Busted by the cops at the burn

juanicoheal · Post by **juanicoheal** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:24 pm

Hey ISO -

Your claws looked much more dangerous when they were PINK!

III · Post by **III** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:30 pm

>>SOCK PUPPET ALERT!

paranoid much?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:44 pm

Nope! It's called attention to detail. Look carefully.

The only thing I'm paranoid on is outsourcing and lying managers but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:50 pm

Tancorix wrote:Nope! It's called attention to detail. Look carefully.

The only thing I'm paranoid on is outsourcing and lying managers but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

And the only thing I'm paranoid about is all the people out to get me. And that's only because the voices keep telling me about them, otherwise I would be blissfully ignorant about it.

juanicoheal · Post by **juanicoheal** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:57 pm

See...

Substance use leads to paranoid delusions. If the fuzz don't getcha, the voices will...

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:14 pm

Have fun everyone, it's 3 posts and out for me.

Regardless of who the newbie is, I hope she's smart enough to know when to retreat. This group can tear you up if you come in with an attitude right off the bat.

As for being paranoid, I wish people would quit running their mouths about my sock comments and just look. To me the patterns stand out like it's highlighted in candy apple red.

Post by **admin** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:47 pm

...that these are public boards. Anyone can read them. Your boss, your mom, the media, and all kinds of law enforcement. And they do.

As already stated by several folks here, Burning Man has a no-tolerance policy regarding drug use on the playa. That is also true for the eplaya.

There are many safe, private places to discuss drugs and drug use - this is NOT one of them. If you are posting that you take drugs, or are planning to take drugs, you are confessing to committing a crime.

This is part of what many have alluded to when they speak of "stupidity". The conscious act of breaking the law to the probable conclusion of arrest.

Burning Man allows much more social freedom than other events/community, however we are not above the law. And we don't pretend to be. And we sure as heck do not encourage others to act as if they were.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:25 pm

admin, please refrain from cross posting

(yes, it felt good muwhahahahaha)

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:45 pm

admin, please refrain from cross posting

(yes, it felt good muwhahahahaha)

Don, you have been missed! Welcome back!

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:45 pm

yes, people get busted. Check this site for LE statistics. I don't think that anyone would call me an idiot for stating that a vast majority of users skate without incident.

oh, don't sweat the flames too much. This is a low grit sandpaper operation. I get the sense that most here have a worse bark than bite. Don't make assumptions about peoples smarts or education. For example, I believe the beauty in the dress works on particle accelerators.

be careful and have a great time. BM is what you make it. So make it whatever you want it to be.

Booker · Post by **Booker** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:29 am

>>bm llc, made a conscious decision a few years ago to let blm patrol the site

Um, bullshit? Or maybe you were referring to the decision to hold the event within BLM jurisdiction, because that was implicitly a decision to "accept" BLM patrols.

Oh, and the cops have more guns than you do, and better skills at using them, most likely. A video camera would be better protection than guns for legitimate civil rights.

Booker · Post by **Booker** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:32 am

OK, I was clearly confused. Wish that happened less often . . .

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:19 pm

It has been a few years since my last bman. I find it very unfortunate that the event has recently developed such a policed policy. I thought that part of the original intent was the freedom to undertake certain things that otherwise people felt a social stigma twords, as long as it did not interfere with the enjoyment or freedom of others.

But I believe I was wrong and either the spirit or intent has radically changed. The argument for responsibility is a strange one, it appears if you are responsible and caring that being harassed is still likely.
In any case and for whatever reasons, legal or not, this has made me seriously question my intentions of returning.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:30 pm

spectabillis wrote:I thought that part of the original intent was the freedom to undertake certain things that otherwise people felt a social stigma twords, as long as it did not interfere with the enjoyment or freedom of others.

The Man has come to The Man.
We are now They.

I'm still pissed that they took our guns away in 99'. What the fuck is a Postal Worker supposed to do without guns? Deliver mail?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:10 am

spectabillis wrote:It has been a few years since my last bman. I find it very unfortunate that the event has recently developed such a policed policy. I thought that part of the original intent was the freedom to undertake certain things that otherwise people felt a social stigma twords, as long as it did not interfere with the enjoyment or freedom of others.

But I believe I was wrong and either the spirit or intent has radically changed. The argument for responsibility is a strange one, it appears if you are responsible and caring that being harassed is still likely.
In any case and for whatever reasons, legal or not, this has made me seriously question my intentions of returning.

