Utah Rave Shut Down by US Military?

[Roy Tucker]

Nope, just some great war stories about popping some freaks.

Sheriff, we got some of those weird drug-addled hippies up here in the canyon.

Martha, hand me that shotgun.

[Cedric]

Nope, just some great war stories about popping some freaks.

And all jocks are stupid and hate nerds. Sounds like a bad movie cliche.

[westofyou]

And all jocks are stupid and hate nerds. Sounds like a bad movie cliche.

Right... and all the officials who break rules are always punished.

[pedro]

And all jocks are stupid and hate nerds. Sounds like a bad movie cliche.

who said anything about Jocks?

Maybe they just hate freedom?

[cincyinco]

I think its important to ask yourself some basic questions:

Why was it necessary to send in 90 officers in full riot gear with assault rifles, to break up a party?

When has this EVER been necessary? I dont want to argue laws, whether this was a legal or illegal event. All I want to discuss is was the force shown necessary? Was it excessive?

I think it is clearly excessive. Again, I ask - Why could not a dozen men/women dressed in Blue, flashing their badges, have gone into the party, talked to the promoters, asked them to shut it down, and let people file out in a normal fashion?

I'll tell you why, because the Sherriff wanted to make an example, and thats not right! Go read some of the interviews with the Sherrif, some of the things he says.. well, lets just say you can clearly tell he has distaste for these people, and that he was trying to make an example out of them. statements like "They are not wanted", etc.

[westofyou]

who said anything about Jocks?

Maybe they just hate freedom?

[pedro]

Pigs they tend to wiggle when they walk
The infrastructure rots
And the owners hate the jocks
With their agents and their dates
If the signatures are checked
You'll just have to wait
And we're counting up the instants that we saved
Entire nation so depraved
From the cheap seats see us wave to the camera
It took a giant ramrod
To raze the demon settlement

[westofyou]

The jam kids on the vespas
And glum looks on their faces
The street is full of punks
They got spikes
See those rockers with their long curly locks
Goodnight to the rock and roll era
Cause they don't need you anymore
Little girl, boy, girl,
bo...................y

Their composures are so distracted
Jasper's skinny arms
And the dance faction, a little too loose for me
Every night it's straight and narrow
Laws are broken, amusing era
walls are broke in the music era
Round and round and round and round she goes....

[Sham]

I agree, this was total BS. This country is going the wrong way in a herry.

[Falls City Beer]

Right... and all the officials who break rules are always punished.

Thin blue line.

To quote Warlock from the Young Ones: "This is Starship Captain Warlock from the Planet Freakout, requesting assistance, ten assistants, preferably Swedish."

[cincyinco]

Ha! Get this!

http://www.newutah.com/modules.php?...order=0&thold=0

Family sues SWAT team after raid on their home

Michael Rigert DAILY HERALD

A family says on a quiet May evening members of the Utah County SWAT team erroneously invaded their Springville home and roughed them up without cause.

The next day, the Chidester family, including Lawrence, his wife Emily and their adult son Larry, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Utah County and six SWAT team members.

According to court documents, the Chidesters say the SWAT team arrived on the street outside their home May 25 at approximately 10:30 p.m. They say the officers then proceeded to man-handle them in the execution of a search warrant -- albeit for the wrong address. The police unit's intended target, the suit claims, was the residence next door.

"Larry Chidester was asleep in his residence when he heard a loud bang or crash outside and exited to investigate the source of the noise," court documents say.

He observed Utah County SWAT team members departing their police vehicle and heading toward their neighbor's home. The sound he had heard was flash-bang devices detonated by the officers. However when SWAT team members saw Larry, they went after him, the suit claims.

"The officer pointed his firearm at Larry and started running towards him, yelling, 'There's one!,' " the document states.

Despite the fact that Larry had his hands in the air and told the officer repeatedly "I'm not resisting," the suit states the SWAT member continued to run over or tackle him, "and shoved his face into the ground and rocks."

The suit claims Larry Chidester was later transported to the emergency room at Mountain View Hospital in Payson to be treated for injuries.

Two officers then kicked open a side door of the home and entered Lawrence Chidester's bedroom as he was dressing, according to the suit.

"A law enforcement officer grabbed Lawrence and threw him to the floor ... the officer held a firearm to the back of Lawrence's head in the presence of his wife, Emily Chidester," the documents say.

Afterward, when the family was questioned about their names and address, the suit claims SWAT team members "admitted ... they were in the wrong house and they had made a mistake."

