Salt Lake City, Utah - Illegal and brutally violent military incident

[jared]

Originally posted by Corganist

Were there a couple thousand people at any of these parties?

I think that dispersing the sheer mass amount of people there probably required a little more than a handful of uniformed officers could muster.

they all ranged in quantity but the biggest was about that size. i've never seen anything like this,especially for a so called sanctioned event. the biggest threat i ever saw was a helicopter shining lights on us. even still it's not that difficult to disperse a rave. you tell people to go home and they pretty much just want to get out.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by sleeper


well, fortunately, there are many degrees between assault rifles & helicopters, and a handful of beat cops. what about riot police or units that are otherwise specifically geared towards crowd control purposes? i know those camo guys were used in conjunction with regular or riot police but still. you have to admit, this does, on surface, appear to be a bit excessive. again, that in itself isnt necessarily wrong, but it is suspicious. i just dont really get it

Often times - especially in non urban areas - SWAT are the riot police.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

Not particularly. Its pretty clear that this was not some poor innocent bystander. Police dogs are too well trained to just "attack" people for no reason. If the dog was on her, it was because she was in a place she shouldn't be, or doing something she shouldn't be. The fact that this girl made the stupid mistake of trying to resist arrest even after the dog was set on her tells me that the police were probably justified in their actions. It doesn't sound like she was going peacefully by any stretch.

I sort of agree with your line of thinking (not about the dog though, that's fairly stupid), but seriously, how many officers should it take to kick someone into submission? Appearantly you think 3 officers + dog is acceptable.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Future Boy


I sort of agree with your line of thinking (not about the dog though, that's fairly stupid), but seriously, how many officers should it take to kick someone into submission? Appearantly you think 3 officers + dog is acceptable.

That's not shown on the tape.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Corganist

Sorry, but I don't think that the "right to party" made it into the copy of the Constitution I have, no matter what the Beastie Boys say.

Post. Of. The. Year.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Quiet CD
How can you say that, are people beaten by military forces when they buy cigarettes and not pay taxes (if that were possible)?, apples and fucking bananas.

Both say that people don't have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. If cigarette buyers refused to pay taxes they woudl ultimately be faced with cops with guns. It's force. It's the same thing.

[Quiet CD]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
That's not shown on the tape.

At the very end it looks like three soldiers and a dog...

When have you ever seen SWAT police in camo?

.....

I've been to raves with 50,000 people, with Police there, in uniform and undercover, and even if people do get busted there for drugs, they don't start beating the whole crowd senselessly they remove the people who were involved with the drug trafficing and thats it

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
That's not shown on the tape.

This is relevant how? At the moment, I take them for their word. You dont see any drug use in that video, but the cops say it was enough to call in the back-up, I take them at their word too.

[pastry sharp]

look, if laws were broken at this rave, the cops were with in their right to shut the even down. having said that, slc law enforcement is notoriously brutal. if i had to guess, i'd say both sides were lying to some degree.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy

I sort of agree with your line of thinking (not about the dog though, that's fairly stupid), but seriously, how many officers should it take to kick someone into submission? Appearantly you think 3 officers + dog is acceptable.

If that's what it takes, then its acceptable. On its face, sure, it sounds borderline excessive...but then again, we really can't hold law enforcement to standards of what "sounds" good. A lot of officers could get hurt if we impose some kind of arbitrary "2 cop limit" on taking down suspects in situations where more are actually needed. I think its entirely plausible that a woman could struggle to the point that it'd take three cops to subdue her. (not even including the very real possibility that she might have been hopped up on something)

And if I may ask, what aspect of my comments about the dog do you take issue with?

[transluscent]

Originally posted by Corganist

I think its entirely plausible that a woman could struggle to the point that it'd take three cops to subdue her.

bullshit.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by transluscent

bullshit.

Actually that is very, very plausable.

[transluscent]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Actually that is very, very plausable.

not in the case of this "very small female"

[GlasgowKiss]

I could subdue 3 very small females on my own.

