Buffalo Cops Close Down Legal Music Festival

Buffalo Cops Close Down Legal Music Festival

www.infowars.com

As fifty young music fans stood around watching a DJ spin on stage, Buffalo Police filed onto private property and threatened the crowd to disband or pay the consequences. Despite the fact that the proper permits had been filed with City Hall, that would allow the music to go on until 10pm, Buffalo Police would not listen to reason, only resorting to ‘police state’ tactics as the young music fans looked on in bewilderment .

(visit the link for the full news article)

One of the reasons that The Yard was chosen for the event was that it is widely known that the bandshell at LaSalle Park is next to impossible to book unless you have an ‘in’ with The City. So that means that the only other alternative when it comes to holding a concert at a permanent outdoor music festival is The Yard. The Yard is not in a residential neighborhood. Nor is it in a commercial neighborhood. It’s located in an abandoned industrial area surrounded by nothing and no one. Maybe sometime in the future this might be inhabited by college students, but that’s just not the case at this point in time. So how do the police claim that there was a noise complaint, especially since the music could not be heard until you turned the corner of the building and actually saw the stage?

Had to post this article being a buffalo native myself. It seems a growing trend that police departments across the country are not paying attention to legalities and acting on what orders come down from the top.

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well...

All fifty of these people, especially the organisers need to get in touch with the local council and basically put some heavy complaints in against these police. If the police had no grounds to end it, then they are in the wrong.

I thought it was bad in the Uk, but having come back from a private party in a field (with 200 people) i have to admit - i think the US is worse than the UK.

The party i attended was visited by the police, who mentioned something about noise complaints and checked up on the health and saftey issues and basically left us alone after figuring out that we were safe and could basically look after ourselves. We had a st johns ambulance on stand by, fire exits and fresh running water.

Never thought the UK party scene would be better than the US.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Agrees, with you, then they should sue the local police department, over the issue.

I would complainto the the place where they obtained the permits from, have copies of these permits before they decide to take lega action against those law enforcement officers.

Sadly it has happened over here in the UK also, but the police turned up in riot gear, the whole 24/7, Helicopters included. Thinking that the party was a illegal rave or something. They also forced the group of people to shut thier private party down.

Article: Buffalo News

I always wonder why police get the blame, when they are only the enforcers of the law. Reading this article, it seems that there were in fact noise complaints, that may or may not have been part of a political feud. It seems strange that the any of the noise complaints would go to a council member's house though.

“There were numerous noise complaints from neighbors,” said Michael J. DeGeorge, Buffalo police spokesman. “Many of these complaints went to Council Member Joseph Golombek’s house Saturday afternoon and evening.”

And while the article states that proper permits are not carte blanche and i agree with that sentiment; if "The Yard" is designed for and permitted as an outdoor music festival area, and it is a Saturday afternoon are noise complaints something that should be heeded at all? Towards 9 or 10pm sure, not at 3:30.

I think the Police are practicing for "violent civil unrest" and getting the sheeple trained in advance.

I do entertainment for children's parties. We have been doing the same church picnic on the same date in the same place in a city park for 14 years. Guess what? The cops with the billy clubs, shut us down and chased us out of the park

In looking up the first amendment I came across the following from the Cornell University Law School

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech...

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes.... This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights.

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
topics.law.cornell.edu...

However the Supreme Court placed "reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner in which speech is exercised" I doubt this is what the Revolutionaries who wrote the First Amendment had in mind. When they wrote

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law can you get any clearer than that?

After exercising increasing scrutiny of laws that infringed upon free speech, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established the doctrine that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to incite imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment therefore protects even speech that calls for overthrow of the government or lawless action.

The government may, however, impose reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner in which speech is exercised in order to protect public order and the smooth functioning of public administration. In imposing such restrictions, however, the state may not discriminate on the basis of the content of speech since such limitations would permit the state to favor one type of speech over another. www.answers.com...

Originally posted by eNumbra


I always wonder why police get the blame, when they are only the enforcers of the law.

Perhaps because they are not enforcing the law. They are simply exercising 'force.'

It is the councils responsibility to ensure that the local authorities are aware of those assemblies of persons they have authorized. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to KNOW what gatherings are and are not legal.

It is not rocket science.