The Chidesters said the addresses of both homes were clearly marked by curbside mail boxes.

In the federal suit, the Chidesters claim that the members of the Utah County Sheriff's Office were "grossly negligent ... and acted with deliberate indifference" of their rights. They say the SWAT team members had no probable cause for their arrest or detention.

The family is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages to be determined at trial.

Though Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy said the Chidester home was not the SWAT team's original objective, he said the Chidesters became involved in the raid "as an ancillary issue."

"The warrant was for the house nextdoor but in the service of that warrant they became involved ... they had contact with us," Tracy said.

He said he could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit since he had not yet reviewed it.

"We dispute the accuracy of their version of the events," Tracy said, regarding what's been reported to date about the nature of the incident.

[Reds Nd2]

"The warrant was for the house nextdoor but in the service of that warrant they became involved ... they had contact with us," Tracy said.

I wonder if this guy takes his foot out of his mouth to eat? Of course they had contact with your SWAT Team, ya' fool. Your team most likely used a battering ram on the front door before proceeding to lob a flash bang device inside while innocent people were asleep. Unbelievable the goings on in Utah lately.

[cincyinco]

Same Sherrif, same swat team, same moronic remarks made to the press. Can you believe this guy?

[cincyinco]

http://www.newutah.com/modules.php?o...icle&sid=63032

In our view: The problem with assumptions

The Daily Herald


No citizen should be subjected to criminal charges for a crime he might commit. This is a fundamental principle in our society: One does not take blame for what might happen, only for violations of the law that he actually commits.

Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy seems to see things differently.

In an interview with the Daily Herald on Wednesday, he indicated that he believes law enforcement has the authority to assume a violation will be committed, and officers may therefore go straight to writing a citation.

That is what happened Saturday night at an outdoor music concert and dance in Diamond Fork.

The event -- a rave -- was held on private property owned by Trudy Childs. An estimated 300 young adults attended the gathering, which was shut down at 11:30 p.m. by about 90 law enforcement officers in a massive show of force that included helicopters, dogs and assault rifles.

Some plainclothes officers with cell phones had mingled in the crowd and observed illegal drug activity, which has occurred at similar events. That -- combined with law enforcement's allegation that the gathering itself was illegal because proper county permits had not been obtained -- is what triggered the raid. SWAT teams stormed the crowd to make arrests, and many attendees, including the landowner, are now crying foul.

All the facts are not yet in with regard to criminal activity in the crowd. We expect to know more in the coming days. But we do have ample information to evaluate Tracy's claim that Childs had not obtained a necessary permit for the event.

The fact is, Childs did not need a permit.

Tracy protests that she did need one, but we believe he is wrong. Here's why:

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.

It is not law enforcement's prerogative to enforce assumptions -- to hand out criminal or civil citations based on what might happen. Accusations must be made on the basis of actual observable acts, not on what a cop thinks will occur in the future.

Let's say a highway patrolman with a radar gun in a 60 mph zone clocks a driver at 59 mph. He cannot ticket that driver on the assumption that the car will soon be going much faster.

In short, the anticipation of a crowd of 250 for 12 hours as specified in the law must belong to the event host. If the host believes that a gathering will not exceed 12 hours, and he ensures that it does not (as was done in the case of the Diamond Fork rave), he is simply not required to obtain a permit.

No citizen of this country is required to impose more law upon himself than is specified by statute. And no county sheriff has a right to impose it, either.

This ordinance is written in the passive voice -- specifying an event "reasonably anticipated ... to continue" for 12 hours. It doesn't say who is to do the anticipating. Apparently Tracy believes it is he himself. But this is an implausible reading of the law. Such an interpretation would make the county sheriff the sole arbiter of which public gatherings require a permit and which do not. Tracy could prohibit anything he wanted, from a political rally to a knit-in or company picnic -- any gathering that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Typically, in potentially embarrassing situations, law enforcement seems to reach for every thread of support it can find to justify its actions. It appears to us that Sheriff Tracy is reaching in just this way with arguments about permits for Saturday's rave. The organizers did get the required mass-gathering permits for on-site sanitation, and that's apparently all they really needed.

We understand that law enforcement is a difficult job. We also understand that some crimes were likely committed at the rave. But officers should not attempt to make their tough job easier by playing fast and loose with statutes, or by spinning the meaning of the law in hopes of achieving a favorable public relations effect.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6.