The police dont know how to work their sweet talkin' and mojo.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Both say that people don't have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. If cigarette buyers refused to pay taxes they woudl ultimately be faced with cops with guns. It's force. It's the same thing.

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law.



http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/2...obhalford2.jpg

[Corganist]

Originally posted by transluscent

not in the case of this "very small female"

An old phrase that seems to apply here is "Its not the size of the dog in the fight. Its the size of the fight in the dog."

The question isn't whether or not 3 officers was the minimum necessary to overpower this woman. One officer could probably pull it off, but not without great risk to himself and great risk to the suspect. I think you underestimate the damage a person can do when they're biting, scratching, flailing etc. in desperate attempt to get away at any costs. People can be hard to subdue when they're motivated, even small females. It's the police's duty to take care of things in a way that puts the fewest people at risk...no matter if it looks bad on them.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Corganist

If that's what it takes, then its acceptable. On its face, sure, it sounds borderline excessive...but then again, we really can't hold law enforcement to standards of what "sounds" good. A lot of officers could get hurt if we impose some kind of arbitrary "2 cop limit" on taking down suspects in situations where more are actually needed. I think its entirely plausible that a woman could struggle to the point that it'd take three cops to subdue her. (not even including the very real possibility that she might have been hopped up on something)

And if I may ask, what aspect of my comments about the dog do you take issue with?

Isn't this a tautology though? You're saying that it's acceptable if that what it takes, and before you said it must have been necessary otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

As far as the dog goes, it's pretty obvious that if a dog attacks you you're likely to react in a fairly instinctual way to get the fuck away from it. To say that doing this consitutes 'resisting arrest' and therefore requires some stomach kicking is pretty stupid

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Future Boy


This is relevant how? At the moment, I take them for their word. You dont see any drug use in that video, but the cops say it was enough to call in the back-up, I take them at their word too.

Somehow the testimony of a rave kid hopped up on E isn't very reliable in my book. My guess is one person saw something, told someone else who exaggerated it, and then everyone else claims to have seen the same thing.

The tape doesn't show any brutality and it shows party goers milling about and filing out. And yet this is offered af proof of "fascism."

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Quiet CD

I've been to raves with 50,000 people, with Police there, in uniform and undercover, and even if people do get busted there for drugs, they don't start beating the whole crowd senselessly they remove the people who were involved with the drug trafficing and thats it

And I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that anyone was "beaten senseless." Where are the pictures of the horribly beaten people? You'd think they'd want that posted on the numerous blogs.

This is another example of what's wrong with bloggers as news reporters. They run with unsubstantiated claims as if they were proven facts.

[Quiet CD]

Originally poste by Nimrod's Son
And I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that anyone was "beaten senseless."

Senselessly beating, not beating until senlesness

Originally poste by Nimrod's Son
Somehow the testimony of a rave kid hopped up on E isn't very reliable in my book.

You make assumptions, and then assumptions based on those which makes you look really stupid

Originally poste by Nimrod's Son
My guess is one person saw something, told someone else who exaggerated it, and then everyone else claims to have seen the same thing.

It's not about your fucking guess... there were 1500 people there, and all that have shared their experiences seem to share a similar story that was masterminded by one person?

Originally poste by Corganist
If that's what it takes, then its acceptable.

There is such a thing known as excessive force

Originally poste by Corganist
[b] I think you underestimate the damage a person can do when they're biting, scratching, flailing etc. in desperate attempt to get away at any costs.

Before you make claims, take a step back and look at the circumstances, a small unarmed woman with no protective gear being physically subdued by three men in full military combat gear with guns, possibly a dog... yeah I can see that this is obviously a person capable of causing a significant amount of damage to the soldiers

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Quiet CD
You make assumptions, and then assumptions based on those which makes you look really stupid

Yeha, it's a huge leap of faith to believe ravers are on E and other drugs. Wow where did I come up with that nonsense

Originally posted by Quiet CD

It's not about your fucking guess... there were 1500 people there, and all that have shared their experiences seem to share a similar story that was masterminded by one person?