I think police often use the 'Noise Complaint' excuse simply so they can drop in and check things out. I know from multiple experiences they use the 'License Plate Light Bulb Out' excuse to pull you over if they think they might be able to nail you for something more once they get you pulled over.

reply to post by Maxmars



Except that in some cases they are simply the claws on the fingers.

Not all police officers are constitutional law scholars and in some cases the law is indeed NOT on the side of the "oppressed masses". To call this instance a police-state action with no research other than an Alex Jones article is the same terrible journalism that is ruining the country in the first place.

Blame those who made the laws, blame those who sign the checks and give the officers their orders. In this case, blame those who may or may not have been using this to further their own political agendas.




Who here honestly blames the foot soldiers for the Nazi crimes during World War 2? And although many would readily draw the parallel, few of those same would accept that our police are in the same position.



[edit on 9/1/2009 by eNumbra]

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Except that in some cases they are simply the claws on the fingers.

Not all police officers are constitutional law scholars and in some cases the law is indeed NOT on the side of the "oppressed masses". To call this instance a police-state action with no research other than an Alex Jones article is the same terrible journalism that is ruining the country in the first place.

Blame those who made the laws, blame those who sign the checks and give the officers their orders. In this case, blame those who may or may not have been using this to further their own political agendas.

Who here honestly blames the foot soldiers for the Nazi crimes during World War 2? And although many would readily draw the parallel, few of those same would accept that our police are in the same position.

A very valid point. However, we must also recognize that we are both speaking of generalities.

I agree that some are not in a position to modify their orders. But you must agree that there are some who are.

Not all those who act in the name of the law, do so in a manner reflecting responsibility to the people whose interests they are duty-bound to serve; instead they choose to serve interests of their own choosing, for their own reasons.

There may have been noise complaints, but that issue needed to be addressed with the council or political body that approved the event. The police are trained to know that. They use that very deflection often enough in practice to know that was warranted in this case.

The fact that they - or their immediate leadership - chose not to refer complaints in that manner demonstrates that another agenda was indeed at work. Occasionally, the law follows common sense principles, especially when you consider the spirit or intent of the law - which ostensibly is to keep the peace, and maintain civil order - not disrupt it. These people were lawfully assembled, and had the foresight to seek permission from the local authorities. Logic dictates that fact was not 'invisible' or 'unknowable'. The police responsible either acted in error or were simply belligerently exercising their authority on behalf of some other agenda, so to speak.

Don't worry this police state thing is becoming the norm, it's been gradually becoming that way for years and it wont stop.

Before you know it they will have military vehicles and assault weapons.

Like I said don't worry, you'll get used to.

You probably won't see it coming and you won't feel a thing. It's OK.

On the other hand, this is quite saddening, it seems they have managed to put an end to the illegal raves, so now they are targeting the legal music festivals.

I hope George H. W. Bush is proud of himself.

Originally posted by Maxmars

I agree that some are not in a position to modify their orders. But you must agree that there are some who are.

Not all those who act in the name of the law, do so in a manner reflecting responsibility to the people whose interests they are duty-bound to serve; instead they choose to serve interests of their own choosing, for their own reasons.

Indeed there are, I don't believe we have the necessary information yet to make such accusations though.

Logic dictates that fact was not 'invisible' or 'unknowable'. The police responsible either acted in error or were simply belligerently exercising their authority on behalf of some other agenda, so to speak.

Seems clear enough, but logic would also dictate that there is no "black or white" answer to this, as with anything else.

Assuming the second article is more than just fluff, I see this as more of a top-down problem. The police simply carried out the orders they were given; I believe we all worry where they will eventually find themselves crossing to the other side of the lines. An officer could do the "right" thing and find himself in opposition of higher-ups but if few other officers are there to back him up, he could easily lose his job, get blackballed and find himself unable to provide for his family.

I just don't believe there is enough info/sides of the story yet.

As long as we are on orange alert it will be necessary to disassemble functions to control riots and terrorism.
Orange alert means that we are guarded and threatened. Thanks to Atta and his pals on 911... the US changed. The design of 911 by Kalid Shiek Mohammed took into consideration bringing America to it's knees and spoiling our fun and open culture. The "Awakening" on 911 was followed by economic and cyber attacks that are further pulling us under the power of a foreign power that we aren't even ready to acknowledge.

We are in reactive, defensive mode...