Elonka wrote:

"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."

Well said.

I've been following this story about police shutting down a rave in Utah, and I have to admit concerns. If it was shut down because police observed actual illegal drug activity, that's one thing, and I'm okay with it. If, on the other hand, it was shut down because, "It was a rave, and there's usually drug activity at a rave, so we shut it down on general principle," then that's an entirely different matter, and I'm completely opposed to it.

Continuing to watch as the details unfold . . .

Elonka

I have concerns as well. Do you remember the RAVE act? Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy. The original bill that was defeated, but it snuck into the act that ushered in the AMBER Alert program a few months later.

The original RAVE act can be found here:

http://www.emdef.org/s2633/

Here's what I object to:

...
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking 'open or maintain any place' and inserting 'open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily,'; and

(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

'(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'.

...

You can tell by the verbage of the bill that they are focusing solely on electronic music events. The law can be strictly applied to any public venue really. A football game could be a place where people use a controlled substance.

Elonka wrote:
If it was shut down because police observed actual illegal drug activity, that's one thing, and I'm okay with it.

Really? If the police observed actual illegal drug activity you'd argue that it would have been reasonable for them to do what they did: Bring a SWAT team dressed in combat fatigues and body armor and equiped with a helicopter, dogs, and "special weapons" and shut the whole party down and send everyone home or to jail?

If so, I don't agree.

It seems clear that the police would never shut down a corporate sponsored rock concert in such a manner, but would prefer instead to simply arrest individual drug users with regular uniformed police. That is, if they decided to do anything at all. I've seen many raves shut down but I've never seen a real police officer arresting people for drug violations at an industry concert venue.

It seems like the use of a SWAT team is inappropriate with regard to a party regardless of the circumstances. Its use in this context is entirely to intimidate. Its an unreasonable use of force. You don't pull people over on the freeway using a tank.

Its likely that the permit issue and the fact that security guards at the event were confiscating drugs ultimately put the rave promoters on very strong footing with regard to legal action against the police. However, IMHO these issues draw attention from the real problem here, and that is not whether or not the police should have responded but HOW the police responded.