I haven't seen 1500 accounts. Anyway, I put very little stock in their stories since the "evidence" presented by those people - the tape - shows none of the things they claim.

Originally posted by Quiet CD
There is such a thing known as excessive force

There's such a thing as a platypus but I didn't see any of those in the tape either

Originally posted by Quiet CD
Before you make claims, take a step back and look at the circumstances, a small unarmed woman with no protective gear being physically subdued by three men in full military combat gear with guns, possibly a dog... yeah I can see that this is obviously a person capable of causing a significant amount of damage to the soldiers

Again, there's no evidence of this, but let's say that's the case. What is wrong with 3 officers subduing her? Would it be better if it were one officer? She's actually MUCH SAFER the more officers there are to hold her down. As for the dog, well, trained police dogs don't "attack" people. My guess is the dog came at her because she probably had a bunch of drugs on her, and she got freaked out. I would love to see some pictures of the viscious bite marks.

I'm not the one making assumptions - I'm going on all of the evidence that's presented by both sides, and by history having seen ravers at raves and knowing what goes on there.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Quiet CD

There is such a thing known as excessive force

I never said there wasn't. But just saying "It was 3 on 1, and the 1 was a girl!" doesn't make a case for excessive force in and of itself.

Before you make claims, take a step back and look at the circumstances, a small unarmed woman with no protective gear being physically subdued by three men in full military combat gear with guns, possibly a dog... yeah I can see that this is obviously a person capable of causing a significant amount of damage to the soldiers

All it takes is for her to get one gun off of one of those guys to do some damage. I know you probably think that's out of the question, but I wonder how you think that the officers would know that. I think the presumption has to favor the notion that this woman was not being cooperative, (if she was, she would have been gone after the first time everyone was asked to leave) and as such, I don't know how you can blame the officers for taking every precaution.

Somehow I don't think that saying "But it was a girl, he should have been able to take her!" is going to console a grieving spouse in the event that the kind of assumptions you're talking about turn out wrong. A small female who disregards police orders is every bit as dangerous as a large male.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Isn't this a tautology though? You're saying that it's acceptable if that what it takes, and before you said it must have been necessary otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

Two different things. In the first case I was talking about the acceptability of the amount of force allegedly used by the officers. The second part I was talking about the necessity of the interaction between the woman and the officers generally. In other words, its very likely she did something to get their attention. Whatever happened after that is a different issue.

As far as the dog goes, it's pretty obvious that if a dog attacks you you're likely to react in a fairly instinctual way to get the fuck away from it. To say that doing this consitutes 'resisting arrest' and therefore requires some stomach kicking is pretty stupid

Like Nimrod said above, police dogs don't just attack people for no reason. They're highly trained enough to not do so. If a police dog does 'attack' someone, its usually going to be because the officer in charge of the dog wanted that person attacked. So unless we're just assuming that we either have a rogue cop who gets off on siccing the dog on helpless girls, or a rogue dog who came unhinged (both unlikely IMO) then its likely this girl did something that required the introduction of the dog, probably by disobeying the officers orders to stop.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Corganist

Two different things. In the first case I was talking about the acceptability of the amount of force allegedly used by the officers. The second part I was talking about the necessity of the interaction between the woman and the officers generally. In other words, its very likely she did something to get their attention. Whatever happened after that is a different issue.

Well no, they were both in response to 'apparently the dog was set on her, then 3 guys proceeded to kick her in the stomach - don't you consider this extreme?' Like this:

Originally posted by Corganist

Not particularly. Its pretty clear that this was not some poor innocent bystander. Police dogs are too well trained to just "attack" people for no reason. If the dog was on her, it was because she was in a place she shouldn't be, or doing something she shouldn't be. The fact that this girl made the stupid mistake of trying to resist arrest even after the dog was set on her tells me that the police were probably justified in their actions. It doesn't sound like she was going peacefully by any stretch.

