personal opinions of the event don't matter to me, I just wanted the facts.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the video and didn’t see any police brutality. All I saw was the camera being aimed to people after they were being arrested. And then the camera man being arrested after he had been told to leave multiple times. I bet the police will be telling a totally different story. Raves are known for drugs, so for there to be a drug bust there only makes sense.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the police will tell a different story. They can't exactly say, "Oh, yes, we beat the CRAP outta them junkies! Yeah!"
I am suspicious of them threatening the guy with the camera. If they're not doing anything wrong, why object to the camera?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You’re conducting a drug bust, you’re telling people to get away and leave, he’s not obeying a lawful order. Holding a camera doesn’t make you a member of the press and give you all access to a police area where they are arresting people. Plus don’t the people being arrested have some privacy rights too?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but what makes me suspicious is the way they are absolutely insistent that he put the camera down. This, followed by widespread allegations of excessive force? I'm not saying they did wrong; I'm just saying it smells fishy.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The video doesn't seem to show the police brutality that is being claimed. The quoted account seems very exaggerated. No one running or screaming. Unless there's better footage yet to be revealed, there's really no way to know which side is being more truthful.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll be able to get a clearer picture once certain things are revealed, such as whether the organizers did in fact have a permit and whether the police had a warrant. I do admit that assault rifles do seem a bit excessive. Until then, however, all we can do is speculate as to which side is telling more of the truth than the other.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among those arrested for drug possession were several security guards hired by Fullmer to patrol the event. Guards at security check points confiscated alcohol and drugs as ravers filed into the party, Fullmer said.
That's the part that just kills me. The promoters were making it safer by trying to take the drugs away from the kids before they went into the party. Then the security guards get arrested for having them...wow.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So wait…. You can hear that a gun is next to someone’s head? You sure your spiddey sense is that finely tuned?
So isn’t there a chance that maybe one of the security guys was a drug dealer and that’s who got arrested? I’m sure there is some kind of procedure for security people at these kind of events and what to do with confiscated drugs.
I’m just not buying it. That SWAT team looked very professional. I bet they had everything in order. In this day and age they can’t afford mistakes like the ones being alleged. First of all who is more likely to tell the truth? A bunch of people going to a drug invested rave or a bunch of highly trained members of a SWAT team conducting a raid?
Seems very suspicious.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the video doesn't show any brutality. It is pretty hard to see what's going on in the little huddles of people being arrested. Have to see if more footage shows up for that part of the claim, or if any of the arrested have injuries.
I think the main thing is the legalities of it that we just have hearsay on so far. Did the police really have a warrant or not, and do they legally need one? Did the promoters really get every permit they needed or not? If the violation of the law was gathering 250 or more people, does it really need to be broken up by a SWAT team?
Waiting for further developments before passing judgement.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Among those arrested for drug possession were several security guards hired by Fullmer to patrol the event. Guards at security check points confiscated alcohol and drugs as ravers filed into the party, Fullmer said.
That's the part that just kills me. The promoters were making it safer by trying to take the drugs away from the kids before they went into the party. Then the security guards get arrested for having them...wow.
Good intentions aside, they should know that it's no more legal for security guard to have drugs in his possession than it is for the ravers to have them.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: Originally posted by Foust: I'd also be interested in hearing the police side of things - why on earth did they show up in the first place?
Sarcasm said "Because the undercover agents at the rave had spotted a good deal of illegal activities."
This is what the Salt Lake Tribune said " Saturday's party, named Versus II, had been tracked by police for several weeks, Gilbert said. Police planned the bust when they discovered that the rave's promoters had not filed for a mass gathering permit through the County Commission office. To have more than 250 at an event without that permit is a violation of the law, Gilbert said. "
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I applaud them for trying to make the party safer and keep the illegal substances being used to a minimun. How else were they to do that? The did the best thing they could for all concerned.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that makes me unwilling to fully trust the authorities is this:
1. Utah is controlled by the LDS church. Does anyone disagree with this?
2. Excluding the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers, there are plenty of completely sane jack-Mormons in Utah. Sane by my definition, anyway.
If sane people are leaving the LDS church, and Utah is controlled by the LDS church....I don't know, man.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The thing that makes me unwilling to fully trust the authorities is this:
1. Utah is controlled by the LDS church. Does anyone disagree with this?
Yes. Now take your trolling elsewhere.
quote: 2. Excluding the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers, there are plenty of completely sane jack-Mormons in Utah. Sane by my definition, anyway.
If sane people are leaving the LDS church, and Utah is controlled by the LDS church....I don't know, man.
What does any of this have to do with anything, anyway? Other than proving that you're not the best judge of what "sane" is, of course.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The guards gathered drugs and were holding them to turn in to law enforcement at the end of the night, Fullmer said. However, when police broke up the party, those security guards who had confiscated drugs were arrested for investigation of possession of the controlled substances. "Once they get the materials, beyond holding it while they wait for law enforcement to come . . . the scope of their ability to be within the bounds of the law is pretty much expired," Cannon said. If they had called police immediately, he said, there wouldn't have been a problem.
My first reaction was that it makes sense for security to just turn in all the drugs confiscated at the end of the night instead of calling the police on the first instance. Seemed more efficient. But for cover-your-butt legality they probably should call to report it right away and leave it up to the police to decide if they want to come out right away to pick it up or wait until security is done confiscating for the night.
this isn't your forum. Feel free to order me around on galactic lameness, I mean cactus.