30,000 people is different than 7,000, or 500. Not that things are legal in smaller groups, but the attention drawn is different.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:33 am

FYI: http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3&start=15

theCryptofishist wrote:
spectabillis wrote:It has been a few years since my last bman. I find it very unfortunate that the event has recently developed such a policed policy. I thought that part of the original intent was the freedom to undertake certain things that otherwise people felt a social stigma twords, as long as it did not interfere with the enjoyment or freedom of others.

But I believe I was wrong and either the spirit or intent has radically changed. The argument for responsibility is a strange one, it appears if you are responsible and caring that being harassed is still likely.
In any case and for whatever reasons, legal or not, this has made me seriously question my intentions of returning.
30,000 people is different than 7,000, or 500. Not that things are legal in smaller groups, but the attention drawn is different.

marnen · Post by **marnen** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:49 am

spectabillis wrote:It has been a few years since my last bman. I find it very unfortunate that the event has recently developed such a policed policy. I thought that part of the original intent was the freedom to undertake certain things that otherwise people felt a social stigma twords, as long as it did not interfere with the enjoyment or freedom of others.

OK...my "insufficient logic" light just went on. People are confusing "social stigma" with "legal prohibition".

Yes, BRC is a place where social stigma brought in from the outside can (indeed should) be played with. BRC has its own set of mores, many of which are radically different from elsewhere.

No, BRC is not a place that is magically exempt from federal, state, and local laws. BRC does not have its own set of laws independent from those of the USA, and I'm not sure we'd really want it to (that's another thread, and I'm tired right now).

Some concrete examples:

1. I would probably not walk down Main Street here in Poughkeepsie wearing nothing but blue body paint, a neon g-string, and a silver hat. But that's something I could and would happily do in BRC.

Why? Because of the different mores. Though this would be legal in both places, it would be too socially stigmatized to be worth it in Poughkeepsie.

Moral: Strong social customs are responsible for much of what we consider societal prohibitions. These customs have no legal standing, and thus can be changed on the fly by consensus.

2. I could sell belts that I'd woven on the sidewalk in Poughkeepsie. That's not something I would attempt at BRC.

Why? Because of the different rules and regulations. BRC has certain rules and regulations that are more restrictive than the laws in the surrounding area (such as the prohibition on vending).

Moral: In space you control, you can make your own rules. I control my apartment, and I have decided to prohibit smoking in it. Likewise, BMorg controls BRC, and has decided to prohibit commercial transactions in it.

3. I could not light up a joint in the street and not expect to be busted, either in Poughkeepsie or in BRC.

Why? Because this is against federal law, and federal law applies throughout the USA. (Yes, there are state and local laws involved too, but they're irrelevant for the current argument.)

Moral: Federal law applies throughout this great nation of ours, essentially without exception. In space I control, I can apply *additional* regulations, but I can't erase ones that have been duly enacted into law in the jurisdiction. I can make the rules tighter, but not looser.

3a. I could not kill the fellow standing next to me with impunity, either in Poughkeepsie or in BRC.

Why? For reasoning exactly parallel to case 3. (Before you start flaming me, I'm not trying to say that marijuana use and murder are of similar magnitude -- I'm just trying to give an example of a case that's very, very clear.)

IN OTHER WORDS:

Case 1 -- No in Pok, yes in BRC. Social stigma. Enacted by amorphous community consensus, and enforced the same way. Breaking such rules is merely a breach of etiquette, if that.

Case 2 -- Yes in Pok, no in BRC. Private rule. Enacted at the whim of responsible entity (in this case BMorg), by whatever procedure they deem appropriate; enforced by contract law. Breaking such rules is a crime against the other party to the contract.

Case 3 (and 3a) -- No in Pok, no in BRC. Federal statute. Enacted by Congress, or by regulatory agency; enforced by police/rangers. Breaking such rules is a crime against the state.

So: In case 1, it is perfectly legal to break the rules, and with societal consensus (such as in BRC), it's even encouraged. In all the other cases, breaking the rules is a *crime* of some sort, and will probably result in legal action.

Once again: push the bounds of society at BRC, yes. Break the law, heck no.

/* begin disclaimer block */
* Sorry if I've rambled on too long...just wanted to make this clear (again).
* Perhaps I have a distorted impression of BM, as 2002 was my first (and so far only) burn. I'll be back this year.
* While I don't use illegal drugs, I don't generally think they should be illegal.
* That said, I think anyone who whines about being busted for drug use at BM is somewhere between unrealistic and clueless.
* I welcome feedback in the form of rational arguments. Flames will be cheerfully ignored, except on the playa at night.
/* end disclaimer block */

Best,
Marnen

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:14 am

marnen wrote: OK...my "insufficient logic" light just went on. People are confusing "social stigma" with "legal prohibition".

Dont think I was confused about this.