'If it happened, it must have been necessary.' And from the bit I quoted last time, 'it's acceptable if it's necessary'. Obviously that contracts to 'it's acceptable if it happened' which is a pretty worrying attitude, and that's the only reason I called you up on it. If you were talking about two different things then I wouldn't mind, but you were responding to questions of 'was this amount of force extreme' in both cases

Originally posted by Corganist

Like Nimrod said above, police dogs don't just attack people for no reason. They're highly trained enough to not do so. If a police dog does 'attack' someone, its usually going to be because the officer in charge of the dog wanted that person attacked. So unless we're just assuming that we either have a rogue cop who gets off on siccing the dog on helpless girls, or a rogue dog who came unhinged (both unlikely IMO) then its likely this girl did something that required the introduction of the dog, probably by disobeying the officers orders to stop.

Yeah but you said, in that quote just above, that the girl was stupid for 'resisting arrest' by trying to fight the dog off and that this apparently justified their actions since only guilty people resist arrest, as though suddenly being attacked by a dog is automatically going to make you think 'man I should just lay back and wait for this to stop'. If she had done something to warrant that amount of force then that's one thing, but you can't infer it from her struggling with an attacking dog, I mean come on

[Corganist]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

'If it happened, it must have been necessary.' And from the bit I quoted last time, 'it's acceptable if it's necessary'. Obviously that contracts to 'it's acceptable if it happened' which is a pretty worrying attitude, and that's the only reason I called you up on it. If you were talking about two different things then I wouldn't mind, but you were responding to questions of 'was this amount of force extreme' in both cases

Except I wasn't. The decision to use the dog on her and the decision for the 3 guys to tackle her are seperate and independent. Your logic makes out like I'm saying "It was necessary for the cops to interact with this woman (via the dog ot otherwise), and therefore its acceptable that three cops could tackle her." That's not what I'm saying at all.

My premise is as follows:

1) Police dogs don't randomly attack. They go after who they're told. So I believe that for some reason the officers sent the dog after the girl. I find it unlikely that the police dog did anything other than what its handler wanted it to. I think common sense at least gives a presumption that the officer had good reason to use the dog, and wasn't just picking out random females to sic the dog on.

and

2) After it became necessary to use the dog, there were seperate reasons (namely, the girls apparent continued refusal to submit to the dog/cops) that indicated that it might have been necessary for the officers to restrain her physically. In which case, if 3 cops was what was needed to do it safely, then thats how many it should have taken (and no more). That's what I was talking about when I said "its acceptable if it was necessary." It was supposed to be a narrow point about the use of physical force, not about the encounter overall.

Yeah but you said, in that quote just above, that the girl was stupid for 'resisting arrest' by trying to fight the dog off and that this apparently justified their actions since only guilty people resist arrest

Resisting arrest is a crime no matter if you've done anything or not. If the cops show up at my door with a warrant for murder and I fight them when they try to arrest me, I'm still on the hook for resisting arrest even if I didn't kill anybody. In our situation here, the girl apparently did not submit to authority. Whether she was doing anything wrong or not, she should have done exactly what she was told.

as though suddenly being attacked by a dog is automatically going to make you think 'man I should just lay back and wait for this to stop'. If she had done something to warrant that amount of force then that's one thing, but you can't infer it from her struggling with an attacking dog

Again, I highly doubt that the "attacking" dog would have even been in the picture unless there was good reason. I'd be almost certainly willing to bet that he dog was sent for her after refusal to follow police instructions. Once it had her, she should have known to not continue to try to escape.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Corganist
1) Police dogs don't randomly attack. They go after who they're told. So I believe that for some reason the officers sent the dog after the girl. I find it unlikely that the police dog did anything other than what its handler wanted it to. I think common sense at least gives a presumption that the officer had good reason to use the dog, and wasn't just picking out random females to sic the dog on.