Second (just kidding man, I'm messing with you ),
How's about you find me a couple of examples of jack Mormons who are police officers in Utah? Just 2 or 3 would be enough. I'd be more than willing to take back my statements. I doubt seriously that you could find such a thing. If you can, though, I apologize in advance.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok... Speaking as a professional theatre tech, here is what I'm betting...
1. The promoter was some random guy who thought he could make a living throwing parties. Any major or other wise professional promoter wouldn't have to ask the county which permits where necessary.
2. The security must of been a group of nonprofessionals. In any major city, you'd find professional Security companies That know and use LEGAL procedures for dealing with drug violations.
3. The only excessive force that I could believe happened would be a drug dog getting carried away. SWAT team members are highly trained to carry big guns and try there best not to use them. Drug dogs however, are trained to locate and indicate where drugs are, and usually they indicate by trying to get to the drugs.
True all of this is just my opinion, and I know very little about this event, minus the few articles that were googled and the video. From all that I have seen, this looks like an attempt to legalize a rave, which is probably the only reason the authorities knew about it...
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tough one for me. On the one hand, the only jack Mormons I know in Utah are smokers, and I'm not a big fan of cigarettes. (that's a long story, sort of) However, I'm even less of a fan of loaded assault rifles being pointed at the heads of unarmed teenagers who have no violent intentions.
maybe Utah should just secede. Would that work?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
this isn't your forum. Feel free to order me around on galactic lameness, I mean cactus.
Second (just kidding man, I'm messing with you ),
How's about you find me a couple of examples of jack Mormons who are police officers in Utah? Just 2 or 3 would be enough. I'd be more than willing to take back my statements. I doubt seriously that you could find such a thing. If you can, though, I apologize in advance.
Oh my gosh. Grow up.
I don't know what jack Mormon police officers have to do with anything. And since I don't personally know any police officers, I don't think I can help you.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: The guards gathered drugs and were holding them to turn in to law enforcement at the end of the night, Fullmer said. However, when police broke up the party, those security guards who had confiscated drugs were arrested for investigation of possession of the controlled substances. "Once they get the materials, beyond holding it while they wait for law enforcement to come . . . the scope of their ability to be within the bounds of the law is pretty much expired," Cannon said. If they had called police immediately, he said, there wouldn't have been a problem. My first reaction was that it makes sense for security to just turn in all the drugs confiscated at the end of the night instead of calling the police on the first instance. Seemed more efficient. But for cover-your-butt legality they probably should call to report it right away and leave it up to the police to decide if they want to come out right away to pick it up or wait until security is done confiscating for the night.
--Enigmatic
I don't know about in Utah, but in Indiana, legally they are supposed to hold the person for the authorities, if you want to net pick, legally, they aren't even supposed to remove the substance off the person. Obviously they usually do, but legally...
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB, do you guys want to secede or not? Is there any kind of consensus out there?
Treason--my definition of a jack Mormon (which is an imperfect definition) is someone who willing leaves the LDS church, or is excommunicated, but still believes the Book of Mormon, etc.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: JB, do you guys want to secede or not? Is there any kind of consensus out there?
No, we don't, and I have never heard anyone talk about seceding. Where exactly do you get these crackpot ideas?
Treason: A jack Mormon is sort of like a lapsed Catholic. It's someone who is usually a baptized member but doesn't practice the religion.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the way things are right now (no other state is more supportive of GWB), Utah would be just about the *last* state to secede.
Steven -- did you just make this up in order to cause a ruckus? If not, where did you hear such a ludicrous idea?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jon, steven is joking. Do you not see that the two statements are mutually incompatible?
True, it is a lame joke; but it is a joke.
I'm not sure that his statement is merely meant to be an attempt at humor. It sounds to me, Steve, that your conspiracy theory is that Utah, which is run by the LDS church, is trying to repress those that have left the church. Your evidence is that you don't know of anyone that has left the church and is currently a police officer. From that evidence you conclude that the police must be controlled by the LDS church and in this instance was being used as a direct attack, perhaps an act of retribution, towards those that left the church.
Am I missing anything here? Please correct me if I am wrong or if your statement was a joke that I completely missed.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>my definition of a jack Mormon (which is an imperfect definition) is someone who willing leaves the LDS church, or is excommunicated, but still believes the Book of Mormon, etc.
If it's imperfect, and you know it's imperfect, why don't you go about. . .perfecting it?
I don't see any correlation between the Mormon population and the heavy-handedness of this response. If this had happened in LA, would you throw such weighty innuendos at Latinos or Blacks?
Or Michael Jackson worshippers?
If you cannot prove such correlations, or at least back them up with evidence. . . you should probably find another forum to troll in.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I don't know is, do people leave the church 1 at a time and still practice their beliefs with full sincerity, or is that confined to larger groups that leave the church all at once?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
But to sort of answer your question, most people who leave the church do so individually. There are very few groups that leave the church all at once.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
when I heard about this I didn't realize that they broke away in 1890. I had thought that it was more recent, like 1950's.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These people probably broke away from the church in response to the church no longer condoning plural marriage.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
),![[Wink]](wink.gif)
