It sounds like the organizer merely obtained a permit from the health department and thought he was set.
The police may have been a bit too eager to shut it down, but I don’t see anything wrong with what they did. Even that video doesn’t show anything terribly objectionable.
So the first word of the thread title is wrong. Good start on the rant.
You added an “if.” Re-read the quote, there is no “if” statement in there. The quote as written says, “we will look into it and we will find illegal activity.” Like I said, I completely believe it was a mistake; either by the speaker or by the newspaper.
Well, it got worse.
According to who, chuckles?
Humty-dumpty, I believe.
Um.
So, which industry demanded the shut-down of this rave? Microsoft? Wal-Mart? Coca-Cola?
I think you’re reading wrong. He’s saying that they will “find an illegal mass gathering”. They may also be capable of finding legal mass gatherings, but I don’t see anything that says they’re assuming that any mass gathering is automatically illegal.
Lesee… the pro-raver side says that they bought “a permit” with a Visa card, so there.
From Captain Amazing’s link, the Utah County Sheriff says that the rave organizers had a health department permit, but not the required permit, bond, and approval of the local county commission.
The pro-rave side says that raves are fun and safe, and that we are becoming a fascist nation.
The sheriff says that undercover officers had observed underage drinking, use of drugs, and things of that sort. I forget… do states issue permits that allow these kind of things?
Gee, which side’s story sounds more convincing…
Final thought: I went down to my local watering hole and the cops observed drug dealing and underage drinking, they’d shut the place down, too. But I wouldn’t be crying about oppression, fascism, and returns to Prohibition. I’d be pissed that a handful of people ruined a good time for everybody by breaking the law.
Wasn’t there a court case in Virginia or South Carolina in the past few years that said that permitting for a “mass-gathering” can be an unconstitutional burden?
Either way, the efforts of state and federal governments to outlaw gatherings of young people, especially in respect to rave, is fairly well documented.
Electronic Music Organization Creating Anti-Rave Law Database
Meanwhile, the Illinois House Executive Committee approved a bill that would make it a crime to promote raves loaded with illegal activity. Rep. Dan Burke (D-Chicago), who handled the bill, said he expected it to be amended, but the goal is to make it tough for promoters to set up a rave.
cite
Bad Bills: Rave Act II, CLEAN-UP Act, VICTORY Act
The Ecstasy Awareness Act of 2003 provided that
As I said, the attempts by governments at all levels to outlaw raves is well known. The government fears gatherings of young people for more reasons than drug use or possible sexual assaults.
What would have happened if one of the attendees in Utah had pulled a gun out? Would all those SWAT guys really have started to unload into the crowd with their automatic weapons? Would they have been justified? And who would have cared if they went to court later, when sons and daughters lay dead or dying in a remote valley?
IMO the police response was simply not justified, not on this scale. If someone at a club has cocaine on them, you don’t shut the club down; you arrest the offendor. If a few guys have too much to drink at an NFL game, you don’t shut the stadium down, you just arrest the drunks.
How does he know they will find an illegal mass gathering? The Sherriff hasn’t done the investigation yet.
So far its 2-0 against me so I’ll concede you may be right. However, as I read it he is speaking of a future investigation ("'The Sheriff’s Office will investigate and look into") and in the same breath telling us what the outcome of the investigation will be (“and find an illegal mass gathering going on”). As I read it, there is no possibility that a legal gathering will be found.
You’re full of shit, Ravenman. The watering hole would not be shut down. The drug dealers would be arrested, the person who served the underage people would be given a citation (or citations) and that would be the end of it.
The only way that the place would be shut down is if it was observed to be a recurring problem, with no effort on the part of the owner/management to stop the illegal activity.
This rave, like most raves, was a one-time-only event.
I think he’s talking to future illegal ravers…you know, “If you’re planning to conduct an illegal raid, know that the Sheriff’s office will investigate, find you, and shut you down.”
Why do they fear gatherings of young people? What’s your reasoning?
What would those reasons be? Any documentation of this claim?
I just had another thought:
Can someone please define for me what a “rave” is? In your definition, please compare and contrast a “rave” with a “concert.” If your point of comparison is that they cater to different types of music, explain why it would be unacceptable to experience rave music at the local stadium, concert hall or club. If your answer to that is that you need a bunch of space for dancing, explain why it would be unacceptable to rent out a football stadium for a rave as is done for major concerts (Rolling Stones, for example).
Yes, this is a loaded question.
On preview. . .
Ah. “Find” as in identify the physical location of the rave. I was using “find” as in the “findings” of the investigation.
Well, that certainly explains why neither of us were understanding the other. 
I think “oppression” is probably pushing it, “fascism” is daft, but I truly fail to see how you can think that drug laws are somehow different to Prohibition. As regards the ludicrous paranoia of ecstasy, mushrooms and the like, I’d say I’m pissed that a handful of people ruined a good time for everbody by making the law.
Well, for one thing, no one wants to see a recurrence of the incident at Kent State.
Though NYC isn’t as free as the American west, a watering hole can be shut down for 3rd party drug dealing. Not only that, your liquor license can be revoked if health inspectors cite your establishment 3 times for on premises cigarette smoking (which last time I checked, was still a legal product).