See, this is kinda the same thing though - you make this leap between 'the dog was set on her' and 'it was justified' by saying 'oh well, they wouldn't have done it unless it was necessary'. The question was 'is something like setting a dog on a girl and then having 3 guys kick her justified' and it really comes down to circumstance, what was actually happening at the time - and you're automatically saying 'well we should assume that it was necessary otherwise it wouldn't have happened', despite that it seems pretty extreme. If questions like this are being asked you can't fill in the blanks like that.

I know you're talking about both stages separately but ultimately it's the same thing when you're talking about justification without evidence or, worse, 'evidence' like this:

Originally posted by Corganist

Resisting arrest is a crime no matter if you've done anything or not. If the cops show up at my door with a warrant for murder and I fight them when they try to arrest me, I'm still on the hook for resisting arrest even if I didn't kill anybody. In our situation here, the girl apparently did not submit to authority. Whether she was doing anything wrong or not, she should have done exactly what she was told.

Do you really not see the difference between cops showing up because you've murdered someone and you deciding to fight them, and a vicious animal suddenly attacking you on a night out and you reacting with a self-preservation instinct? The whole comparison is utterly ridiculous

Originally posted by Corganist

Again, I highly doubt that the "attacking" dog would have even been in the picture unless there was good reason. I'd be almost certainly willing to bet that he dog was sent for her after refusal to follow police instructions. Once it had her, she should have known to not continue to try to escape.

I doubt you'd be throwing around ironic quote marks in her position

[Corganist]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

See, this is kinda the same thing though - you make this leap between 'the dog was set on her' and 'it was justified' by saying 'oh well, they wouldn't have done it unless it was necessary'.

I admit that I'm giving a little bit of deference to the officers here. What I'm mainly concerned with is dispelling this notion that the dog "attacked" this girl for no reason. It may be possible that the dog's handler is just a sadist and thought it'd be fun to turn a 150 pound dog on a 110 pound woman in front of hundreds of witnesses for no reason whatsoever. It could also be possible that the dog disobeyed its rigorous training and attacked the girl for no reason. But I think both of those assumptions take a much much bigger leap in logic than the one you say I'm making. I'm with you when you say that the whole thing depends on the circumstances, all I'm saying is that based on this one account we're talking about here I don't see anything that would tend to say this was obvious overkill.

Do you really not see the difference between cops showing up because you've murdered someone and you deciding to fight them, and a vicious animal suddenly attacking you on a night out and you reacting with a self-preservation instinct? The whole comparison is utterly ridiculous

Enough with this "sudden attack" business. This wasn't someone fighting off a wild animal. It was a person resisting a trained police dog. There is a big difference there that you're refusing to recognize.

I doubt you'd be throwing around ironic quote marks in her position

I doubt I'd be throwing around anything. I would have stopped fighting and waited for the dog's handler to come and get it.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

And if I may ask, what aspect of my comments about the dog do you take issue with?

Because it's still an animal, regardless of how rigorous or excellent its training may be. Especially when it's trained to be physically aggressive. Saying police dogs are so well trained they're infallible is pretty crazy.

As far as dictating how many cops it should take to bring someone down, that's missing the point. Like you said, on it's face it seems excessive, and the cops would have to prove it was justified.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Somehow the testimony of a rave kid hopped up on E isn't very reliable in my book. My guess is one person saw something, told someone else who exaggerated it, and then everyone else claims to have seen the same thing.

Sure I could assume things about either side, but I dont know any of them, and I wasnt there. So until either side is proven, I'm not gonna decide that one side is more full of it than the other.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

The tape doesn't show any brutality and it shows party goers milling about and filing out. And yet this is offered af proof of "fascism."

I dont know if you quoted the wrong person or not, but the tape had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Unless I'm mistaken the report of her being kicked didnt come from the video, so I dont understand your whole "Wasnt on the tape" thing, or that facism stuff.

[jczeroman]

It seems that were all missing one major point here: these kids were probably mormon.