No, BRC is not a place that is magically exempt from federal, state, and local laws. BRC does not have its own set of laws independent from those of the USA, and I'm not sure we'd really want it

Dont remember saying that it was not.

I linked because its been continued in other threads so you might want to check those out. This is not a snub but as far as I am concerned its a dead issue with me.

BTW, welcome to the eplaya.

fredjones777 · Post by **fredjones777** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:53 pm

I would like to preface with saying I'm a newbie and I'm not traveling over 3,000 miles to do drugs. However, it certainly sounds like nobody is safe smoking in their tent or even just walking around alone in the dessert.

That leaves smoking in some kind of vehicle like an RV the only option I can see. My question is, can they invade your RV ( they apparently can invade enclosed tents which is almost the same) and if they do can they impound the vehicle ?

DangerMouse · Post by **DangerMouse** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:29 pm

fredjones777 wrote:That leaves smoking in some kind of vehicle like an RV the only option I can see. My question is, can they invade your RV ( they apparently can invade enclosed tents which is almost the same) and if they do can they impound the vehicle ?

They can if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime being commited. As for siezing, that probably depends on who busts you, and how much you would have on you.

If you're that paranoid about such things, it is best to leave them home and go without for a week or two.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:06 pm

Interesting. Another virgin here. Frankly, all the talk about booze, booze, booze bothers me a whole lot more than other drugs. I live in BC, so I guess it's not quite as 'illegal' here as it is in Nevada. I want drugs at BM, even if it's just a joint- alcohol and caffeine are not my drugs of choice. Of course, I can't bring anything with me. From the Piss Clear site, I got the idea that it wouldn't be too hard to find any. If there are cops around, how does that work with the MASH 4207 camp (I'm just assuming it's a drug camp with the 420, I could be wrong)? Can anyone enlighten me on this? I definitely don't want to get deported from BM, and I don't want to be drunk either.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:18 pm

To cross-post here:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=3538
I'm not sure what this "means" but it could be that they are beefing up their ability to enforce drug and alchohol rules on the playa. Be warned.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:29 pm

Thanks, I also found a few other threads addressing the issue.

drowned_saved · Post by **drowned_saved** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:56 pm

An episode of COPS launched me into reasearch mode today; thought i would share my findings.

QUESTION: Can an LEO lie about his/her status when asked directly, e.g., "Are you a cop?"

ANSWER: Yep. My original query dealt with prostitution stings, but the same would seem to go for illegal drug transactions.

According to the Akron Law Review, the police may lie openly to a suspect as long as they do not cajole him/her into the commission of a crime to which s/he was not already pre-disposed. in other words, in trying to snag a prostitute, an officer may deny his status as LEO if this helps him to gather evidence, but he cannot prod the streetwalker to rob a bank or knock over a liquor store (unless she mentions first that she is considering it).

PRE-DISPOSITION is the key. Since most of the women picked up in these stings already have a rap sheet which includes solicitation, it's a no-brainer in front of the bench.

interestingly, a first time offender has some wiggle room, but once you're in the system as a "known offender," they've got you by the 'nads. or, at least, that's how it seems to me.

Rage · Post by **Rage** » Sat May 08, 2004 1:27 pm

Supposedly exhaling your one hits through a toilet paper tube with a fabric softener sheet on the end kills telltale oder completely.

How does one bake 'brownies' on the playa? Anyone good with the makeshift oven?

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:58 pm

There's hundreds of RVs out there, and every one of them has an oven. Couldn't be hard to borrow one to bake up some goodies.

Otisserie · Post by **Otisserie** » Mon May 10, 2004 7:36 pm

DJ Mic Rage wrote:How does one bake 'brownies' on the playa? Anyone good with the makeshift oven?

What for? Bake 'em before you get there and keep them well wrapped. I assume you're not eating these brownies for their poppin' fresh taste.

Rage · Post by **Rage** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:38 pm

Saw a great little oven that goes on our camp stove at the coleman store today.

Natalia Von Magpie · Post by **Natalia Von Magpie** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:12 pm

im all about brownies... made some killer ones just out of leaves once! this will be my virgin voyage to bm, so im wondering do the cops lurk on the road(s) leading to/from the playa ...? i mean i obviously wouldnt want to roll up there in some psychedelic painted bus with people screaming out the window (well actually that would be fun but too conspicuous)...

rev. lucifer · Post by **rev. lucifer** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:21 am

There are no drugs at BM it's a mormon retreat.

Busted by the cops at the burn

MAY I REMIND EVERYONE...

drugs drugs drugs

Re: drugs drugs drugs

drugs

thanks

entrapment/due process

A little tip

Re: A little tip

I'm not flying across the country with a batch of brownies!

......